climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Socialists, Greens Hell-Bent On Using Crisis To Impose Green Dystopia

Written by Tom Welsh on .
Posted in Latest news Already it has started .
Councils have suddenly sprung into action , publishing suspiciously comprehensive plans to widen pavements and cycle lanes , and narrow space on the roads for motorists .
They recognize , correctly , that the post-coronavirus world could see a collapse in use of public transport , thanks to social-distancing rules and as people decide that they would rather not crush themselves up against other commuters as they tentatively return to some semblance of normal life .
Local authorities , and the Government , want us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But is that realistic ?
We are told we are entering a “ new normal ” , one where some of the measures imposed during the current emergency become permanent fixtures of our lives .
Perspex screens to protect cashiers in supermarkets and marks on the ground to remind us to keep apart are just the start of it .
Any number of ideologues , central planners , and utopian dreamers are desperate to turn this crisis into an opportunity to impose their favored schemes on the rest of us .
Extreme environmentalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in air travel .
Yet a third of British people say they will travel more than ever once restrictions are lifted .
Socialists argue that this experience shows the state must indefinitely prop up our incomes .
Yet that does not change the inescapable fact that lunatic ideas such as the universal basic income would bankrupt the country if they were to pay out anything more than a pittance .
Cycling fanatics want us all to get on our bikes .
Yet the evidence to date is that people are more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities .
There is no doubt that some things will change once this nightmare is finally over .
The premium placed on unnatural urban living – miniature flats , communal outdoor space – could shrink if people work from home and better recognize the value of private gardens .
HR departments in large corporations will hopefully obsess less over identity politics issues such as gender pay gaps , and more on the enormous practical difficulties of supporting workers who come into the office less often and enacting public health directives within workplaces .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ large public events .
Others will wear face masks ( although I will not be joining them ) .
However , if the socialists and the environmentalists and all the other special interest groups think this “ new normal ” is a chance to fundamentally shift society in the direction they would like , I suspect they are in for a disappointment .
Their eternal problem is a failure to recognize that people largely act the way they do because it reflects their interests , desires , and ambitions .
The reason many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that cycle lanes are too narrow , but because the car is more convenient and comfortable .
Perhaps the cycling ultras will succeed in their aim by making motoring such a dreadful experience that drivers have no choice but to abandon their vehicles .
But that is not a “ new normal ” I want to contemplate .
Read more at The Telegraph

Written by Tom Welsh on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Already it has started. Councils have suddenly sprung into action, publishing suspiciously comprehensive plans to widen pavements and cycle lanes, and narrow space on the roads for motorists.
They recognize, correctly, that the post-coronavirus world could see a collapse in use of public transport, thanks to social-distancing rules and as people decide that they would rather not crush themselves up against other commuters as they tentatively return to some semblance of normal life.
Local authorities, and the Government, want us to walk and to cycle instead.
But is that realistic? We are told we are entering a “new normal”, one where some of the measures imposed during the current emergency become permanent fixtures of our lives.
Perspex screens to protect cashiers in supermarkets and marks on the ground to remind us to keep apart are just the start of it.
Any number of ideologues, central planners, and utopian dreamers are desperate to turn this crisis into an opportunity to impose their favored schemes on the rest of us.
Extreme environmentalists delight at a “permanent” slump in air travel. Yet a third of British people say they will travel more than ever once restrictions are lifted.
Socialists argue that this experience shows the state must indefinitely prop up our incomes. Yet that does not change the inescapable fact that lunatic ideas such as the universal basic income would bankrupt the country if they were to pay out anything more than a pittance.
Cycling fanatics want us all to get on our bikes. Yet the evidence to date is that people are more likely to get in their cars, even in cities.
There is no doubt that some things will change once this nightmare is finally over.
The premium placed on unnatural urban living – miniature flats, communal outdoor space – could shrink if people work from home and better recognize the value of private gardens.
HR departments in large corporations will hopefully obsess less over identity politics issues such as gender pay gaps, and more on the enormous practical difficulties of supporting workers who come into the office less often and enacting public health directives within workplaces.
Some people may think twice about attending large public events. Others will wear face masks (although I will not be joining them).
However, if the socialists and the environmentalists and all the other special interest groups think this “new normal” is a chance to fundamentally shift society in the direction they would like, I suspect they are in for a disappointment.
Their eternal problem is a failure to recognize that people largely act the way they do because it reflects their interests, desires, and ambitions.
The reason many people don’t cycle is not that cycle lanes are too narrow, but because the car is more convenient and comfortable.
Perhaps the cycling ultras will succeed in their aim by making motoring such a dreadful experience that drivers have no choice but to abandon their vehicles. But that is not a “new normal” I want to contemplate.
Read more at The Telegraph
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Bank Of Canada Gets Into The Climate-Fighting Business

