Planet of the Humans

By April 29, 2020Other

I am not much of a TV watcher, and even less for watching documentaries, unless they are about cooking, for I make a lot of my own breakfasts, and dinners if I don’t much like what the facility provides (it is usually good). There seemed to be a deal of fuss about ‘Planet of the Humans’, and I thought I should spend hour and forty minutes watching it. The title is a take on ‘Planet of the Apes’ (1968), which I did see long time ago, and have almost completely forgotten. This documentary stars Jeff Gibbs, who is also a director, and he is a composer who seems to be involved in almost all aspects of film and television. He is disarmingly unhandsome, quiet and persistent as an interviewer. Another director is Ozzie Zehner, who is young, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and the author of a 2012 book called Green Illusions, which I don’t know of and haven’t read. The executive producer is Michael Moore, who is better known for ‘Bowling with Columbine’, and has been a star for left-wing environmental enthusiasts because of his films and general attitudes.

What’s he doing here? ‘Planet of the Humans’ is an attack on just about everything dear to the environmental left. You name it, electric vehicles, alternative energy, people like Bill McKibben (who really clobbers himself) and Robert Kennedy Jnr, and the way in which some rich people have bankrolled the environmental movement, converting it to their own ends and fortunes. I am not in any kind of position to comment on that last attack, but since I have been referred to in the past as some kind of shill for the Koch Brothers, of whom I had not heard at the time, it was fascinating to see them skewered, as it were, for being on the other side. 

What did I think of the film? Some of the visuals are breath-taking, the musical accompaniment is excellent, and the argument is familiar enough to me. The progress takes us from Gibbs’s youthful fascination with the environment and his growing disillusion as he realised that the much-promoted alternative energy sources not only were inefficient because of intermittency and ‘diffusivity (meaning you need lots of them to get much power) but came with their own costs, which supporters simply dismissed. Some of what he discovered was new to me.  

I had no idea, for example, how widespread the burning of biomass had become in the USA. In my innocence I had thought it was only the bizarre business of cutting down logs in the USA, converting them to woodchips, and then sending shiploads of them to Drax in the UK so that they could power the British electricity grid. Not so, there seem to be hundreds of biomass generators in the USA as well. The environmentalists seem to be of the view that biomass is carbon neutral, so it’s OK to burn it. A real study of that process seems to be needed.

In similar strain I thought the Ivanpah solar facility in California had been a great success save for the singed birds. The film provided images of broken mirrors there. I looked Ivanpah up on Wikipedia and it seems that the production of electricity has remained constant. On the other hand, the planet uses a great deal of natural gas to get the boilers going in the morning. Carbon neutral? I dunno.

The general argument of the film is that alternative energy sources, setting aside the whole carbon-neutrality issue, do not and cannot provide reliable grid power. They must be backed up by something that can quickly be switched on and off to deal with intermittency. If there is sudden cloud cover, for example, then the efficiency of the solar power units is instantly reduced. What happens then? Someone somewhere has to keep the supply and voltage levels constant. Large battery sources can deal with very short-term intermittency, but when there is a dull day, or little wind, you need real back-up. Where is that to come from? Why, dear old fossil fuel sources, unless you have some convenient hydroelectric storage (Australia has little of that, Canada a great deal).

Now none of that is at all new. It has been true from the beginning, and I have written about it on a number of occasions. It was not new to Mr Zehner, because he published his book in 2012. What we get, I think, is Mr Gibbs’s slow conversion from a believer into a doubter, illustrated by what Mr Zehner shows him. How long do these mirrors and towers last? Well, they take us to the very first solar power facility in the USA, in California, from memory. There was great excitement about it at the time. It’s gone, completely, utterly gone. The mayor of the ghost town alongside it was morbidly unemotional: there were to be jobs, the place would be a boom town; it didn’t happen.

I am sceptical about documentaries, because they always come with a message. It cannot be otherwise. What you choose to film, and what you choose to edit, and what you finally put together, come from your own imagination and knowledge, and/or what your sponsors want you to present. It is the case here. As I said earlier, I simply have no useful knowledge about the links between billionaires and the environmental movement. It is clear, nonetheless, that Messrs Gibbs and Zehner have strong views, and believe they know what is happening and has happened.

I enjoyed watching it until the end, where the presenter, and I guess the whole team, threw up their hands and said that the problem was us. We humans. There are too many of us, and we can’t live sustainably. This is a theme that goes back to Thomas Malthus, and more recently to the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich and others. None of them proposed a kind of ceremonial seppuku, through which, by disembowelling themselves, they showed the way to the rest of us benighted mortals.

I shook my head. They hadn’t mentioned nuclear energy in any sustained way. I never discovered what they meant by ‘sustainable’, a contemporary catch-phrase that seems to mean whatever you want it to mean. I’ve written about that, too. In a piece I wrote some time back I argued that

… the main weapon we use is the price mechanism. As resources diminish, or the supply of something is inadequate for whatever reason, its price goes up. As that happens, people get into substitution, or give up using the resource, while others see an opportunity to develop something that is actually better. It is not obvious what the innovation will be. One example is the replacement of the iron lung by the Salk vaccine in the treatment of poliomyelitis.

My pervading optimism suggests that this is how we will deal with what Gibbs and Zehner worry about. Yes, human numbers have increased a great deal in the past hundred years or so, but they are predicted by the demographers to level out as this century proceeds. And the greater numbers are much better fed and housed, and poverty has declined.

The film? It actually came out last year, and is currently free to download. I think it is worth watching, but you need your sceptical hat on.

ENDNOTE: I have written about some of these issues over the eight years this website has been going, so there are several different essays that refer, for example, to ‘sustainability’. For those interested in such matters, the easiest way to discover what I have written before is to use the magnifying-glass icon at the top right of the masthead, type in the word or words you want to explore, and click on the relevant essay. Yes, I suppose I should do this for you, but I’ve written 958 essays so far, and I would find that a lot of work, for which I don’t have the time.

Join the discussion 348 Comments

  • Rod Stuart says:

    It’s strange that people react to this doco in so many different ways.
    It is of course to be expected that the hard Left want to ‘ban’ it. These commies want to ‘ban’ anything and everything they don’t understand.
    While Andrew Bolt raves about it, Alistair Crooks, writing in Quadrant magazine, deplores it.
    As Don says, it mulls over the futility in the green madness as well as the tremendous waste of resources the green insanity has caused over the past few decades, (of which many of have been aware forever) but is shrouded in the rather sickly nonsense of berating the human race in general, and the West in particular.
    Since it has been available on the ubiquitous ‘net, it has apparently enjoyed a very significant audience.

    • Chris Warren says:

      It was an excellent film that raises issues that need to be raised – including clearly excessive and dramatic population increase.

      Why is it we often seem to get some rancid twit claiming “These commies want to ‘ban’ anything and everything they don’t understand.”

      Will they scream and cry if they are paid back in their own coin? This is the usual way they behave.

      • BB says:

        The truth revealed Warren. Approval of this film tells me immediately where you stand it is not about climate change at all. It is not a decrease in greenhouse gases you want. You want the population to be diminished because your belief is that the world should be eco-centric. Renewable energy and the diminishing of CO2 are not important in the scheme of things what is important though is to decrease the number of humans. Nuclear energy horrifies the environmentalist because it enables increases population and and takes the argument away about greenhouse gases. All climate change was ever about was a means to attack humanity. Just be honest you are misanthropic and that is you hate humanity. I suppose the other alternative is that you are one of the useful idiots this just do not understand what your movement really wants. Then again it seems neither does Michael Moore get the role of alternative energy. “If it works it is not green”.

        • Chris Warren says:

          More crazy stuff … all mature grown-up people will want to prevent climate change and decreased GHG’s. The film makes the point about population, lifestyle and Earth resources, but crude individuals like you missed it.

          It is nothing about attacks on humanity – in fact the exact opposite.

          You accusation of misanthropy is your own. The stinking face at the bottom of the world is your own.

          You are the “useful idiots”.

          You are crude, rude, obnoxious, dumb, and plain stupid individual with nothing constructive to say

          • Alessandro says:

            Pity to see a true gentleman’s site spoilt by such language and lack of tolerance to each other. You need to lift your game. Try to convince us with reason not poor language.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chris

            Is it at all possible that you could join a debate without immediately descending into personal abuse?

            Or are you happy if others in the debate, to use your own words, repay you “in your own coin”?

      • Boambee John says:

        Chris

        We have exchanged views on the subject of population before. The last time, you said that population could be reduced by normal family planning methods. Does this mean various forms of contraception, perhaps combined with the wider availability of abortion?

        If these are the methods you propose, how long will it take to stabilise world population, and then reduce it to the level that you consider appropriate? A decade? Fifty years? A century?

        How urgent do you think the task is?

  • John Wilden says:

    Hi Don.Had no idea biomass was so rife.How could anyone claim this unbelievable damage to the environment is GREEN.Regards John.

  • John Stankevicius says:

    There is a way for societies to live with in their environments and not go backwards in income and quality of life. It means looking after yourself. Our quality of life in Oz has deterioted since the 1970s and especially here in SA. No mining, no agrilculture, no multifunction polis (Japanese interest and not Chinese interest). Societies do not trash their environments – they improve them. As a nation and especially in SA and Tas, environmentalism has trumped common sense, innovation and real jobs – not social capital clap trap. As a result we have gone backwards in IT, transport, engineering and construction and agriculture. We have not extended the boundaries of where we live. As a result we have built horrendous concrete jungles which are incongreous to our climate and environement. The current onslaught of this in our cities is beyond idiotic.
    Also the multi function polis was knocked abck by envirimentalists in the 1980 – with Midnight Oil being opposed to this. The environmental scene, like socialists are full of frightened people of the wonderful world we live in thus ever idea to improve is shelved.

  • Neville says:

    Here Andrew Bolt interviews the very intelligent Michael Shellenberger about Planet of the Humans.
    As always Bolt asks the right questions and Shellenberger
    explains why so called renewables , plus bio-mass etc are not viable and the movie’s makers agree.
    And they do touch on Nuclear and Gas powered energy at the end. Shellenberger may be a lefty but he is very bright and goes for the data every time, before he draws a conclusion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko8aXUm5DfU

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    DA: “There are too many of us, and we can’t live sustainably. This is a theme that goes back to Thomas Malthus, and more recently to the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich and others. None of them proposed a kind of ceremonial seppuku, through which, by disembowelling themselves, they showed the way to the rest of us benighted mortals.”

    For Malthus, his Principle of Population was a law of Nature, divinely imposed to ensure virtuous behaviour, what he called “moral restraint”, a kind of procreative “seppuku” if you like, imposed by an individual, not the state.

    He argued that the greatest obstacle to social progress and ‘human happiness’ was humankind’s awesome procreative power, its tendency to grow faster than the means of subsistence – or what today might be called a country’s rate of socio-economic development or ‘improvement’.

    Such heresy attracted a firestorm of abuse from many of his contemporaries – especially Enlightenment revolutionaries – and continues to this day. The French epithet ‘malthusien’ became one of the worst insults of the time. Karl Marx and his followers were unhappy with him too. Many still see him at best as an apologist for global social inequality and injustice.

    With two centuries of hindsight, it is clear there were flaws in his Principle. Malthus did not expect science to have such a dramatic impact on agricultural productivity, health and society, or modern birth control. Yet in one important sense he was right. He drew attention to some factors that influence humankind’s rate of growth. With the prospect of a global population of at least 11 billion by 2100 – about 11 times what it was when he wrote his first Essay in 1798 – perhaps it is time for a revaluation.

    When John Wilmoth, head of the UN Population Division, was interviewed by the ABC’s Mandie Sami after public release of UNPD’s 2015 Revision. He was asked whether it was ‘a positive picture’, or one that ‘worries you when you look at these numbers.’

    “That’s a very difficult question”, he replied. “You can’t deny that the increased human activity in terms of consumption and production and the impact of human activity on the Earth’s environment is troublesome to anyone who looks at it.

    To look at the change and speed of change that’s taking place, it’s troublesome to think about what this may bring in terms of environmental changes and how that then could alter the Earth’s ability to support not only human life, but life of other species.”

  • Stu says:

    This is the most balanced review of the film I have found so far. It exposes some of the false narrative such as the Californian mirrors example, timing is everything. Similarly the claims of no net gain by renewables are so ludicrous it is hard to imagine why Gibbs went there except through ignorance.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green-energy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/

    And by the way Moore is the “executive producer” to give it some clout and he has no real history of comment on these subjects, so the folk claiming his apostasy as a victory are wide of the mark.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Stu, he was on the TV the other day in conversation about the documentary, and seemed to be in favour both of the film and of its message, but this is third-hand reportage, because I didn’t see it myself.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      Stu, that review is totally unbalanced and barely lays a glove on the film. It criticises the film for not citing evidence, but then simply asserts things or raises questions but produces no evidence to support them.

      Example: biomass. It is not credible to suggest (no evidence) that the logs in Vermont might not have been destined for power generation. Nor to suggest that a few trimmings and clearing might supply the number of biomass plants in the US – let alone (as Don mentioned) plants Europe such as Drax.

      • Stu says:

        You think the review is unbalanced. I think the film is unbalanced and uses dated images to falsely present a particular point of view. It is very poorly constructed. But I can see why the committed climate denier would be sucked in by it. And half the film is about bio mass which accounts for a tiny fraction of US power, as an old prof used to say “why is it so?”

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Just as I can see why the committed supporter of renewables would be upset in by it. The film attacks the basis of your beliefs. That explains why the apostates have so upset you.

          Perhaps rather than atttacking the messengers, you should provide evidence that their statements about the pollution caused by building renewable power generators are wrong, and counter their statements abour renewable power being intermittent and unreliable. Oh, you can’t, can you?

  • spangled drongo says:

    A good summary:

    • Stu says:

      What an emotional bullshit based rant. He is even worse than the film, throwing up false notions. I can see why you folk are wetting yourselves over it though. That is opinion ok. On fact there are glaring errors. The film and our sky (fox) news friend trots out the long disproved canard that renewables use more power than they ever produce. Utter nonsense. You know it is unsupportable. Do you really want me to set it out here?

      Another is the rubbish about EV’s using electricity from coal. In short so what? Internal combustion engines use petrol or diesel from oil wells over and over again, they have no option. As the power mix shifts the EV’s will consume an ever higher percentage of energy derived from renewables. And oh dear there is money involved, blow me down. Can we get back to what used to be the biggest most profitable companies in the world, Shell, BP, Saudi Aramco, Exxon etc etc. if you want dirty money sloshing around buying political favours and muddying the water on renewable energy and climate change in general look no further. Elsewhere I posted the amount of money these guys make each day they can prolong their game, of course they invest in disinformation and will continue to do so. But it is nice to see them squabbling amongst themselves right now. It appears that the Saudis and Russians are prepared for short term loss to put the US shale oil business out of the game. The shale ponzi scheme is another story all to itself. And the entire fossil fuel industry remains the biggest market failure in history, through lack of recognition of the environmental costs.

      Back to EV’s, get used to them, they will take over sooner than you realise, because they make sense.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “The film and our sky (fox) news friend trots out the long disproved canard that renewables use more power than they ever produce. Utter nonsense. You know it is unsupportable. Do you really want me to set it out here?”

        Yes. Don’t forget to include the power used to mine, transport and process the minerals used to manufacture solar and wind generators, and the concrete and steel used to site then, and the materials used to connect distributed renewable generators to a concentrated grid, and the FCAS installations.