Written by Terence Corcoran on .
Posted in Latest news In May of last year , Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said staying on for a second term was “ obviously one of the options.
” Maybe not .
On Dec. 6 , before the world ’ s politicians plunged the planet into the coronavirus economic crisis , Poloz announced he would be stepping down in June at the end of his seven-year appointment .
Whether the decision was personal or taken by Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may remain a mystery until Poloz writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Globe and Mail cited a source who said Poloz was not offered an opportunity to stay beyond his June retirement to allow for some leadership continuity as the bank tackled the COVID-19 crisis .
Instead , the Morneau/Trudeau team moved swiftly to appoint Tiff Macklem , a former Bank of Canada deputy governor who will return to the bank after serving for six years as dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto .
Some were surprised that Trudeau passed over an opportunity to appoint senior deputy governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first female governor .
Gender politics , however , appears to have taken a back seat to another political imperative .
Beyond his genuine qualifications as a central banker , Macklem is a green climate advocate and follower of former bank governor Mark Carney in his global crusade against fossil fuels .
Macklem was Carney ’ s deputy at the bank .
Also , while dean of the Rotman School , Macklem served as chair of the Global Risk Institute , a group created in 2011 by Carney and former Conservative finance minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ to develop applied and integrative research in financial risk and enhance risk education for organizations around the world.
” But one risk , climate change , ranks at the top of GRI ’ s agenda .
As with all-climate fretters , the risk-seeking organization did not anticipate a pandemic risk .
Even as the COVID-19 economic panic began sweeping the world in March , Macklem ’ s GRI produced a report that claimed Climate Change Tops Risk Correlation Ranking .
More importantly , Macklem served as a major advance man for another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , Macklem was appointed to lead an “ Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance.
” When the panel ’ s final report was released last June , Macklem said —with the hearty endorsement of Finance Minister Morneau — that “ sustainable finance needs to become business as usual in the Canadian financial services industry.
” Macklem ’ s expert panel prescription for “ sustainable finance ” was a grand call for a massive national industrial strategy approach to investment and finance .
“ Climate change opportunity and risk management need to become business-as-usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyday business decisions , products , and services.
” Through 15 recommendations , the panel called for “ focused policies ” and highlighted the need for “ clear industry competitiveness visions and capital plans that would spell out the size and horizon of the investment opportunity.
” Every nook and cranny of the economy would be encompassed by scores of panels and agencies — including the Bank of Canada — overseeing economic decision-making .
When Macklem was asked last week how he planned to deal with climate change as governor of the bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
“ We will be looking at climate change , along with a host of other major economic forces acting on the economy , to the extent that they affect inflation.
” That ’ s an important caveat .
The bank should review climate change within the context of the bank ’ s core mandate , which above all is to focus on inflation and monetary policy .
Unfortunately , Macklem ’ s caveat is inconsistent with his final panel report on sustainable finance .
The Bank of Canada , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ formally integrate climate risks into the supervision of federally regulated financial institutions , and provide clear guidance on related regulatory expectations.
” Another recommendation called on the bank to join Finance Canada to take the lead to “ encourage Canadian asset managers to assess their internal climate change competency and build capacity where needed.
” The bank should “ regularly convene with Canadian asset managers to exchange information on climate-related financial risk.
” Tracking financial stability risk is part of the bank ’ s role , although the link between climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bank ’ s core inflation mandate .
The word “ inflation ” does not appear in the 74-page final panel report .
With Macklem installed as Canada ’ s central banker , sustainable finance appears set to become Canada ’ s central economic planning tool — a shift advocated by Mark Carney , Macklem ’ s mentor .
Sustainable finance , marvelously described by Peter Foster on this page last year , has its roots in the United Nations and has been adopted by what Foster describes as “ a powerful cabal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental non-governmental organizations , ENGOs .
Its point man is Mark Carney , governor of the Bank of England , head of the Financial Stability Board , FSB , and former governor of the Bank of Canada .
Its most prominent billionaire supporter is media mogul Michael Bloomberg.
” Carney — now a UN special climate action envoy — was at it again at the end of April during an IMF video stream on how to finance climate policy in the wake of the coronavirus financial crisis .
“ Every company , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurer , every pension fund , ” said Carney should adopt a global “ net-zero ” fossil fuel objective .
Could it be that Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz had his doubts about the Carney/Macklem sustainable finance movement ?
Just asking .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Terence Corcoran on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In May of last year, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said staying on for a second term was “obviously one of the options.” Maybe not.
On Dec. 6, before the world’s politicians plunged the planet into the coronavirus economic crisis, Poloz announced he would be stepping down in June at the end of his seven-year appointment.
Whether the decision was personal or taken by Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may remain a mystery until Poloz writes his memoirs.
A few weeks ago The Globe and Mail cited a source who said Poloz was not offered an opportunity to stay beyond his June retirement to allow for some leadership continuity as the bank tackled the COVID-19 crisis.
Instead, the Morneau/Trudeau team moved swiftly to appoint Tiff Macklem, a former Bank of Canada deputy governor who will return to the bank after serving for six years as dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
Some were surprised that Trudeau passed over an opportunity to appoint senior deputy governor Carolyn Wilkins as the bank’s first female governor. Gender politics, however, appears to have taken a back seat to another political imperative.
Beyond his genuine qualifications as a central banker, Macklem is a green climate advocate and follower of former bank governor Mark Carney in his global crusade against fossil fuels.
Macklem was Carney’s deputy at the bank. Also, while dean of the Rotman School, Macklem served as chair of the Global Risk Institute, a group created in 2011 by Carney and former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty.
Its alleged objective is “to develop applied and integrative research in financial risk and enhance risk education for organizations around the world.”
But one risk, climate change, ranks at the top of GRI’s agenda. As with all-climate fretters, the risk-seeking organization did not anticipate a pandemic risk.
Even as the COVID-19 economic panic began sweeping the world in March, Macklem’s GRI produced a report that claimed Climate Change Tops Risk Correlation Ranking.
More importantly, Macklem served as a major advance man for another Trudeauvian climate policy manipulation effort. In 2018, Macklem was appointed to lead an “Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance.”
When the panel’s final report was released last June, Macklem said —with the hearty endorsement of Finance Minister Morneau — that “sustainable finance needs to become business as usual in the Canadian financial services industry.”
Macklem’s expert panel prescription for “sustainable finance” was a grand call for a massive national industrial strategy approach to investment and finance.
“Climate change opportunity and risk management need to become business-as-usual in financial services, and embedded in everyday business decisions, products, and services.”
Through 15 recommendations, the panel called for “focused policies” and highlighted the need for “clear industry competitiveness visions and capital plans that would spell out the size and horizon of the investment opportunity.”
Every nook and cranny of the economy would be encompassed by scores of panels and agencies — including the Bank of Canada — overseeing economic decision-making.
When Macklem was asked last week how he planned to deal with climate change as governor of the bank, he said what central bankers should say.
“We will be looking at climate change, along with a host of other major economic forces acting on the economy, to the extent that they affect inflation.”
That’s an important caveat. The bank should review climate change within the context of the bank’s core mandate, which above all is to focus on inflation and monetary policy.
Unfortunately, Macklem’s caveat is inconsistent with his final panel report on sustainable finance.
The Bank of Canada, said the report, should lead a move to “formally integrate climate risks into the supervision of federally regulated financial institutions, and provide clear guidance on related regulatory expectations.”
Another recommendation called on the bank to join Finance Canada to take the lead to “encourage Canadian asset managers to assess their internal climate change competency and build capacity where needed.”
The bank should “regularly convene with Canadian asset managers to exchange information on climate-related financial risk.”
Tracking financial stability risk is part of the bank’s role, although the link between climate change is currently largely hypothetical and outside the bank’s core inflation mandate. The word “inflation” does not appear in the 74-page final panel report.
With Macklem installed as Canada’s central banker, sustainable finance appears set to become Canada’s central economic planning tool — a shift advocated by Mark Carney, Macklem’s mentor.
Sustainable finance, marvelously described by Peter Foster on this page last year, has its roots in the United Nations and has been adopted by what Foster describes as “a powerful cabal of regulators, billionaires, capitalist foundations and environmental non-governmental organizations, ENGOs.
Its point man is Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, head of the Financial Stability Board, FSB, and former governor of the Bank of Canada. Its most prominent billionaire supporter is media mogul Michael Bloomberg.”
Carney — now a UN special climate action envoy — was at it again at the end of April during an IMF video stream on how to finance climate policy in the wake of the coronavirus financial crisis.
“Every company, in every sector, every bank, every insurer, every pension fund,” said Carney should adopt a global “net-zero” fossil fuel objective.
Could it be that Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz had his doubts about the Carney/Macklem sustainable finance movement? Just asking.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Only Greens And Separatists Find ‘Opportunity’ In A Pandemic

Written by Rex Murphy on .
Posted in Latest news On Wednesday , Elizabeth May ( pictured ) , the Green party ’ s parliamentary leader , stated that , “ Oil is dead , ” and argued that , “ The pandemic , in a very real way , as horrific as this is at many , many levels , gives us an opportunity to stop and think about how we get this economy back on its feet.
” Leaders in Venezuela , Saudi Arabia , Kuwait , Qatar , China , Russia , and Norway must have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waking up on the other side of the world and hearing that the leader of a small Canadian political party declared that your energy industry is dead .
I don ’ t know how to say “ Elizabeth May has told us our oil industry is no more ” in Norwegian , but I bet it sounds very sad .
Well , I ’ m here to relieve those statesmen , because May wasn ’ t talking about them .
They are safe — always have been , always will be .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never chastises China , Russia , or Qatar .
When she said , “ Oil is dead , ” it was a verbal Exocet aimed straight at Alberta and its planet-destroying government .
“ Jason Kenney , your province is so over , ” is how I paraphrase it .
But let us look at her other , in some ways more interesting , claim : that COVID-19 is an “ opportunity.
” During a global pandemic that has seen hundreds of thousands of deaths , hundreds of thousands more mourning , economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really difficult to craft a sentence in which COVID-19 swims in the same lexical waters as “ opportunity.
” Skip the rote demurrals — “ as horrific as this is at many , many levels ” — which function mainly as throat-clearing before getting to the main message .
One would have to scramble over a lot of other quite readily available terms — disaster , tragedy , calamity , plague , threat , misery , heartbreak — before settling on “ opportunity ” as a choice description for a planetary epidemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of May ’ s declaration is that COVID-19 can serve as a lever , political or otherwise , to finish off the Alberta oil industry .
And that , by her green lights , is an opportunity .
I suppose that if you hate the security and comforts of 21st-century civilization that only energy underwrites , and if you despise the many miracles of our time — from medicine to food , to communications — that energy has enabled , and if you ignore or deny the tremendous contribution that Alberta oil has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada … then you can , if you work at it , come to see COVID-19 as an “ opportunity.
” Though Abhijeet Manay , the deputy leader of the Green Party of Ontario , also tweeted this week that , “ A post-COVID world has no place for the greedy , shortsighted & vicious societies that Big Oil creates , ” it wasn ’ t exclusively a Green pile-on .
May ’ s perpetual end-of-the-world mentality would be a cry from the fringe without an accompanying three cheers from the separatists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ headline : “ May and Blanchet declare the oil patch dead.
” And they do make a congenial duo : Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet wishes to separate from Canada , and May wants to separate from reality .
Blanchet spits on Alberta oil , but it still flows into Quebec .
And if oil is really dead , shouldn ’ t someone stop those tankers from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela that drift into the Montreal harbor to stoke Quebec ’ s economy ?
Even separatists drive cars , and some even want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Alberta has kept Quebec a winner in the equalization bingo game for decades .
Quebec should , at the very least , have the good sense not to insult its benefactors .
If it were not for “ vicious ” oil workers and the “ dirty ” oilsands , the streams of equalization , and the dreams of separatism , would have dried up long ago .
The greatest chasm in Canadian politics is the gap between professional global warming activists and people who work for a living .
Let us compare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce it in terms of their contribution to Canada ’ s well-being .
There is the great number of people who leave their house every morning to put in an honest eight or 12 hours in a mine , oilfield or forest , and another set who tweet a lot , shuffle out grim press releases by the mile and stage gimmicky protests , all in an effort to stop the first bunch from having any work to go to .
The hive of climate activists do nothing but sneer at those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battery from May reveals a cardinal element in the green world : environmentalism is a species of snobbery .
She knows what Albertans want , and they can hardly be trusted to know for themselves .
The Greens prate and sing their virtuous hymns .
They slam a carbon tax on the farmers and truck drivers during a plague , without a whisper of apology .
They are spiteful of Canadian sources of oil , but silent on every other international source .
No wonder they find a bedfellow in a separatist leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created ?
How many families have been fed by environmental protests ?
How many poor Canadians were lifted out of the welfare trap because some smug spokesman for a cleaner world gave a press conference ?
How many Indigenous reserves are better off — their drinking water cleaner , their young people with better prospects — because the Sierra Club , Greenpeace , or May ’ s Green party has been around ?
What , aside from unending , captious alarmism have they contributed to anyone other than their own specious cause ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opportunity to make sure it stays that way .
The separatist leader and the Green leader are doing what they can to make Canada an easy place for some to think of leaving it .
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney called their statements “ divisive.
” He was too kind .
There are more vigorous words on call , but they do not belong in print .