        Full disclosure, nothing less.

        “But it is nice to see them squabbling amongst themselves right now.”

        Do you mean like the renewables advocates squabbling about this documentary?

        “through lack of recognition of the environmental costs.”

        Something you are markedly reluctant to acknowledge about renewables, but is highlighted in the documentary?

  • Don seems unmoved by a postulated connection between billionaires and the environmental movement, but surely there’s a reason why the Greenhouse Propaganda Industry never goes away.. it’s a really good way to coerce the general public into shouldering the cost of government, not just the rich. Then there’s carbon trading where the asset is invisible and doesn’t change hands. Promoted by Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Goldman Sachs.
    Another thing the film didn’t explore is the political side where politicians control people by frightening them and then leading them to “safety”

    • Boambee John says:

      Renewable energy is a vast subsidy harvesting industry with a side line in electricity production. That is why the wealthy support it. Only the wealthy can “afford” to be socialists!

      • Stu says:

        Sydney Morning Herald today.

        “Achieving the three-quarter share will need changes in markets and regulation otherwise AEMO will have to impose curbs on renewable energy to ensure grid stability , Ms Zibelman said.

        If such adjustments don’t happen , ‘‘ AEMO will be required to curtail the contribution of these wind and solar resources to 50 or 60 per cent of their potential even though they are the lowest cost way of providing electricity’’

        That does not sound like “subsidy harvesting” to me, but BJ is the world expert on everything, so there you go.

        Oh and also “On Easter Saturday, renewables’ share of the NEM – which provides power to about 80 per cent of the population – topped 50 per cent. ”. More non performance of renewables I suppose.

        • Neville says:

          Well then stu if you really believe that nonsense, shouldn’t we remove all subsidies and handouts to all renewables like S&W, bio etc ASAP?
          If it’s all that simple surely they can stand alone, but what happens when we have the next lousy very still night (s) or very cloudy still day(s) when those sources???? vanish?
          You really are a fool if you believe their delusional gibberish.
          Watch Moore’s movie again and you might wake up, even Moore like Dr Hansen now understands it’s all BS and fraud.
          And if Moore can understand what a disaster these so called sustainable energies are then surely anyone can?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “AEMO will have to impose curbs on renewable energy to ensure grid stability”

          This subject has been discussed frequently, but you remain profoundly ignorant of it.

          Once renewables reach a certain proportion of supply, maintenance of stable voltage and frequency becomes increasingly difficult. Until these problems are resolved, renewables will remain an ancillary source of power.

          Because renewables are intermittent, they must always have a reliable back up source available.

          The costs of frequency control and ancillary services and spinning back up are not included in the costs of renewables, nor are the costs of additional transmission lines to connect distributed renewable power sources to the main grid. Renewables also get priority access to the grid, causing additional costs to other forms of generation, which generate continuous power, but often cannot sell it into the market.

          As I said earlier, these facts are well known, but are always ignored by advocates of renewables. This will not change until all sources of power are placed on a level footing, each bearing its own full costs, including (for renewables) paying full cost for their back up power sources.

          “On Easter Saturday, renewables’ share of the NEM – which provides power to about 80 per cent of the population – topped 50 per cent. ”

          All day, or for a short period only? Given that the sun does not shine 24 hours a day, I suspect the latter. But you keep the faith, Stu.

          • Stu says:

            “The Australian Energy Market Operator, in a ground-breaking study, has confirmed that the cheapest and smartest replacement for the country’s ageing coal-fired generators will be in solar, wind and storage technologies.

            In the long awaited release of its Integrated System Plan, AEMO says much of Australia’s coal capacity will retired by 2040 because the assets will have reached the end of their life. That will equate to around 70TWh of lost generation by 2040.

            Based on its “neutral” scenario, which comprises existing federal and state government policies, the lowest cost replacement will be solar (28GW), wind (10.5GW) and storage (17GW and 90GWh). Just 500MW of flexible gas plant will be needed, and no new coal.

            It says this portfolio in total can produce 90TWh (net) of energy per annum, more than offsetting the energy lost from retiring coal fired generation.

            AEMO says, however, that new transmission infrastructure is urgently needed to reinforce existing links between states and create new ones – such as between South Australia and NSW. It also want to create renewable energy zones so that this transformation can be properly managed.”

            And there is another report on load balancing answering the points in that last para indicating it will not be a problem going forward.

            Does the wind also only blow during the day?

            Another fact overlooked by luddites is that a big chunk of solar never hits the grid. Many household PV systems have their biggest impact in replacing grid energy, some like mine also put power out to the grid, and it is at significant cost saving for the suppliers often.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Another fact overlooked by luddites is that a big chunk of solar never hits the grid. Many household PV systems have their biggest impact in replacing grid energy, some like mine also put power out to the grid, and it is at significant cost saving for the suppliers often.”

            This is your big chance. Disconnect from the grid, install a battery, and go stand alone. You will save a fortune, and no longer have to worry about minor details like transmission lines (oh, I see we need more of tgem for our future nirvana, still they are sooo cheap, and have no environmental impact).

            Fascinating to see no mention in the cloud nine announcement about new technology for storage. Go away and woek out how much raw materials will be needed for this wonderful new system.

            I bet that you are a sucker for new gadgets and Nigerian princes.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Peter Bradshaw’s article from the Guardian and even this normally delusional rag seems to find nice things to say about Moore’s P of T.Hs. The Guardian link is included after article.

    “Recently, petrolhead pundit Jeremy Clarkson was thought to have disgraced himself by pointing out that the hi-tech sea yacht used by Greta Thunberg for her transatlantic crossing, for all its solar panels and underwater turbines, had an old-fashioned diesel engine aboard for emergencies. I thought about Clarkson’s jibe while watching this refreshingly contrarian eco-documentary from environmentalist Jeff Gibbs, which has been uploaded for free online viewing by its executive producer, Michael Moore.

    Gibbs has a cheeky habit of going backstage at music festivals that solemnly declare themselves to be using 100% renewable energy, only to find that the fancy array of solar panels behind the tent is enough to power a single bass guitar. The rest of the energy is provided by just plugging into the shameful old electricity grid, provided by fossil fuels. He sees it as symptomatic of the mainstream environmental movement, running on delusional piety.

    All the green, liberal A-listers – Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Van Jones, Robert F Kennedy Jr – are attacked in this film as a pompous and complacent high-priest caste of the environmental movement, who are shilling for a fossil fuel industry that has sneakily taken them over. (Although it should be said that, for all his radical bravado, Gibbs does not dare criticise Thunberg.)
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Pinterest

    Big Oil and its corporate and banking representatives have, according to this film, found a way to rebrand themselves as green or greenish, to use the green movement for their own ends, and to get their mitts on the huge subsidies that taxpayers around the world are handing over to anyone claiming to be developing renewable energy resources, which turn out to be the same old fossil-fuel entities in different packaging.

    Solar panels and wind turbines? These provide no energy when there is no sun or wind and degrade after only a few decades, says Gibbs. And in any case they need a lot of fossil fuels in their manufacture: silicon, cobalt, silver, graphite, rare earths – and of course coal. The same goes for manufacturing storage batteries. Factories claiming to have gone “beyond coal” again and again turn out to be relying on natural gas. Corporate behemoths such as Apple make spurious claims for their energy usage. But how about the ultra-fashionable new “renewable” energy source: biomass or wood-chips? This is basically a colossal logging industry that requires a lot of fossil fuel energy to harvest and transport the material. As Gibbs’ interviewees point out, you might just as well as burn the fossil fuels in the first place. And it is laying waste rainforests and areas of natural beauty.

    This, says Gibbs, is the queasy merger of environmentalism and capitalism – and he makes a refreshingly sceptical case. But he takes it further, suggesting that unfettered capitalism and its insanity of eternal growth on a finite planet is also what is leading us to the cliff edge. True enough, although his comments on overpopulation have an unintentionally ironic chime, in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak.

    Most chillingly of all, Gibbs at one stage of the film appears to suggest that there is no cure for any of this, that, just as humans are mortal, so the species itself is staring its own mortality in the face. But he appears to back away from that view by the end, saying merely that things need to change. But what things and how?

    It’s not at all clear. I found myself thinking of Robert Stone’s controversial 2013 documentary Pandora’s Promise, which made a revisionist case for nuclear power: a clean energy source that (allegedly) has cleaned up its act on safety and really can provide for our wholesale energy needs without contributing to climate change, in a way that “renewables” can’t.

    Gibbs doesn’t mention nuclear and – a little lamely, perhaps – has no clear lesson or moral, other than the need to take a fiercely critical look at the environmental establishment. Well, it’s always valuable to re-examine a sacred cow”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/apr/22/planet-of-the-humans-review-environment-michael-moore-jeff-gibbs

    • Stu says:

      “Says Gibbs”, “says Gibbs”, “says Gibbs”. And you take what he says as gospel truth. What are his quals and sources? It is an amateur production. Throwing in Clarkson for effect, please. And trivial examples like the rock concerts, oh do get serious. Don’t just quote comments on the film. Provide the source data that upholds the claims in the film. Remember facts versus opinions.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Moore at the PotHs launch 8 months ago. He does agree with the doco, yet seems to think the findings are some sort of new revelation. What a joker and fool he is and similar to most lefties this clown must have been in hibernation for the past few decades.
    Even Dr Hansen has told them years ago that Paris COP 21 +S&W etc are just BS and fraud and believing this renewables nonsense is similar to believing in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy.
    And don’t forget that they’ve wasted trillions $ on this fraud and of course for a guaranteed ZERO change to temp or climate by 2100 and beyond.
    Look up the co2 data since 1970 or 1990 to understand the facts. Not my opinion just the facts or IOW the data.

    • Stu says:

      “Even Dr Hansen has told them years ago that Paris COP 21 +S&W etc are just BS and fraud and believing this renewables nonsense is similar to believing in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy.”. Hansen never said renewables were nonsense, he said that COP 21 did not go fa4 enough and he despaired for the world, do you want to address his sense of gloom and doom rather than a narrow and false narrative?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu blithers once again:

        “Hansen never said renewables were nonsense”

        Well, here’s what he said in the Boston Globe recently:

        “The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries. Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.”

    • Stu says:

      And Moore has always been a contrarian on everything, now he has thrown his hand with you lot, careful, he might yet bite you.

      • Neville says:

        Gosh stu so now you admit that Moore fully endorsed the movie and the conclusions of his doco?
        Now how about the co2 data since 1970 or 1990 and the countries’ source of those emissions since those dates?
        IOW do you agree with the Wiki data and their graph or not? Remember facts/data not your opinions. If you’re unsure have a look at the Wiki sources at the end of the countries emissions + graph, chart etc.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        I would always use a very long spoon when supping with Moore, but it is highly amusing to watch you lot frothing at the mouth in fury at his apostasy, while posting AEMO dreams of a fully renewable future, with no mention of any need for technical breakthroughs in storage systems.

        PS, the AEMO boss is a graduate in arts, law and management, not engineering. The AEMO leadership team seems somewhat short of experienced power engineers.

        • Stu says:

          Oh knocking the AEMO qualifications. I thought you did not go in for ad hominem attacks. Anyhow they appear to have plenty of technical expertise even if you do not like their policies.

          Regarding Moore or actually Gibbs, do you like the bit where he says you are the problem? Can’t have endless growth etc. Best you remove yourself and become a hermit before doing more damage.

          • Aynsley Kellow says:

            Seriously Stu? At 9.02 you wrote:
            ‘“Says Gibbs”, “says Gibbs”, “says Gibbs”. And you take what he says as gospel truth. What are his quals and sources? ‘
            The you complain that someone questions the lack of engineering qualifications among AEMO. You’re nothing if not inconsistent.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Oh knocking the AEMO qualifications. I thought you did not go in for ad hominem attacks.”

            When in Rome …

            “do you like the bit where he says you are the problem?”

            No, you are the true believer, you lead the way. I will follow, but at a discreet interval, so as not to take the glory away from you. Same interval as Blackadder asked his firing squad to provide.

            PS, your fellow traveller Chris has been hot for population reduction for a while. You might ask him what methods he proposes to achieve his aim.

            PPS, like most raving environmentalists (BIRM) Moore and Rigs are pathological misanthropes.

          • Boambee John says:

            Gibbs not Riggs, though renewables might prove to be an (economic) lethal weapon if we follow the AEMO route.

          • Stu says:

            Aynsley, sorry I must have been too oblique. I think Gibbs is talking total rubbish.

            And as for the others I like their twisted thinking. i.e. Gibbs and co are saying climate change is real and deadly serious, which they totally abhor, but everything else he says, making up bull about renewables etc, is perfect. And they certainly don’t go anywhere near the conclusion that we are all rooted unless we wind back and live in a subsistence world (I exaggerate slightly but it still fits).

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “And as for the others I like their twisted thinking. i.e. Gibbs and co are saying climate change is real and deadly serious, which they totally abhor, but everything else he says, making up bull about renewables etc, is perfect.”

            You are imagining things. I think that ALL of the more rabid alarmists are on a different planet, whether preaching that renewables in their current state of development can power a modern industrial society, or that we should return to an agrarian lifestyle and collapse population numbers.

            My amusement comes fron alarmists, including Hanson, Moore, Gibbs and our locals (including you) beating each other around the ears in rage about a documentary that attacks your silly belief that renewables are non-polluting.

            Like all of Moore’s documentaries, this one is tendentious, selective, and aimed at producing a political effect. In this case, you do not like the intended effect.

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, like a stopped clock, Moore can occasionally be correct (or right?).

            I think this is one of those rare occasions!

  • Chris Warren says:

    Why does our chief “fool”, “clown”, ‘joker” make up fake news such as:

    “… the fancy array of solar panels behind the tent is enough to power a single bass guitar. ”

    What sort of deranged fantasy world does this fool-clown-joker inhabit????

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      If you had read the comment carefully, you would have realised that the documentary maker, Gibbs, made that comment. He is one of your felloe population reduction enthusiasts. You seem to be lying down with a dog, check yourself when you get up.

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    I covered many of the issues in this film in my 2018 book ‘Negotiating Climate Change’. The evidence on comparative lifecycles is not helpful to Stu’s case. A brief excerpt, with references:
    The steel in the tower of a wind generator, for example, requires perhaps 220 tonnes of coking coal to manufacture, and photovoltaics compare unfavourably with nuclear energy (Fthenakis and Kim, 2007). One analysis (Ferroni and Hopkirk, 2016) suggests that more energy goes into manufacturing solar panels than is produced by them in locations such as Germany and Switzerland, although this is contested (Raugei et al., 2017). But aside from ‘Energy Return on Energy Invested’, the manufacture of photovoltaic panels has a controversial GHG balance, not just because they are often made in China using (inefficient) coal-fired electricity, but because their manufacture involves the release of substances such as the solvents nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which was not covered by the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, but which is 16,000 times more powerful a GHG than CO2, and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) which is 23,900 times more powerful than CO2.

    Ferroni, F. and Hopkirk, R.J. (2016) ‘Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insol- ation’, Energy Policy, 94: 336–344.
    Fthenakis, V.M. and Kim, H.C. (2007) ‘Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric-and nuclear power: a life-cycle study’, Energy Pol- icy, 35(4): 2549–2557.

    For some insight into some of the less successful renewables projects, including the failure of Ivanpah (featured in the film):
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-15/green-flops-why-some-promising-cleantech-ideas-didn-t-work-out
    Not the abandonment of a salt storage solar project in Australia gets a mention.