Written by Rex Murphy on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On Wednesday, Elizabeth May (pictured), the Green party’s parliamentary leader, stated that, “Oil is dead,” and argued that, “The pandemic, in a very real way, as horrific as this is at many, many levels, gives us an opportunity to stop and think about how we get this economy back on its feet.”
Leaders in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, China, Russia, and Norway must have been shocked to hear the news.
Imagine waking up on the other side of the world and hearing that the leader of a small Canadian political party declared that your energy industry is dead.
I don’t know how to say “Elizabeth May has told us our oil industry is no more” in Norwegian, but I bet it sounds very sad.
Well, I’m here to relieve those statesmen, because May wasn’t talking about them. They are safe — always have been, always will be.
As far as I can tell, May never chastises China, Russia, or Qatar. When she said, “Oil is dead,” it was a verbal Exocet aimed straight at Alberta and its planet-destroying government. “Jason Kenney, your province is so over,” is how I paraphrase it.
But let us look at her other, in some ways more interesting, claim: that COVID-19 is an “opportunity.”
During a global pandemic that has seen hundreds of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands more mourning, economies wrecked and near-universal anxiety, it is really difficult to craft a sentence in which COVID-19 swims in the same lexical waters as “opportunity.”
Skip the rote demurrals — “as horrific as this is at many, many levels” — which function mainly as throat-clearing before getting to the main message.
One would have to scramble over a lot of other quite readily available terms — disaster, tragedy, calamity, plague, threat, misery, heartbreak — before settling on “opportunity” as a choice description for a planetary epidemic. Well done, May.
The kernel of May’s declaration is that COVID-19 can serve as a lever, political or otherwise, to finish off the Alberta oil industry. And that, by her green lights, is an opportunity.
I suppose that if you hate the security and comforts of 21st-century civilization that only energy underwrites, and if you despise the many miracles of our time — from medicine to food, to communications — that energy has enabled, and if you ignore or deny the tremendous contribution that Alberta oil has made to the economy and workers of Canada … then you can, if you work at it, come to see COVID-19 as an “opportunity.”
Though Abhijeet Manay, the deputy leader of the Green Party of Ontario, also tweeted this week that, “A post-COVID world has no place for the greedy, shortsighted & vicious societies that Big Oil creates,” it wasn’t exclusively a Green pile-on.
May’s perpetual end-of-the-world mentality would be a cry from the fringe without an accompanying three cheers from the separatists.
The always vigilant CBC had the perfect headline: “May and Blanchet declare the oil patch dead.” And they do make a congenial duo: Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet wishes to separate from Canada, and May wants to separate from reality.
Blanchet spits on Alberta oil, but it still flows into Quebec. And if oil is really dead, shouldn’t someone stop those tankers from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela that drift into the Montreal harbor to stoke Quebec’s economy?
Even separatists drive cars, and some even want to warm their homes with Western energy.
Alberta has kept Quebec a winner in the equalization bingo game for decades. Quebec should, at the very least, have the good sense not to insult its benefactors.
If it were not for “vicious” oil workers and the “dirty” oilsands, the streams of equalization, and the dreams of separatism, would have dried up long ago.
The greatest chasm in Canadian politics is the gap between professional global warming activists and people who work for a living. Let us compare those who hate oil with those who produce it in terms of their contribution to Canada’s well-being.
There is the great number of people who leave their house every morning to put in an honest eight or 12 hours in a mine, oilfield or forest, and another set who tweet a lot, shuffle out grim press releases by the mile and stage gimmicky protests, all in an effort to stop the first bunch from having any work to go to.
The hive of climate activists do nothing but sneer at those who keep the nation moving.
This latest battery from May reveals a cardinal element in the green world: environmentalism is a species of snobbery. She knows what Albertans want, and they can hardly be trusted to know for themselves.
The Greens prate and sing their virtuous hymns. They slam a carbon tax on the farmers and truck drivers during a plague, without a whisper of apology.
They are spiteful of Canadian sources of oil, but silent on every other international source. No wonder they find a bedfellow in a separatist leader.
How many jobs has Elizabeth May created? How many families have been fed by environmental protests? How many poor Canadians were lifted out of the welfare trap because some smug spokesman for a cleaner world gave a press conference?
How many Indigenous reserves are better off — their drinking water cleaner, their young people with better prospects — because the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, or May’s Green party has been around?
What, aside from unending, captious alarmism have they contributed to anyone other than their own specious cause?
Oil is dead; the pandemic is an opportunity to make sure it stays that way. The separatist leader and the Green leader are doing what they can to make Canada an easy place for some to think of leaving it.
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney called their statements “divisive.” He was too kind. There are more vigorous words on call, but they do not belong in print.
Read more at National Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Guardian Whines Michael Moore A ‘Hero’ To ‘Climate Deniers’

Written by James Delingpole on .
Posted in Latest news “ How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right ?
” asks a disturbed and tearful George Monbiot in the Guardian .
Simple : by speaking the truth , for a change .
Unlike almost every other prominent leftist you could name in the world , Moore has finally admitted that the renewable energy emperor is wearing no clothes .
Far from being “ clean ” energy or “ green ” energy , renewables are in fact a dirty , ugly , planet-destroying fail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental documentary executive-produced by Moore and directed by and starring his fellow leftist Jeff Gibbs , has now had more than 7 million views on YouTube .
Their natural leftist allies aren ’ t at all happy with this , though .
Indeed some of them — such as left-wing activist Josh Fox and discredited climate scientist Michael Mann — initially attempted to get the movie pulled by its distributors .
When they realized that this wasn ’ t possible — the film remains stubbornly available for free viewing on YouTube — they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They defended their pusillanimity , lamely , by claiming : “ We don ’ t want to give them extra publicity.
” It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the wailing , gnashing of teeth , and general discombobulation Moore ’ s anti-renewables bombshell has caused within the green movement .
Sure the film says nothing that I haven ’ t been saying at Breitbart and elsewhere for over a decade : that renewables are expensive , environmentally destructive , do not reduce fossil fuel usage , do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bats , ruin views , despoil nature , enrich crony capitalists at the expense of ordinary energy users , etc .
But what makes it so especially deadly and effective a weapon against the green movement is that it was made not by one of its avowed enemies but by its natural allies .
When you can ’ t close down your enemy ’ s argument by dismissing him as a Big-Oil-funded fascist , what can you do ?
Monbiot ’ s queasy solution is to call him a racist instead .
Lurking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ overpopulation ” , Monbiot hints darkly , is hatred of “ black and brown ” people .
There are many changes , I ’ m sure , that could be reasonably leveled against Moore and Gibbs .
But I really would doubt that racism is one of them .
Didn ’ t Moore once write a book called Stupid White Men ?
Monbiot really is desperate — and borderline libelous — in his accusation here .
The same is true of that slur about the “ far-right ” .
His only justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my first Breitbart article on the subject , entitled Delingpole : Michael Moore Is Now the Green New Deal ’ s Worst Enemy .
Well here is the Wikipedia definition of “ far-right ” : This description seems so far removed from my own classical liberal/libertarian/conservative politics I wonder whether I have a case for suing Monbiot and the Guardian ?
Certainly , it ’ s a very lazy , inaccurate slur which they ought to retract .
The response of Michael ‘ Hockey Stick ’ Mann has been similarly feeble and desperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outraged tone doesn ’ t make them untrue , Mikey babes .
He goes on : But these are just words , angry words , which do nothing whatsoever to counter the arguments made by Moore and Gibbs that “ renewable energy ” is destructive to the environment , ineffective and morally compromised .
Quite simply , renewable energy is the green movement ’ s dirtiest open secret and its greatest weakness .
Once you know that wind power , solar power , biofuels , and so on are incapable of saving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it becomes very hard to justify a Green New Deal whose fundamental premise is that we need to pump more money into renewables .
For example , there is no scientific proof that wind energy — as John Droz explains in detail here — saves any consequential amount of CO2 .
( Which is , after all , its supposed raison d ’ être ) .
There is , on the other hand , an abundance of evidence — see Moore ’ s documentary — for the widespread damage it has done .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Complex has successfully obscured the truth through a mix of bribery ( including newspapers and magazines that really should know better ) , misinformation , bullying , and lawfare .
One particularly egregious example of how disgustingly the renewables industry behaves is that of Stanford professor Mark Jacobson — who joined Michael Mann and Josh Fox in trying to get Planet of the Humans taken down .
Jacobson ’ s full , ugly story is told at Forbes by Robert Bryce .
Essentially it goes like this .
In 2015 Jacobson lead-authored a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grid reliability problem with 100 percent penetration of intermittent wind , water , and solar for all purposes.
’ Its claim that it was possible to power the planet with 100 percent renewables was rapturously greeted by the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio , Bill Nye , and Bernie Sanders — who “ adopted Jacobson ’ s all-renewable plan as the energy platform for his 2016 presidential bid.
” It was also taken up enthusiastically by Bill McKibben , the activist whose credibility is shredded in the Moore movie .
McKibben claimed , based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. could generate all its energy needs from “ sun , wind , and water ” by 2015 .
Unfortunately , Jacobson ’ s study was bunk .
And in 2017 this was comprehensibly pointed out by scientists including a Colorado mathematician called Chris Clack .
Jacobson , you may be pleased to hear , has now lost that lawsuit , big time .
He now faces “ legal fees of $ 1 million or more for filing a SLAPP suit that should have never been filed in the first place.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be summed up very simply : renewable energy is one of the most disgraceful rackets on the planet .
By pointing this out in his documentary , Michael Moore has done us all a massive favor .