    Subsidies, of course, distort markets. My favourite example is the illumination of solar panels by lights powered by diesel generators in Spain some years back:
    https://theecologist.org/2010/apr/16/spanish-nighttime-solar-energy-fraud-unlikely-uk

    • Stu says:

      It is possible to make steel without coking coal. Also you guys never go near the energy and materials that go into making a coal fired power station. And from what I have seen around here it takes a hell of a lot more energy to dismantle the filthy, ugly things. Show me your comparison on that. The big difference us that once constructed wind turbines and PV keep on churning our power while the coal plant continues to consume vast amounts of energy to dig, transport, burn and dispose of the coal and residues, we wont even go into the ugly scars in the landscape near me.

      And then there are the other things in coal burning which get in the air and/or residues. Here is a piece from the USGS.

      “ Coal is largely composed of organic matter, but it is the inorganic matter in coal—minerals and trace elements— that have been cited as possible causes of health, environmental, and technological problems associated with the use of coal. Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal constituents such as arsenic, selenium, or mercury, questions have been raised concerning possible risk from radiation. In order to accurately address these questions and to predict the mobility of radioactive elements during the coal fuel-cycle, it is important to determine the concentration, distribution, and form of radioactive elements in coal and fly ash.”

      Now I grant you that is USA and maybe our coal is “cleaner”, I don’t know, do you?

      As for solar panels in Germany, I don’t know, but they seem bigger on wind energy anyway. Here I can look at my own figures. My six month old system has produced 7.2 Mwh of power and offset 13 metric tons of carbon and they are guaranteed to provide over 92% of nominal power for 10 years and over 83% for 25 years. So I think the power gain over power of production is clear. Perhaps check your figures. And I note the usual reference to the wonders of nuclear. My solar panels do not require 24×7 security or extreme care for many times the half life of the spent fuel.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Even lamestream media such as the Guardian used to be honest enough to print opinions from credentialed scientists who were outspoken about the lack of ability of renewables:

    “The idea that renewable energy can power the UK is an “appalling delusion”, according to the final interview given by former chief scientific adviser, the late Professor Sir David MacKay.”

    • stu says:

      And the answer to that is, you don’t need to totally replace a nation’s energy generation with renewables to have a huge effect on the environment and cost. But I know you like the extreme cases because you think they help your argument more.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Earlier you were extolling the AEMO plan to do just that. Are you suffering from STML, forgetting what you posted earlier today?

        Is that an example of liking “extreme cases because you think they help your argument more”?

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    I should add that in my book I also covered the various interest-based actors pushing renewables, especially in the US. These included Bloomberg (featured in the film), but also Tom Steyer, who made his fortune in coal, including Whitehaven in Australia. I did like the partnership of Blood and Gore in the film. George Soros is an interesting case. Financed the anti-fracking hit piece ‘Gasland’ and then went long on gas.

    Stu might also note, apropos his post at 8.33am yesterday, some more inconvenient facts from my book that show why the divestment movement ins misguided:
    ‘while Exxon is the largest oil (and gas) company in the US, it is only the 11th biggest oil company in the world in terms of reserves. Royal Dutch Shell is 19th and BP the 20th largest. All but one (the Russian Lukoil) of the rest of the top 20 in terms of reserves are owned by governments: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria, and Russia. ‘

    Of course, Steyer and Bloomberg both sought the nomination for the Presidency, but steer also basically wrote the Obama energy policy and both were instrumental in having the extreme scenario RCP8.5 adopted as ;business as usual’ by both the US and the IPCC – the source of all the recent nonsense about a ‘climate emergency.’ See Roger Pielke’s series of piece in Fobes on this, and also a piece in Nature.

    • Stu says:

      “while Exxon is the largest oil (and gas) company in the US, it is only the 11th biggest oil company in the world in terms of reserves. Royal Dutch Shell is 19th and BP the 20th largest.”. And your point is? I did not list Exxon at the top and reserves are one thing production is another. And right now stock valuation is not looking pretty for Exxon.

      Then there is the amount of cash thrown at the climate denier movement, Exxon is up there with the Koch’s on that one. Have you noticed that the conservation movement is largely funded by small donor amounts from individuals. Whereas I have never seen the Heartlands, GWPF’s with their hands out, because it just flows in from the mega donors. Plus the big players heavily fund certain political figures, mainly in the US, to buy lobbying favours like the recent windback in emissions limits. Where they can, they hide the money beyond donor trusts etc to obscure the origins of the cash. The concept dreamed up by big tobacco lives on, the new merchants of doubt are the fossil fuel lobby and they really know how to play it. And there are plenty of suckers out there to buy the story, right.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Have you noticed that the conservation movement is largely funded by small donor amounts from individuals”

        No, and I would like you to prove that statement.

        • Stu says:

          No that is too tiresome. But just to prove a point here is what one says “Greenpeace is the only global environmental charity that accepts no corporate or government donations so we can maintain a much needed independent voice, but it means we rely on individual supporters like you to fund our work.”

          And here is what ACF says “Give now to power critical work today. Your donation will be used where it’s needed most – ensuring that your gift is as impactful as possible. ACF is funded by tens of thousands of Australians. This means our campaigns to protect our living world are fearless, objective and independent.”

          Etc. You can look the rest up yourself. And while you are it check out the well hidden funding of the denier sites.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So Greenpeace and the ACF claim to accept only small donations. Well, as Mandy Rice Davies might say “They would say that, wouldn’t they”.

            Check out the Sierra Club and other such organisations, and the big US “charitable” foundations.

            You made the claim, you prove it.

      • Aynsley Kellow says:

        You didn’t list Exxon? Try: ‘Can we get back to what used to be the biggest most profitable companies in the world, Shell, BP, Saudi Aramco, Exxon etc etc.’

        The current low prices are the result of collaboration between OPEC+ (especially Saudi) and Russia. Saudi Arabia tried to undercut fracked oil a couple of years back, but failed to drive it out of business, and moist buyers are adequately hedged against this. This attempt will also fail in the long run. The US (and Australia) is taking the opportunity to top up its strategic reserve at rock bottom prices. Putin, in particular, cannot sustain the Russian economy at these prices and will fold.

        • Stu says:

          There seems to be a viral infection going around here, it started with BJ I think and causes a failure to comprehend the written word. Of course I listed Exxon, but I did not list it at number one. Here is what I wrote “Can we get back to what used to be the biggest most profitable companies in the world, Shell, BP, Saudi Aramco, Exxon etc etc. if you want dirty money sloshing around ….”

          And then I was responding to your somewhat strange listing of the relative reserves of the oil companies. “ ‘while Exxon is the largest oil (and gas) company in the US, it is only the 11th biggest oil company in the world in terms of reserves.“

          You appeared to be defending poor little Exxon from being declared number one – which I didn’t.

          And I then made the point that on current stock valuations poor “little Exxon” is shrinking further. Unfortunately they will survive but not so many of the shale companies in the Permian basin and with luck the tar sands operations in Alberta.

          Regarding stocks, the oils used to be at or near the top but are replaced by the growing number of tech stocks. Perhaps the age of big oil is coming to a close, hooray.

  • Ian says:

    Coincidentally, today on “Catallaxy Files” there was a revisiting and update of the decades-long debate between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon after which Simon bet Ehrlich (and won) that population growth would make the Earth’s resources more, not less, plentiful. Ehrlich had failed to see, understand, and account for the power of what Simon called “The Ultimate Resource” – human resourcefulness and ingenuity.

  • spangled drongo says:

    More stu blither:

    “Back to EV’s, get used to them, they will take over sooner than you realise, because they make sense.”

    Apart from the huge increase in electricity required for fuel, the consequences of EV production aren’t so green either. The debate about the green credentials of electric cars has been reignited.