Written by James Delingpole on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
“How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers and the far right?” asks a disturbed and tearful George Monbiot in the Guardian.
Simple: by speaking the truth, for a change.
Unlike almost every other prominent leftist you could name in the world, Moore has finally admitted that the renewable energy emperor is wearing no clothes.
Far from being “clean” energy or “green” energy, renewables are in fact a dirty, ugly, planet-destroying fail.
Planet of the Humans, the environmental documentary executive-produced by Moore and directed by and starring his fellow leftist Jeff Gibbs, has now had more than 7 million views on YouTube.
Their natural leftist allies aren’t at all happy with this, though. Indeed some of them — such as left-wing activist Josh Fox and discredited climate scientist Michael Mann — initially attempted to get the movie pulled by its distributors.
When they realized that this wasn’t possible — the film remains stubbornly available for free viewing on YouTube — they then backed down from their threat.
They defended their pusillanimity, lamely, by claiming: “We don’t want to give them extra publicity.”
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and general discombobulation Moore’s anti-renewables bombshell has caused within the green movement.
Sure the film says nothing that I haven’t been saying at Breitbart and elsewhere for over a decade: that renewables are expensive, environmentally destructive, do not reduce fossil fuel usage, do not reduce CO2 emissions, kill birds and bats, ruin views, despoil nature, enrich crony capitalists at the expense of ordinary energy users, etc.
But what makes it so especially deadly and effective a weapon against the green movement is that it was made not by one of its avowed enemies but by its natural allies.
As I argue in Spectator Australia:
Of course, when a wicked right-winger like me points this out, it can all too easily be ignored by the Left as the ravings of a Big-Oil-funded (I wish) fascist. Coming from Moore and Gibbs, however, not so much: which is why they’re currently getting so much opprobrium from renewables-promoting leftists like Josh Fox (the documentary maker behind the highly dubious anti-fracking polemic Gasland), who have been doing their level best (in classic leftist style) to close down the argument by getting the movie withdrawn by its distributor.
When you can’t close down your enemy’s argument by dismissing him as a Big-Oil-funded fascist, what can you do?
Monbiot’s queasy solution is to call him a racist instead. Lurking beneath Moore and Gibbs’ concerns about “overpopulation”, Monbiot hints darkly, is hatred of “black and brown” people.
Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people. When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, “it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.” It’s not hard to see why the far right loves this film.
There are many changes, I’m sure, that could be reasonably leveled against Moore and Gibbs. But I really would doubt that racism is one of them.
Didn’t Moore once write a book called Stupid White Men? Monbiot really is desperate — and borderline libelous — in his accusation here.
The same is true of that slur about the “far-right”. His only justification for this claim is a hyperlink to my first Breitbart article on the subject, entitled Delingpole: Michael Moore Is Now the Green New Deal’s Worst Enemy.
Well here is the Wikipedia definition of “far-right”:
Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left–right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies. Used to describe the historical experiences of fascism and Nazism, it today includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression, violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.
This description seems so far removed from my own classical liberal/libertarian/conservative politics I wonder whether I have a case for suing Monbiot and the Guardian? Certainly, it’s a very lazy, inaccurate slur which they ought to retract.
The response of Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann has been similarly feeble and desperate.
At Newsweek, he writes:
Only in the Trumpian era of gaslighting could a progressive filmmaker produce a polemic premised on the absurd notion that ultra-right-wing plutocrats are secretly behind the effort to end our dependence on fossil fuels.
Hmm. Stating facts in an outraged tone doesn’t make them untrue, Mikey babes.
He goes on:
What we do know is that their misguided polemic furthers the agenda of fossil fuel interests and their tactic of denial, delay, distraction and deflection by feeding misleading and false narratives about renewable energy. Moore and Gibbs are setting back the cause of societal and economic decarbonization this is so critical to averting catastrophic planetary warming.
But these are just words, angry words, which do nothing whatsoever to counter the arguments made by Moore and Gibbs that “renewable energy” is destructive to the environment, ineffective and morally compromised.
Quite simply, renewable energy is the green movement’s dirtiest open secret and its greatest weakness. Once you know that wind power, solar power, biofuels, and so on are incapable of saving the planet, only of harming it, it becomes very hard to justify a Green New Deal whose fundamental premise is that we need to pump more money into renewables.
For example, there is no scientific proof that wind energy — as John Droz explains in detail here — saves any consequential amount of CO2. (Which is, after all, its supposed raison d’être).
There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence — see Moore’s documentary — for the widespread damage it has done.
Up until now, the Climate Industrial Complex has successfully obscured the truth through a mix of bribery (including newspapers and magazines that really should know better), misinformation, bullying, and lawfare.
One particularly egregious example of how disgustingly the renewables industry behaves is that of Stanford professor Mark Jacobson — who joined Michael Mann and Josh Fox in trying to get Planet of the Humans taken down.
Jacobson’s full, ugly story is told at Forbes by Robert Bryce.
Essentially it goes like this. In 2015 Jacobson lead-authored a study called ‘Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100 percent penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes.’
Its claim that it was possible to power the planet with 100 percent renewables was rapturously greeted by the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Bill Nye, and Bernie Sanders — who “adopted Jacobson’s all-renewable plan as the energy platform for his 2016 presidential bid.”
It was also taken up enthusiastically by Bill McKibben, the activist whose credibility is shredded in the Moore movie. McKibben claimed, based on Jacobson’s work, that the U.S. could generate all its energy needs from “sun, wind, and water” by 2015.
Unfortunately, Jacobson’s study was bunk. And in 2017 this was comprehensibly pointed out by scientists including a Colorado mathematician called Chris Clack.
Bryce takes up the story:
But in June 2017, Clack and 20 other top scientists published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that demolished Jacobson’s 2015 paper. Clack and his co-authors — who included Dan Kammen of the University of California-Berkeley, former EPA Science Advisory Board Chair Granger Morgan, and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson’s work contained “numerous shortcomings and errors.” They also said the paper used “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” Those errors, “render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100-percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.” Perhaps the most obvious flaw in Jacobson’s scheme involves the massive amount of land his plan would require. Jacobson’s all-renewable idea called for the installation of nearly 2.5 terawatts (2.5 trillion watts) of wind energy capacity, with the majority of that amount onshore. Clack and his colleagues found that accommodating all of the wind turbines needed to achieve Jacobson’s all-renewable vision would require “nearly 500,000 square kilometers, which is roughly 6 percent of the continental United States and more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American.” Rather than engage in a civil debate with Clack, Jacobson sued him for defamation. He also sued the National Academy of Sciences for $10 million claiming breach of contract.
Jacobson, you may be pleased to hear, has now lost that lawsuit, big time. He now faces “legal fees of $1 million or more for filing a SLAPP suit that should have never been filed in the first place.”
This is a long piece which can be summed up very simply: renewable energy is one of the most disgraceful rackets on the planet. By pointing this out in his documentary, Michael Moore has done us all a massive favor.
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Leftists Want Us Quarantined To Push Their Grand Green Agenda

Written by James Macpherson on .
Posted in Latest news Leftists have turned to alchemy to try to transform the COVID-19 pandemic into their fabled climate emergency .
Former ABC journalist Quentin Dempster tweeted on Thursday : “ Australia ’ s National Cabinet should stay on to coordinate decarbonizing of energy/transport/manufacture to urgently mitigate climate change.
” Well no , Quentin .
If I wanted Daniel Andrews to run my life I would move to Victoria , lock myself in my home , and vote for him .
The National Cabinet , formed by the PM to help steer Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as whether or not we may see our mums on Mother ’ s Day , should be disbanded the moment the lockdown ends .
And the lockdown should end yesterday .
But gloomy environmental doomsayers — who practice social distancing when they meet , not by shaking hands but by shaking heads — are insisting on the old adage that one should “ never let a crisis go to waste.
” They imagine current restrictions on our freedom continuing after COVID-19 , but this time in service of their grand green agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was headed : “ Scientific approach for COVID-19 must be applied to climate change.
” Of course , our “ scientific approach to COVID-19 ” has been no more scientific than the approach to the great plague of 1666 – social distancing , face masks , and an emphasis on personal hygiene – except that we have an app .
The SMH went on to say : “ Our response to the coronavirus provides important lessons for how we should respond .
It is time the federal government accepted the warnings from scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a similarly proactive approach.
” It ’ s not difficult to guess the lessons environmental activists might have learned over the past two months : • Say that our computer modeling — which is another way to say “ our guessing ” but it sounds scientific when you use the word “ computer ” — indicates we are on the verge of the apocalypse .
And don ’ t just say it ; have someone sign it for the deaf , like in an actual emergency .
• Insist that millions upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t be afraid of using outrageous numbers .
The more unlikely the number , the more enthusiastic the media will be to report it and the more inclined people will be to believe it .
• No more of these “ we have three years to act ” warnings that environmentalists have been using for the past decade .
The threat must be immediate .
“ A gazillion people will die every day starting next Tuesday if we don ’ t act now , ” is much better .
• Hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , memorable phrase to tell people what they must do .
“ Flatten the Curve ” has already been used so another slogan would need to be thought up , but this should easy enough since the public loves to rally around pithy slogans that are quite meaningless –- Free Tibet ; Love is Love ; Hugs Not Drugs .
A Fair Go for All .
Something along those lines .
• Tell people we must “ flatten the curve ” , or whatever , by locking ourselves in our homes until enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reduction in global temperatures has been achieved – whichever comes last .
• Keep people in lockdown by constantly moving the green goal posts .
“ We started with 0.5-degree average reductions , but now computer models say death and destruction unless we double that .
So no-one is going back to work anytime soon .
And no , you can ’ t play golf.
” The past two months have taught us that people will nod in agreement before calling the police to report a neighbor who shows any sign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as they were during the pandemic , to prevent pastors from speaking faith to people ’ s fears .
• Declare people not working with the wind or the sun ( peace be upon Gaia ) to be “ non-environmental workers ” who must lose their livelihoods .
A nice touch would be to have them stand on their front lawns and clap appreciation for environmentalists at 8 pm every Thursday .
• Require people to stay home and watch Netflix ( YouTube will be blocked so that no-one can view Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) until the climate emergency is over and the Earth is healed which will be whenever Adam Bandt says so .
And all of this can be done without ever going through the hassle of giving annoying people , by which we mean the public , a vote .
• Anyone who complains should be accused of literally hating the planet and of wanting people to die .
“ How dare you question the climate lockdowns ?
” they should be told .
“ Your Facebook posts are actually polluting the Earth.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Guardian last month , said : “ We have learned that it is possible in a matter of weeks to slow the economy , which until now had been considered inconceivable .
“ The incredible discovery is that there was in fact in the world economic system , hidden from all eyes , a bright red alarm signal , next to a large steel lever that each head of state could pull at once to stop ‘ the progress train ’ with a shrill screech of the brakes.
” As the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ease restrictions , watch as the environmentalists try to wrestle control of the lever for their beloved climate emergency .

Written by James Macpherson on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Leftists have turned to alchemy to try to transform the COVID-19 pandemic into their fabled climate emergency.
Former ABC journalist Quentin Dempster tweeted on Thursday: “Australia’s National Cabinet should stay on to coordinate decarbonizing of energy/transport/manufacture to urgently mitigate climate change.”
Well no, Quentin. If I wanted Daniel Andrews to run my life I would move to Victoria, lock myself in my home, and vote for him.
The National Cabinet, formed by the PM to help steer Australia through the pandemic by determining such things as whether or not we may see our mums on Mother’s Day, should be disbanded the moment the lockdown ends. And the lockdown should end yesterday.
But gloomy environmental doomsayers — who practice social distancing when they meet, not by shaking hands but by shaking heads — are insisting on the old adage that one should “never let a crisis go to waste.”
They imagine current restrictions on our freedom continuing after COVID-19, but this time in service of their grand green agenda.
Wednesday’s Sydney Morning Herald editorial was headed: “Scientific approach for COVID-19 must be applied to climate change.”
Of course, our “scientific approach to COVID-19” has been no more scientific than the approach to the great plague of 1666 – social distancing, face masks, and an emphasis on personal hygiene – except that we have an app.
But I digress.
The SMH went on to say: “Our response to the coronavirus provides important lessons for how we should respond. It is time the federal government accepted the warnings from scientists about climate change just as seriously and took a similarly proactive approach.”
It’s not difficult to guess the lessons environmental activists might have learned over the past two months:
Say that our computer modeling — which is another way to say “our guessing” but it sounds scientific when you use the word “computer” — indicates we are on the verge of the apocalypse. And don’t just say it; have someone sign it for the deaf, like in an actual emergency.
Insist that millions upon zillions of people will die. And don’t be afraid of using outrageous numbers. The more unlikely the number, the more enthusiastic the media will be to report it and the more inclined people will be to believe it.
No more of these “we have three years to act” warnings that environmentalists have been using for the past decade. The threat must be immediate. “A gazillion people will die every day starting next Tuesday if we don’t act now,” is much better.
Hold up a graph and use a catchy, memorable phrase to tell people what they must do. “Flatten the Curve” has already been used so another slogan would need to be thought up, but this should easy enough since the public loves to rally around pithy slogans that are quite meaningless –- Free Tibet; Love is Love; Hugs Not Drugs. A Fair Go for All. Something along those lines.
Tell people we must “flatten the curve”, or whatever, by locking ourselves in our homes until enough solar panels have been built or until a reduction in global temperatures has been achieved – whichever comes last.
Keep people in lockdown by constantly moving the green goal posts. “We started with 0.5-degree average reductions, but now computer models say death and destruction unless we double that. So no-one is going back to work anytime soon. And no, you can’t play golf.”
The past two months have taught us that people will nod in agreement before calling the police to report a neighbor who shows any sign of dissent.
Churches can remain closed, as they were during the pandemic, to prevent pastors from speaking faith to people’s fears.
Declare people not working with the wind or the sun (peace be upon Gaia) to be “non-environmental workers” who must lose their livelihoods. A nice touch would be to have them stand on their front lawns and clap appreciation for environmentalists at 8 pm every Thursday.
Require people to stay home and watch Netflix (YouTube will be blocked so that no-one can view Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans) until the climate emergency is over and the Earth is healed which will be whenever Adam Bandt says so. And all of this can be done without ever going through the hassle of giving annoying people, by which we mean the public, a vote.
Anyone who complains should be accused of literally hating the planet and of wanting people to die. “How dare you question the climate lockdowns?” they should be told. “Your Facebook posts are actually polluting the Earth.”
French philosopher Bruno Latour, quoted in The Guardian last month, said: “We have learned that it is possible in a matter of weeks to slow the economy, which until now had been considered inconceivable.
“The incredible discovery is that there was in fact in the world economic system, hidden from all eyes, a bright red alarm signal, next to a large steel lever that each head of state could pull at once to stop ‘the progress train’ with a shrill screech of the brakes.”
As the threat of COVID-19 recedes and governments look to ease restrictions, watch as the environmentalists try to wrestle control of the lever for their beloved climate emergency.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Merkel’s Party Puts Brakes On Germany’s Climate Agenda

Written by Claire Stam on .
Posted in Latest news The conservatives in the German parliament reject any increase in Germany ’ s greenhouse gas reduction targets without also reopening sensitive talks about burden-sharing at the EU level , the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on Saturday ( 9 May ) .
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-55 % by 2030 could place an enormous burden on the German economy , the conservative alliance warns in the briefing note .
And even though it recognizes that more ambitious climate targets open new opportunities , such a decision would only be acceptable in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the EU , it adds .
The note comes at a time when the Foreign Ministry is resetting Germany ’ s top priorities for its EU presidency program due to be officially presented in June .
“ We reject an increase in the EU ’ s climate target for 2030 without a change in burden sharing , ” said the authors of the paper , representing the CDU and its Bavarian counterpart , the CSU .
“ Our European partners must contribute to achieving the climate target with comparable efforts , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to lose sight of the current emergency situation caused by the coronavirus pandemic .
“ The health crisis has considerably changed the economic situation of employees and companies in our country and in Europe , ” stresses the document , which has not yet been adopted by the parliamentary group .
The aim is to avoid “ as far as possible burdens on employees and companies through laws and other regulations , ” the conservative MPs say , adding that the European Green Deal must now “ be designed in such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather supports the management of the coronavirus pandemic ” .
Conservative MPs also argue it should be possible to include “ climate measures and emission reductions made ( by Germany ) in third countries ” in the country ’ s climate balance .
In effect , this means that the conservative parliamentary group is putting the brakes on Chancellor Angela Merkel ’ s climate policy .
In a recent speech at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue , the Chancellor threw her support behind European Commission plans for a 50-55 % reduction in greenhouse @ @ @ @

Written by Claire Stam on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The conservatives in the German parliament reject any increase in Germany’s greenhouse gas reduction targets without also reopening sensitive talks about burden-sharing at the EU level, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on Saturday (9 May).
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-55% by 2030 could place an enormous burden on the German economy, the conservative alliance warns in the briefing note.
And even though it recognizes that more ambitious climate targets open new opportunities, such a decision would only be acceptable in the event of a new burden-sharing agreement within the EU, it adds.
The note comes at a time when the Foreign Ministry is resetting Germany’s top priorities for its EU presidency program due to be officially presented in June.
“We reject an increase in the EU’s climate target for 2030 without a change in burden sharing,” said the authors of the paper, representing the CDU and its Bavarian counterpart, the CSU.
“Our European partners must contribute to achieving the climate target with comparable efforts,” they add, calling on the government not to lose sight of the current emergency situation caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
“The health crisis has considerably changed the economic situation of employees and companies in our country and in Europe,” stresses the document, which has not yet been adopted by the parliamentary group.
The aim is to avoid “as far as possible burdens on employees and companies through laws and other regulations,” the conservative MPs say, adding that the European Green Deal must now “be designed in such a way that it does not hinder, but rather supports the management of the coronavirus pandemic”.
Conservative MPs also argue it should be possible to include “climate measures and emission reductions made (by Germany) in third countries” in the country’s climate balance.
In effect, this means that the conservative parliamentary group is putting the brakes on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s climate policy.
In a recent speech at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, the Chancellor threw her support behind European Commission plans for a 50-55% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030.
Read rest at EurActiv
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Germany’s Course May Signal End To Climate Hysteria