    According to research, an electric car with a 75KWh battery and NMC 811 (nickel-manganese-cobalt) chemistry needs 56kg of nickel, 7kg of manganese, 7kg of cobalt and 85 kg of copper for electric wiring.

    The earth’s ores have limited yield and conventional land mining processes produce billions of tonnes of waste while leaking deadly toxins into soil and water.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      They also need charging overnight, when the sun don’t shine (unless you’re in Spain – see above) and the wind often drops off (especially it its a sea breeze).

    • Stu says:

      You don’t say. Wow. One of the things overlooked by luddites when it comes to EV’s in particular and the future in general is the probable shift to a new automobile scenario. We are on the cusp of autonomous vehicles. If you read up on Tesla you would know that the goal is to replace the current single or multiple car ownership dynamic for households. Instead there will be a world of vehicle sharing, which has already begun in the main cities, think GOGET. Musks plan seems to be to own that market with their superior autonomous driving capabilities and to probably licence that tech to other manufacturers. In the Tesla case, they only make EV’s and soon Trucks. So don’t think every current vehicle on the road needs to be replaced with an EV, there will fewer on the road. Parking problems go away, traffic congestion is reduced, travel time can become productive etc.

      But I get it, usually the older people get the more they get locked into old thinking, old familiar solutions and resistance to change. So I don’t expect you to comprehend any of this. And of course our country friends, some here I think, will be stuck with their fuel guzzling machines much longer. But there is a silver lining you will have a great array of cheap second hand ICE vehicles to choose from. Fuel might become expensive and harder to find, but never mind.

      Of course depending how inflexible you guys are, therefore by implication how old, none of this should worry you at all, it is called the future. And it is coming like it or not. It has to, the current traffic and living arrangements in Sydney as an example make the problem urgent, a bit like climate really.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “a bit like climate really”

        A bit like YOUR belief in climate, you mean.

        You believe anything to suit your argument and the fact that people will always share cars for commuting is a no-brainer but if you think that they will go without on demand, personal, private transport in a wealthier world you are having yourself on.

        • Stu says:

          “ but if you think that they will go without on demand, personal, private transport in a wealthier world you are having yourself on.”. SD pay attention. It IS about on demand, personal, private transport NOT shared. That is the whole point. The issue is ownership. What people will buy is access and leave the rego, insurance, servicing, parking thing behind. Not only that but there will be flexibility of size, style, performance trip by trip depending on requirement. How much better than having the same old clunker in the garage year after year depreciating. It is possible there would be some shared type commuting but that would be a dollar and choice exercise. An admitted downside will be that once all the national fleet is autonomous you will have to go somewhere special if you want to drive a museum piece. But think how much safer the roads will be without distracted, drunk and drugged drivers on the roads, not to mention the current significant number of very poor drivers. Where would be now if Henry Ford had not thought ahead and reengineered the concept of the car as a vehicle for the masses. Think of other changes, synchromesh gears, automatic gears, turn indicators, air con, seat belts, kids restraints. At the time all seemed revolutionary but now just normal. Thank dog for futurists.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about, stu.

            You’re such a refuse-to-live-in-the-real-world-brain-washed socialist you can’t do simple sums or assess real-world situations.

          • Boambee John says:

            SD

            Actually, when Stu has one of these “tomorrow belongs to me” moments, I always get the impression that he is as much trying to convince himself as much as anyone else.

            Perhaps he watched The Jetsons too much as a child? His vision for the future sounds a lot like it!

  • Ian Hore-Lacy says:

    The Ecomodernist manifesto is a good complement to this documentary, written by 17 mostly high-profile environmentalists. It makes a lot of sense and avoids the contentious detail! http://www.ecomodernism.org/

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Does anyone know of a straightforward comparison of the carbon-neutrality (for want of a better term) of a traditional coal-fired electricity generator versus a wind-farm or solar array of roughly comparable size? I don’t. It seems to me that what I read are mostly assertions, based on an N=1 sample. I think we would need to discount holes in the ground, though the Germans have dealt with that. I’ve seen accounts of what is needed to construct a large wind turbine, but not what is necessary to construct a large coal-fired generator. Then there’s the question of the length of useful service, and how you dismantle, and what you do with the unrecyclable bits. Not to mention the rare earths, child labour in poor countries, and the rest. Yes, it seems like a hard ask.

    If we are talking about choice, however, let alone saving the planet, it would seem sensible to know what these comparisons would tell us.

    • Boambee John says:

      Don

      I will ask around. Much of what is said seems to me to be “gut feel” assertion.

      Aynsley might have some knowledge of the matter?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Don, FWIW, one of the best comparisons I have ever come across is the Solar Thermal plant at Windorah. This is a different way of assessing the comparison and doesn’t provide the data you want but it is still very pertinent.

      Windorah as you know is an off-grid town in the Channel Country of Qld with about 25 premises and the Qld Govt spent some millions [they didn’t reveal the final figure but at least $100,000 per household and possibly twice that.

      The local mayor told me that the original diesel generator [which they still use for back-up] used 100,000 litres of diesel fuel per year to power the town and after the solar plant came into use I asked him how many litres of diesel fuel the generator now used.

      “Still about 100,000 litres” he said.

      So not only does it not reduce any energy cost or carbon emission but it has its own big construction carbon footprint as well as an on-going big maintenance cost and carbon footprint.

      IOW, it is a complete liability.

      Also that is an area where there is much birdlife and we know what solar thermal power plants do to birdlife.

      There has been no official cost/benefit study published that I have seen.

    • Stu says:

      Don, this is not quite what you are looking for but provides a very good comparison of the full costs of alternative generation options. It is dated 2008 but probably still current enough except that the PV and wind costs have come down considerably since then.

      https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapseReport.2012-09.CSI_.Hidden-Costs.12-013.pdf

      It does cover life cycle GHG costs as well as construction costs, subsidies, taxation, risk etc.

    • Neville says:

      Don, I have no proper data, but common sense tells us that S&W have to be backed up by either gas, coal, Hydro, Nuclear etc and these must be idling over ready to support periods of low generation at night time or cloudy still periods of low wind.
      La nina phase in OZ would have many more days of cloudy periods to reduce solar energy generation for example. This could last from many months to a couple of years , like the very wet 1970s etc.
      I think that their so called savings in co2 emissions is ridiculous and obviously none of this can save the planet or change patterns of weather or climate at all. See Royal Society & NAS study using Zickfeld study I’ve linked to many times. Maths guru Nic Lewis also partly agrees with this study IF WE WERE ABLE TO REDUCE all co2 emissions to ZERO today. Obviously this can never take place at all, just look at the NON OECD data since 1970.
      Co2 emissions since 1970 proves that the entire so called mitigation of so called climate change or CAGW is a complete con trick and fraud. See China, India and other countries ( non OECD) co2 emissions at Wiki graph.

      • Stu says:

        “common sense tells us that S&W have to be backed up by either gas, coal, Hydro, Nuclear etc ”. Once again using the extreme to justify no action. Even if “backed up” S&W can still replace a huge amount of coal etc. And then there is storage, batteries, pumped hydro, compressed air etc. And the net result is a reduction of emissions, maybe nit enough but it all helps. And dollar wise the “dispatchable” forms will keep on increasing in cost relative to the alternatives. Economics will keep it all in the mix for a long time but the mix will keep changing. Did you see the SA battery was so unsuccessful it has been enlarged?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu
          Once again using the extreme to justify no action. Even if “backed up” S&W can still replace a huge amount of coal etc.”

          You blithely slide over the CO2 emissions from stand by back up. Perhaps they should be put on the renewables side of the ledger?

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don

    Why not just send a query to:

    https://www.nla.gov.au/askalibrarian

    or similar service at other institutions?

  • Boambee John says:

    Don

    While they do not address directly your question, the following might be of interest.

    https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy

    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

    I will let you know of any more that I hear about.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Surely the most genuine test of renewable energy is one where it is completely separate from the grid as in the case of Windorah.

    Where the multiple feed-ins and back-ups are not confusing the issue.

    The cost, from the best sources I can find, was around $5 million for 25 houses [$200,000 per house] yet still needs the same f/f stand-by as powered the town previously and so does not reduce CO2 emissions in any way.

    In fact, with its huge maintenance bill, it generates ever increasing emissions plus the huge emissions involved in its construction.

    Though it was built with the best of design and expertise it’s hard to imagine a more inefficient and worthless power generating system.

    The most economical, environmental and emission-saving solution would be to remove it.

    • Stu says:

      I don’t agree Windorah is a good example. It became operational in 2008, so the technology is older than that. Has that approach been replicated elsewhere in Oz? There has been more success with molten salt etc in similar setups, which provide storage also, and standard flat panel PV systems seem to have become the mainstay such as in Canberra. And to claim they are still be using the same amount of diesel as before, the generators would have to be running full tilt all the time. Is that happening, really?

      I think a standard PV system in Alice Springs uses ordinary (unconcentrated) PV and makes use of limited battery storage so that the diesels can switch off, not run in standby. Amazing how the technology does not stand still eh.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “standard flat panel PV systems seem to have become the mainstay such as in Canberra.”

        Flat panels are OK for domestic use, albeit they still need back up for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.

        When it comes to larger scale applications like office buildings, hospitals, supermarkets or workshops, they don’t cut the mustard.

        • Stu says:

          Have you not seen the two large solar installations run by ACTEWAGL in Canberra? Seem to work pretty well by all accounts. And there are plenty of other examples of large scale flat panel installations around the country.

          “The Nyngan solar farm is currently the biggest operational plant in the southern hemisphere, generating 106 megawatts for 32,000 homes and the proposed Sunraysia farm at Balranald is expected to produce double the Nyngan effort”. So says the NSW government. AGL says the number is 43,000 homes.

          BTW, these are immense. The Nyngan site has 1.35 million panels sitting on 250 hectares of flat land. Lots of land out there.

          So I think your statement is false.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Running “pretty well” is not the same as providing sufficient reliable, continuous, electric power to support a modern economy. I will accept your point when the ACT cuts itself off from the national grid, and relies solely on renewables and battery storage.

            Or they could install pumped hydro linking Lake Burley Griffin and Black Mountain as a stirage system (noting the significant friction losses involved)?

          • Stu says:

            Your ignorance is showing. The ACT is the benificiary of the original Snowy Hydro agreement and has significant draw on the output from the Snowy scheme. They are close to 100% renewable, get over it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Is that why the ACT bought into some large wind farms out west?

            As for the hypocrisy of the ACT using Snowy Hydro to claim to be almost fully renewable, while you tout wind and solar for the deplorables elsewhere, looks like a clear case of “Bugger you lot, we’re all right”.

            Do you support the large scale construction of hydro around Australia, with interconnectors?

      • spangled drongo says:

        There were many solar thermals being built world wide before this so the technology was certainly not new.

        You don’t recall how countries went broke using molten salt?

        And the Windorah diesel didn’t run full tilt, it simply chugged along and churned out the power required by those 25 houses.

        As it still has to do to the same degree.

        25 houses of workers where no-one was at home during the day when the sun was shining but who required all the power after sundown.

        The whole concept is not only 150% inefficient, it is mindless stupidity.

        • Stu says:

          If you look again you will see I said it is old technology, not new, so you agree with me. So see the answer above to BJ flat panels are just fine and being used all over the place.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            See my answer above.

            You always mistake the satisfactory provision (with fossil backup) of a limited amount of intermittent power with supply of continuous power with only renewable backup.

          • spangled drongo says:

            There’s a very good reason for using established solar thermal tech in dry, dusty bushland, stu.

            It’s used world wide.

            I’ll leave it to your imagination.

            Yet it still doesn’t work.

            And the fact is that for lay people trying to assess the net benefits of these on-grid solar systems is very difficult but in this off-grid situation the total lack of performance is extremely obvious.

            Even for deniers like you.

            And on-grid doesn’t make them better than off-grid.

            It just disguises their uselessness.

          • Stu says:

            SD, you said “There’s a very good reason for using established solar thermal tech in dry, dusty bushland, stu.” Then you say it is useless. Well is it useful or not, you can’t have it both ways?

          • spangled drongo says:

            I know you’re naturally obtuse, stueyluv, but try not to be deliberately so.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Well is it useful or not”

            Who said it was useful?

            They unsuccessfully try to solve a function-destroying problem with a least-vulnerable approach.

            But it still doesn’t work.

            Think about it.

  • Neville says:

    Just so we understand the extent of the mitigation fraud and con trick.
    Germany decrease in co2 emissions since 1990 to 2017 is a whopping -21.5%, SARC
    The decrease in the EU is -19.5%
    The decrease in the UK is -35.6% or -14% better than the German effort.
    But in that period the world increased emissions by +63.5%.
    And China increased by +353.8% over the same period.
    Yet we’ve been told over and over by the donkeys that Germany is the trend setter for lowering emissions. Yet Germany’s emissions lowering effort is -14% behind the UK and is just 2% below the EU average for all countries. When will they wake up? Check it out.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

    • Stu says:

      Weird how you frame the question. Where is the fraud and con? Europe has shown how it is possible to reduce emissions, yes! The US has also, strangely enough, by substituting gas for coal, never mind Trump promising to restore coal jobs. The issue, not fraudulent is to get the rest of the world on board. And that task was set back when Trump walked away from the Paris agreement. So what you are left with is the answer Gibbs and Moore are pushing, wipe out half the world population, stop consuming etc. Perhaps that is why the right wing is so keen to open up from Covid, to kill as many as possible. Funny how the pro lifers have changed, but that is another story altogether.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Perhaps that is why the right wing is so keen to open up from Covid, to kill as many as possible. Funny how the pro lifers have changed, but that is another story altogether.”

        That is a disgusting, slanderous, allegation.

        I won’t bother asking you to retract, I will simply point out that it is the alarmist side that focuses on population. Gibbs and Moore are not sceptics!

        • Stu says:

          Have you been following the Trump worshippers on Fox “News” in USA? The likes of Ingraham and Hannity are right down this path. Pretty sick. Never mind the second wave, the first is going to keep on rolling. And they and Trump have effectively encouraged the dangerous behaviour overnight in Michigan with armed demonstrators storming into the Capitol building and trying to get to the chamber. That is Brown Shirt stuff, sorry if I offend you, not. I have family over there and remain deeply concerned.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You might not have noticed, but we live in Australia.

            And you ignored my point about the alarmist obsession with population.

          • Stu says:

            Sure. And where was the film made and by what people. That is the US link. Yes we are lucky to be in this blessed place, fingers crossed we are in top of the evil virus here. Regarding the alarmists, you are happy with Gibbs on one set of issues but not the rest. Very conveniant.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            I don’t care much about Gibbs’ views, except that he happens to support mine in one part if this debate. See my earlier comment about using a long spoon to sup with Moore. Same applies to Gibbs. I would not trust either of them as far as I could throw you.

            What I find amusing is watching you tie yourself in knots trying to distance yourself from someone who is strongly alarmist, but sees renewables as the waste of time and money they are (at least in their present stage of development).

            You started off claiming that Moore only lent his name to the project, and did not support the conclusions. Then you have been backpedaling ever since you had your nose rubbed in reality, and now are trying desperarely to link those two with sceptics.

            And then getting on your high horse about population reductions, apparently completely ignorant of the strong vein of misanthropy among alarmists.

            Perhaps you need to get yourself a long spoon to sup with some of your alarmist colleagues.