Written by Conrad Black on .
Posted in Latest news The coronavirus has had , at least , the unanticipated benefit of obscuring and diminishing the tedious public clamoring about climate change .
It is a slightly redeeming virtue of crises that they tend to supersede and diminish previous crises ; if a crisis is serious , public opinion can rarely worry about more than one menace at a time .
…snip… The coronavirus has had some of the same impacts on the climate change argument .
As there never has been any evidence of global warming , the eco-militants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change.
” Climate may be changing , but we aren ’ t sure and the noisy and endless repetition that “ 97 percent ” of expert opinion warns of the mortal danger of fossil-fuel use , which is false in itself , became a very tired argument .
Affiliated organizations of the United Nations , inspired by the same political biases that have recently possessed and disgraced the World Health Organization , generated the global warming argument .
While climatologists largely agree that somewhat unusual things are occurring in the weather , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is outside the normal cyclical shift in the world ’ s temperature , whether it is influenced by human activity , what the nature of such changes may be and what their extent could be , or if they are occurring at all .
The whole academic and theoretical alliance that mistrusted the pursuit of economic growth informally merged with a broad range of conservationists .
This meant the Club of Rome , and even followers of John Kenneth Galbraith , who railed against the perceived conflict between vigorous commerce and the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affluent Society ” in the 1950s , made common cause with the Sierra Club , Greenpeace , and champions of duck-hunting , bird-watching , and butterfly-collecting .
What ignited this coalition and — by attacking most energy sources and forms of locomotion fueled by petroleum products — turned it into a battering ram against almost all primary and secondary industry , was the spontaneous and overwhelming adherence of the international Left .
The Left improvised ingeniously after the collapse of international Communism , the end of the Cold War , the disintegration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the People ’ s Republic of China to the virtues of economic growth .
The Left saw that the most effective method of obstructing capitalism was not through the revolutionary subversion of Western governments or developing countries ( though some of that persisted , especially in Latin America ) , but in an ostensibly nonpolitical movement that assaulted capitalism under the cloak of saving the planet and making it a happy nature sanctuary .
Just in the last year , we have all been subjected to the nonsense , the parody , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world in a wealthy eco-patron ’ s sailing yacht lecturing large and docile audiences , parliaments , the United Nations , on how aggrieved the youth of the world is at the fouled earth that their elders have created and will be bequeathed .
Historians of the future will look upon this phenomenon of the Western nations pouring trillions of dollars into self-impoverishment to install inefficient and hideously expensive alternative energy sources , covering the land with solar panels and windmills , as we today look on the Dutch Tulip Panic of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is pursuing economic growth .
Indians and Chinese comprise almost 40 % of the world ’ s population , and neither India nor China nor Russia , nor most other countries outside Western Europe , North America , and Australasia , pay any attention to the climate change zealots .
Rather China , the world ’ s greatest polluter , set itself up as head of the “ G-77 , ” a bloc of 135 countries demanding reparations from the industrially advanced countries for the havoc they supposedly have wrought in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balked at paying China . )
Germany is the greatest power in Europe and should be , next to the United States and China , the greatest power in the world .
It isn ’ t .
For complicated reasons buried in the mists and forest murmurs of Teutonic history , it is still somnambulating politically , allied with everyone and in a cocoon of an economic union where it amiably predominates , and in a defensive alliance led by the United States that has no real enemies at the moment .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1870 to 1945 has now become a soft-left stuffed animal of a country that has shut down its advanced and efficient nuclear energy program and is transforming itself into a state of thorough energy-dependence on President Putin ’ s threadbare Russia , chronically unreliable ( apart from its rascality and duplicity ) .
As it wanders aimlessly about in search of a national vocation , Germany has fragmented politically .
The Christian Democrats and Social Democrats , which since 1949 had the support of more than 80 % of the public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Democrats now demand a joint assault on the coronavirus and carbon emissions , an insane proposal that would turn the German government into an agent of national self-imposed industrial penury .
There are five smaller parties , representing the far-Left , far-Right , wild-eyed greens , amiable quasi-anarchists , and bourgeois small business , of which only the last would be presentable in government with the larger parties .
Mighty Germany , the country of Bismarck , Adenauer , and Kohl , the culture of Goethe and Beethoven and Thomas Mann , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s admonitory phrase , “ a pitiful , helpless , giant , ” is finally in a reluctant flirtation with the idea that it can ’ t afford self-inflicted green wounds any longer .
If Germany changes course on climate politics , Europe will follow , and the whole movement to deindustrialization will expire .

Written by Conrad Black on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The coronavirus has had, at least, the unanticipated benefit of obscuring and diminishing the tedious public clamoring about climate change.
It is a slightly redeeming virtue of crises that they tend to supersede and diminish previous crises; if a crisis is serious, public opinion can rarely worry about more than one menace at a time. …snip…
The coronavirus has had some of the same impacts on the climate change argument. As there never has been any evidence of global warming, the eco-militants silently retreated from global warming to “climate change.”
Climate may be changing, but we aren’t sure and the noisy and endless repetition that “97 percent” of expert opinion warns of the mortal danger of fossil-fuel use, which is false in itself, became a very tired argument.
Affiliated organizations of the United Nations, inspired by the same political biases that have recently possessed and disgraced the World Health Organization, generated the global warming argument.
While climatologists largely agree that somewhat unusual things are occurring in the weather, it is not remotely clear whether this is outside the normal cyclical shift in the world’s temperature, whether it is influenced by human activity, what the nature of such changes may be and what their extent could be, or if they are occurring at all.
The whole academic and theoretical alliance that mistrusted the pursuit of economic growth informally merged with a broad range of conservationists.
This meant the Club of Rome, and even followers of John Kenneth Galbraith, who railed against the perceived conflict between vigorous commerce and the environment in his most successful work “The Affluent Society” in the 1950s, made common cause with the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and champions of duck-hunting, bird-watching, and butterfly-collecting.
What ignited this coalition and — by attacking most energy sources and forms of locomotion fueled by petroleum products — turned it into a battering ram against almost all primary and secondary industry, was the spontaneous and overwhelming adherence of the international Left.
The Left improvised ingeniously after the collapse of international Communism, the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and conversion of the People’s Republic of China to the virtues of economic growth.
The Left saw that the most effective method of obstructing capitalism was not through the revolutionary subversion of Western governments or developing countries (though some of that persisted, especially in Latin America), but in an ostensibly nonpolitical movement that assaulted capitalism under the cloak of saving the planet and making it a happy nature sanctuary.
Just in the last year, we have all been subjected to the nonsense, the parody, of a Swedish teenager, touring around the world in a wealthy eco-patron’s sailing yacht lecturing large and docile audiences, parliaments, the United Nations, on how aggrieved the youth of the world is at the fouled earth that their elders have created and will be bequeathed.
Historians of the future will look upon this phenomenon of the Western nations pouring trillions of dollars into self-impoverishment to install inefficient and hideously expensive alternative energy sources, covering the land with solar panels and windmills, as we today look on the Dutch Tulip Panic of the 17th century.
India, emulating China, is pursuing economic growth. Indians and Chinese comprise almost 40% of the world’s population, and neither India nor China nor Russia, nor most other countries outside Western Europe, North America, and Australasia, pay any attention to the climate change zealots.
Rather China, the world’s greatest polluter, set itself up as head of the “G-77,” a bloc of 135 countries demanding reparations from the industrially advanced countries for the havoc they supposedly have wrought in the world environment. (Even Barack Obama balked at paying China.)
Germany is the greatest power in Europe and should be, next to the United States and China, the greatest power in the world. It isn’t.
For complicated reasons buried in the mists and forest murmurs of Teutonic history, it is still somnambulating politically, allied with everyone and in a cocoon of an economic union where it amiably predominates, and in a defensive alliance led by the United States that has no real enemies at the moment.
The state whose militarism intermittently terrified the world from 1870 to 1945 has now become a soft-left stuffed animal of a country that has shut down its advanced and efficient nuclear energy program and is transforming itself into a state of thorough energy-dependence on President Putin’s threadbare Russia, chronically unreliable (apart from its rascality and duplicity).
As it wanders aimlessly about in search of a national vocation, Germany has fragmented politically. The Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, which since 1949 had the support of more than 80% of the public, have barely 50% now.
The Social Democrats now demand a joint assault on the coronavirus and carbon emissions, an insane proposal that would turn the German government into an agent of national self-imposed industrial penury.
There are five smaller parties, representing the far-Left, far-Right, wild-eyed greens, amiable quasi-anarchists, and bourgeois small business, of which only the last would be presentable in government with the larger parties.
Mighty Germany, the country of Bismarck, Adenauer, and Kohl, the culture of Goethe and Beethoven and Thomas Mann, having become, in Richard Nixon’s admonitory phrase, “a pitiful, helpless, giant,” is finally in a reluctant flirtation with the idea that it can’t afford self-inflicted green wounds any longer.
If Germany changes course on climate politics, Europe will follow, and the whole movement to deindustrialization will expire.
Read more at NY Sun
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-11--Pandemic Puts Spotlight On Science — But Scientists Often Lie

Written by Cheryl K. Chumley on .
Posted in Latest news We can beat COVID-19 — just trust the science , we ’ re told .
Trust in the scientists , we ’ re told .
And that ’ s not a paraphrase .
“ From the Editors : We Can Beat COVID-19 .
Just Trust Science , ” Wired wrote .
Well and good .
Fine and dandy .
But the fact is , scientists often lie .
Science isn ’ t always the beacon toward truth .
It ’ s not just frequently flawed ; it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So tossing citizens ’ civil rights into the sea and allowing medical professionals and scientists to steer the COVID-19 boat may not be the best-case scenario for a free America .
“ Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data , ” wrote Stanford News , back in late 2015 .
The story went on to report how a couple of researchers “ cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data , ” a finding that gave the science world a tool to “ identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The discovery of the pattern is one thing ; the fact that the pattern had to be pursued in the first place is entirely another thing .
It says , not so subtly , that falsified scientific data is so prevalent that a tool to identify — and slow the creep of — the false data was actually an in-demand item .
In fact , books have been written about the prevalence of falsified science .
“ The Great Betrayal : Fraud in Science , ” is 2004 expose about the true state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been peer-reviewed — that is , self-checked , self-policed .
It ’ s 480 pages long .
And in a terse assessment of his findings , author Horace Freeland Judson wrote , “ Their claims about science are unscientific.
” He was speaking of the scientific greats — of Gregor Mendel , of Charles Darwin , of Louis Pasteur , of Sigmund Freud .
What ’ s more , it ’ s well-known they all fudged data .
“ Freud was a lousy scientist , ” The New Yorker wrote , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he made unsubstantiated claims ; he took credit for other people ’ s ideas .
Sometimes he lied.
” Mendel , the founder of modern genetics , “ may have falsified data , ” The Great Courses Daily reported in 2016 .
It ’ s been a lingering shadow .
From August 2016 abstract , “ Are Mendel ’ s Data Reliable ?
The Perspective of a Pea Geneticist , ” published in the Journal of Heredity : “ Based on a large number of statistical analyses as well as the review of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little doubt that the data Mendel presented in 1866 corresponded much more closely to the predictions of his model than could be reasonably expected by chance.
” “ New Book Uncovers ‘ the Life and Lies of Charles Darwin , ’ ” Evolution News wrote in 2009 .
And of especial note , given the ongoing COVID-19 debate and vaccinations , this 1993 headline from The Independent : “ Pasteur ‘ told lies about vaccines , ’ ” — specifically , about the public trial of an anthrax vaccine , and by using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rabies vaccine that he had claimed to use on hundreds of dogs .
The Washington Post , The New York Times , The Chicago Tribune — these are all papers of record that have reported over the years about Pasteur ’ s record of scientific deceptions .
Those are hardly the only bad apples .
Science magazine , in a 2018 piece entitled , “ Tide of Lies , ” wrote of bone researcher Yoshihiro Sato ’ s fabricated data — “ fraud ” that was called “ one of the biggest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science and Health , in a 2017 piece entitled , “ Lying Politicians Is One Thing , Lying Scientists Is Another , ” wrote of “ the crappy science ” of researchers Peter Eklov and Oona Lonnstedt who reported in a 2016 paper that “ tiny particles of plastic in the ocean were harming fish , ” and that “ microscopic plastic must [ therefore ] be harmful to fish ” — findings that led them to be slapped with the peer-based “ misconduct in research ” label ; findings that the pair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 piece entitled , “ Nearly all of our medical research is wrong , ” wrote : “ Something is rotten in the state of biomedical research .
Everyone who works in the field knows this on some level .
We applaud presentations by colleagues … but we know in our hearts that the majority or even the vast majority of our research claims are false.
” Look : Do the research .
Google some headlines .
There are more , so many more examples of scientists gone wrong , scientists gone rogue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientist nearly went to jail for making up data , ” The Washington Post wrote in 2016 .
“ Researchers Behaving Badly : Known Frauds Are ‘ the Tip of the Iceberg , ’ ” Leapsmag wrote in 2018 .
“ Take That Back : The Top Scientific Retractions of 2019 , ” Live Science wrote in 2019 .
Deceptions are part of the game .
Lies , skews , half-truths , selectively chosen data , biased conclusions , flawed interpretations , outright wildly inaccurate information — these are all part and parcel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Because scientists are human , too .
Scientists have deadlines .
They have pressures .
They have funding goals .
They have peer competition .
They have personal agendas , political leanings , partisan purposes — spiritual blindnesses .
In short : they are not perfect .
Scientists are not perfect ; the science they present is not perfect .
And in this COVID-19 atmosphere , where scientists and researchers and medical professionals and scholars have taken over much of the control of U.S. politics and government and how American citizens are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s more important than ever to remember this : Scientists can be wrong , very wrong .
Moreover , scientists can lie .
And very often , as history shows , they do .

Written by Cheryl K. Chumley on May 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
We can beat COVID-19 — just trust the science, we’re told. Trust in the scientists, we’re told. And that’s not a paraphrase.
“From the Editors: We Can Beat COVID-19. Just Trust Science,” Wired wrote.
Well and good. Fine and dandy. But the fact is, scientists often lie. Science isn’t always the beacon toward truth. It’s not just frequently flawed; it’s frequently deceptive. And purposely so.
So tossing citizens’ civil rights into the sea and allowing medical professionals and scientists to steer the COVID-19 boat may not be the best-case scenario for a free America.
“Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data,” wrote Stanford News, back in late 2015.
The story went on to report how a couple of researchers “cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data,” a finding that gave the science world a tool to “identify falsified research before it is published.”
The discovery of the pattern is one thing; the fact that the pattern had to be pursued in the first place is entirely another thing.
It says, not so subtly, that falsified scientific data is so prevalent that a tool to identify — and slow the creep of — the false data was actually an in-demand item.
In fact, books have been written about the prevalence of falsified science.
“The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science,” is 2004 expose about the true state of science, and science that’s been peer-reviewed — that is, self-checked, self-policed. It’s 480 pages long.
And in a terse assessment of his findings, author Horace Freeland Judson wrote, “Their claims about science are unscientific.” He was speaking of the scientific greats — of Gregor Mendel, of Charles Darwin, of Louis Pasteur, of Sigmund Freud.
They all fudged data.
What’s more, it’s well-known they all fudged data.
“Freud was a lousy scientist,” The New Yorker wrote, in 2017. “He fudged data; he made unsubstantiated claims; he took credit for other people’s ideas. Sometimes he lied.”
Mendel, the founder of modern genetics, “may have falsified data,” The Great Courses Daily reported in 2016. It’s been a lingering shadow.
From August 2016 abstract, “Are Mendel’s Data Reliable? The Perspective of a Pea Geneticist,” published in the Journal of Heredity: “Based on a large number of statistical analyses as well as the review of several well-known geneticists, there can be little doubt that the data Mendel presented in 1866 corresponded much more closely to the predictions of his model than could be reasonably expected by chance.”
Moving on; Darwin.
“New Book Uncovers ‘the Life and Lies of Charles Darwin,’” Evolution News wrote in 2009.
And of especial note, given the ongoing COVID-19 debate and vaccinations, this 1993 headline from The Independent: “Pasteur ‘told lies about vaccines,’” — specifically, about the public trial of an anthrax vaccine, and by using a child as a test-case for a rabies vaccine that he had claimed to use on hundreds of dogs.
The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune — these are all papers of record that have reported over the years about Pasteur’s record of scientific deceptions.
Those are hardly the only bad apples.
Science magazine, in a 2018 piece entitled, “Tide of Lies,” wrote of bone researcher Yoshihiro Sato’s fabricated data — “fraud” that was called “one of the biggest in scientific history.”
The American Council on Science and Health, in a 2017 piece entitled, “Lying Politicians Is One Thing, Lying Scientists Is Another,” wrote of “the crappy science” of researchers Peter Eklov and Oona Lonnstedt who reported in a 2016 paper that “tiny particles of plastic in the ocean were harming fish,” and that “microscopic plastic must [therefore] be harmful to fish” — findings that led them to be slapped with the peer-based “misconduct in research” label; findings that the pair subsequently retracted.
QZ, in a 2016 piece entitled, “Nearly all of our medical research is wrong,” wrote: “Something is rotten in the state of biomedical research. Everyone who works in the field knows this on some level. We applaud presentations by colleagues … but we know in our hearts that the majority or even the vast majority of our research claims are false.”
Wow.
Look: Do the research. Google some headlines. There are more, so many more examples of scientists gone wrong, scientists gone rogue, science gone deceptive.
“This scientist nearly went to jail for making up data,” The Washington Post wrote in 2016.
“Researchers Behaving Badly: Known Frauds Are ‘the Tip of the Iceberg,’” Leapsmag wrote in 2018.
“Take That Back: The Top Scientific Retractions of 2019,” Live Science wrote in 2019.
Deceptions are part of the game.
Lies, skews, half-truths, selectively chosen data, biased conclusions, flawed interpretations, outright wildly inaccurate information — these are all part and parcel of scientists’ lives. And why? Because scientists are human, too.
Scientists have deadlines. They have pressures. They have funding goals. They have peer competition. They have personal agendas, political leanings, partisan purposes — spiritual blindnesses. In short: they are not perfect.
Scientists are not perfect; the science they present is not perfect.
And in this COVID-19 atmosphere, where scientists and researchers and medical professionals and scholars have taken over much of the control of U.S. politics and government and how American citizens are supposed to now behave and function — it’s more important than ever to remember this: Scientists can be wrong, very wrong.
Moreover, scientists can lie. And very often, as history shows, they do.
Read more at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-12--Computer-Modeled Fearmongering Ain’t Gonna Cut It Anymore

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news The entire Climate Cult is built upon doomsday computer model projections that the naïve and gullible have been tricked into believing are infallible .
To cult members , these computer models forecasts are not only irrefutable but tenets of their faith carved in stone .
However , the hopelessly inaccurate computer modeling of the Wuhan Flu , where the world ’ s supposedly leading computer modeler Neil Ferguson has been exposed as a crackpot , an international laughing stock forced to resign , has provided the public with a valuable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; garbage in , garbage out – and that computer modeling is often more about the politics than it is about the science , no more accurate than a clairvoyant reading the entrails of a freshly sacrificed chicken .
The alarmist climate change computer models , such as those Tim Flannery used to prophecies that Warragamba Dam would never again fill , or the models that foretold of 50 million climate refugees by 2010 , or the models that predicted the entire Maldives would be underwater by now , generally forecast events a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so their absurdity takes time to become apparent .
In comparison , the computer models for the Wuhan Flu are on fast forward .
Take the ABC coronavirus ‘ expert ’ scaremonger Dr. Norman Swan , who on March 21 ( when Australia had just over 1,000 coronavirus cases ) used computer models to predict that the number of cases in Australia would be “ 7,000 – 8,000 by next weekend ’ .
’ So sure was the ABC ’ s ‘ expert ’ of the computer models he added “ Primary school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that down , ” warning that we were just “ 14-21 days behind Italy ” which on that date had recorded 4,825 deaths .
However , by “ next weekend ” , 28/29 March , Australia only had 3,378 cases on Saturday and 3,809 cases on the Sunday — not the numbers Swan foretold .
So in just over a week , the ABC expert ’ s computer models were more than 100 percent out .
Faulty predictions of such scale would make even Tim Flannery blush .
In early April , computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless Sweden abandoned its unique approach to the Wuhan Flu and immediately adopted stringent lockdown policies similar to those being imposed upon the rest of Europe ( which would have crippled Sweden ’ s economy , causing mass unemployment , poverty , hardship and many deaths from other causes ) , that even using conservative estimates , coronavirus deaths in Sweden would rocket to more than 40,000 shortly after May 1 , and another 60,000 would die in throughout the month , taking the death count to almost 100,000 by the beginning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario , this computer model ( produced by university ‘ experts ’ ) also predicted that if the Swedish government changed course by April 10 ( as an army of alarmists were screaming for ) and imposed the most severe of the lockdown strategies , that the total would be reduced from 96,000 to fewer than 25,000 by June 1 .
History now records that the pragmatic and courageous Swedes stuck to their guns , ignored the alarmist computer models , and refused to implement the harsh lockdowns implemented by other European nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had recorded 2,653 deaths – not the 40,000 foretold by the computer models .
Further , it should be noted that although Sweden ’ s death toll seems high by Taiwan ’ s or Australia ’ s numbers , at time of writing , when measured in deaths per million Sweden ( 308 deaths per million ) has experienced substantially lower deaths than several other European nations which imposed strict lockdowns such as Belgium ( 735 ) , Spain ( 562 ) , Italy ( 495 ) UK ( 451 ) and France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one will ever be able to tally the total unnecessary cost , the hardship , the suffering , the increased poverty , the economic and social damage , and the all extra ( non-Wuhan Flu ) deaths and illnesses that have resulted from treating doomsday computer models as gospel during this current crisis .
The comparison between Australia and New Zealand also demonstrates this , as despite the Kiwi ’ s much harsher lockdown policies , inflicting upon themselves far greater suffering and economic damage , their numbers per million in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australia ’ s .
Let ’ s hope that having been burnt so badly this time , the world will learn a valuable lesson and treat the failed and failing political Climate Alarmist ’ s computer models with the skepticism they deserve – and if so , we can drive yet another nail into the climate alarmists ’ coffin .
Number four in Craig Kelly ’ s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists ’ coffin .

Written by Craig Kelly on May 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The entire Climate Cult is built upon doomsday computer model projections that the naïve and gullible have been tricked into believing are infallible.
To cult members, these computer models forecasts are not only irrefutable but tenets of their faith carved in stone.
However, the hopelessly inaccurate computer modeling of the Wuhan Flu, where the world’s supposedly leading computer modeler Neil Ferguson has been exposed as a crackpot, an international laughing stock forced to resign, has provided the public with a valuable lesson of the golden rule of modeling; garbage in, garbage out – and that computer modeling is often more about the politics than it is about the science, no more accurate than a clairvoyant reading the entrails of a freshly sacrificed chicken.
The alarmist climate change computer models, such as those Tim Flannery used to prophecies that Warragamba Dam would never again fill, or the models that foretold of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, or the models that predicted the entire Maldives would be underwater by now, generally forecast events a decade or longer into the future, so their absurdity takes time to become apparent.
In comparison, the computer models for the Wuhan Flu are on fast forward.
Take the ABC coronavirus ‘expert’ scaremonger Dr. Norman Swan, who on March 21 (when Australia had just over 1,000 coronavirus cases) used computer models to predict that the number of cases in Australia would be “7,000 – 8,000 by next weekend’.’
So sure was the ABC’s ‘expert’ of the computer models he added “Primary school maths. No magic fairy will bring that down,” warning that we were just “14-21 days behind Italy” which on that date had recorded 4,825 deaths.
However, by “next weekend”, 28/29 March, Australia only had 3,378 cases on Saturday and 3,809 cases on the Sunday — not the numbers Swan foretold.
So in just over a week, the ABC expert’s computer models were more than 100 percent out. Faulty predictions of such scale would make even Tim Flannery blush.
Internationally, we have witnessed similar alarmist failures.
In early April, computer models produced by Uppsala University predicted that unless Sweden abandoned its unique approach to the Wuhan Flu and immediately adopted stringent lockdown policies similar to those being imposed upon the rest of Europe (which would have crippled Sweden’s economy, causing mass unemployment, poverty, hardship and many deaths from other causes), that even using conservative estimates, coronavirus deaths in Sweden would rocket to more than 40,000 shortly after May 1, and another 60,000 would die in throughout the month, taking the death count to almost 100,000 by the beginning of June.
And in its most optimistic scenario, this computer model (produced by university ‘experts’) also predicted that if the Swedish government changed course by April 10 (as an army of alarmists were screaming for) and imposed the most severe of the lockdown strategies, that the total would be reduced from 96,000 to fewer than 25,000 by June 1.
History now records that the pragmatic and courageous Swedes stuck to their guns, ignored the alarmist computer models, and refused to implement the harsh lockdowns implemented by other European nations, and by May 1, Sweden had recorded 2,653 deaths – not the 40,000 foretold by the computer models.
Further, it should be noted that although Sweden’s death toll seems high by Taiwan’s or Australia’s numbers, at time of writing, when measured in deaths per million Sweden (308 deaths per million) has experienced substantially lower deaths than several other European nations which imposed strict lockdowns such as Belgium (735), Spain (562), Italy (495) UK (451) and France (398).
Ultimately, no one will ever be able to tally the total unnecessary cost, the hardship, the suffering, the increased poverty, the economic and social damage, and the all extra (non-Wuhan Flu) deaths and illnesses that have resulted from treating doomsday computer models as gospel during this current crisis.
The comparison between Australia and New Zealand also demonstrates this, as despite the Kiwi’s much harsher lockdown policies, inflicting upon themselves far greater suffering and economic damage, their numbers per million in terms of infections and deaths are almost identical to Australia’s.
Let’s hope that having been burnt so badly this time, the world will learn a valuable lesson and treat the failed and failing political Climate Alarmist’s computer models with the skepticism they deserve – and if so, we can drive yet another nail into the climate alarmists’ coffin.
Number four in Craig Kelly’s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists’ coffin.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print