          • Stu says:

            Get over it Wally time to move on.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So you don’t have a coherent response, and fall back on the Peter Beattie “let’s move on”, ignoring your own failure?

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    I haven’t been following this thread for a couple of days. Frankly it becomes a bit tiresome trying to have a fact-based discussion when a couple of contributors keep lapsing into what they learned at the School of Wishful Thinking, University of Gaia. But I notice Don asked a question about comparisons between renewables of conventional energy. I have published a couple of essays at quadrant over the past couple of years dealing with some of these issues. They are available on-line:
    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/07/future-solar/
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/05/labors-plan-for-an-impoverished-energy-future/

    Unusually, the editor allowed be to list references. and I can recommend the following
    Ueckerdt, F., Hirth, L., Luderer, G., & Edenhofer, O. (2013). ‘System LCOE: What are the costs of variable renewables?’ Energy, 63, 61-75.
    They deal with the system costs of renewables – the costs that are usually conveniently ignored by advocates.

    Michael Shellenberger is worth reading. Google him, especially his articles for popular consumption in Forbes, such as:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/sola…kes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/#611d9c2e21d4
    He’s and environmentalist, form believer in climate change, who eventually decided nuclear was the only option.
    Money quote in that article:
    ‘It would take 696 storage centers the size of Tesla’s in Australia to provide just four hours of backup power for the Australian grid — and cost $50 billion;’

    With solar, its not just energy costs, but emissions of NF3 and SF6 during manufacture that need to be considered if we are interested in climate impact.

    The late Professor Sir David MacKay FRS also has a free e-bokk that’s worth reading:
    https://www.withouthotair.com/about.html

  • Neville says:

    I suppose we should update co2 level data to March 2020.
    At the Paris agreement in 2015 co2 levels reached 400 ppm for the first time, but in March 2020 co2 levels have increased to 414.5 ppm or about 2.9 ppm per year.
    Dr Lomborg showed in his peer reviewed Paris COP 21 study that even full compliance wouldn’t make any measurable difference at all to temp by 2100 and now we know that the big increase in co2 emissions (because of India+ China + developing countries) has ruled that out completely. Here’s Dr Lomborg’s 2015 PR study.
    What a con trick and fraud.

    https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

    • Stu says:

      Dr Lomborg also wrote this later on in 2016.

      “Climate change is a genuine problem that will eventually be a net detriment to society. Gradually rising temperatures across decades will increase the number of hot days and heat waves. If humans make no attempts whatsoever to adapt—a curious assumption that the report inexplicably relies on almost throughout—the total number of heat-related deaths will rise. But correspondingly, climate change will also reduce the number of cold days and cold spells. That will cut the total number of cold-related deaths.”

      “In pushing too hard for the case that global warming is universally bad for everything, the administration’s report undermines the reasonable case for climate action. Focusing on only the bad side of the ledger destroys academic and political credibility.”

      Yin and Yang. And of course temperature is not the only thing affected.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Why are you so adamantly opposed to adaptation?

        It is quite clear that India, China and the rest of the developing nations have no intention of controlling, let alone reducing, their CO2 emissions, so nothing that the developed nations do can mitigate that increase.

        The only choice is adaptation, which does not exclude renewables, but does not rely on them.

        Or do you have another agenda?

        • Stu says:

          BJ, you wrote “Why are you so adamantly opposed to adaptation?”. Fun fact, I am not. In fact we have no other choice do we? Adapt or die. But on the other hand why are you so totally opposed to doing anything to try and reduce, even slightly, the amount of adaptation required. Unless new technologies are tried they cannot develop. We might have plenty of gas here now, and some question that, but bugger all oil, leaving us exposed to world events. Surely a mix provides a safety net whether it helps with the global climate or not.

          But you seem to be rooted in the very ancient “leave things just as they are” mentality of all the people who have opposed progress for centuries. Your opposition to developing an energy mix including renewables (which are getting better, cheaper and way more competitive all the time) is not unlike the folk who warned that people would die if they travelled in a steam train faster than a horse and that canal boats were much nicer than smelly steam trains. Imagine if the mill workers of Lancashire had opposed steam power because “we have always relied on water power and the emissions from those coal boilers will cause smogs”. Maybe the world would be better had there been more of your type back then. But not now.

          If you are over 80 I can understand your position, it goes with the age, if not, I find your position puzzling.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You continue to have difficulty with seeing what is written, rather than what you expect to see written. I wrote:

            “adaptation, which does not exclude renewables, but does not rely on them.”

            I do not reject the concept of renewables, but I do not think we should be putting massive resources into what is a relatively mature technology which shows little prospect of further advance without a technical breakthrough.

            On the subject of “reduce, even slightly, the amount of adaptation required”, surely HELE coal, which produces significant CO2 emissions reductions is worthy of consideration. However, coal in any form remains haram to alarmists, as does gas, which you noted earlier had helped the US to reduce CO2 emissions.

            I am not over 80 (are you ageist?), but I am capable of seeing the weaknesses of renewables, notably intermittency and unreliability. I am also capable of understanding that the scale of current technology batteries required to cover the gaps in renewable supplies is unattainable.

            Question for you, why do you delight in forecasting the relatively imminent demise of all coal fired power stations? Can you guarantee that renewables can deliver reliable, continuous, power at levels adequate to support a modern civilisation?

  • Stu says:

    BTW you can see a good image of the flat panels out of Nyngan if you go to Google Earth and search for Nyngan Solar Farm. Quite an array. Any bigger and you would see it from space! The same applies to the Royalla and Mt Majura solar farms in the ACT.

    • Neville says:

      Gosh stu and co2 levels have increased by 2.9mm a year since Paris in 2015.
      That’s the highest per year increase ever and YET you STILL BELIEVE in your S&W idiocy. Still a red hot con merchant who either doesn’t understand the data or chooses to ignore it.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Quite an array. Any bigger and you would see it from space!”

      I suspect that you are seeing it from space.

      Fun fact, you could clearly see roads from space with the original ERTS product in the 1970s, and could also pick up long linear objects like high voltage power transmission lines. Large solar arrays are child’s play to see.

      • Stu says:

        Trust you to miss the point. Forget the space view, Google shows very large arrays of flat panels. Which either you or Neville (I forget which, you both say the same things anyway) said were no use except on houses. Have a look.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          As usual, you see what you expect to see.

          My principal concern relates to unreliability. Night falls, and sometimes the wind doesn’t blow. Backup is always needed, and current technology batteries don’t cut the mustard.

          Drop your Jetson style imaginings, and try to understand practical realitiy.

        • Don Aitkin says:

          Stu,

          solar panels are weak sources of power, and you need lots and lots of them to make a difference. Large arrays might support a dozen or so houses over a year in terms of their total power needs.

          I suggest you read Aynsley Kellow’s two pieces that he has linked, and show me (and others) where you think he is wrong. And in general terms, as you will remember from earlier pieces of mine, the primary job of the Australian Government is to look after Australians, not to join international collaborations to solve international problems whose reality is dubious, and where there is no indication that the major players will join the initiative.

          • Don Aitkin says:

            And the great Tesla battery in South Australia can support the electricity needs of the State for just four minutes.

          • Ian Hore-Lacy says:

            Not even that Don. Most of the capacity is for ancillary services.
            About 70 MW of the capacity is contracted to the state government to provide grid stability and system security, including frequency control ancillary services (FCAS) in time frames 6 seconds to five minutes. The other 30 MW of capacity has three hours storage, and is used as load shifting by Neoen for the adjacent wind farm. It has proved capable of very rapid response for FCAS, supplying up to 8 MW for about 4 seconds before slower contracted FCAS cut in when frequency dropped below 49.8 Hz.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry, just been measuring rainfall and of course above should be 2.9 ppm per year not mm.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps I should clarify my point about co2 levels since 1988 or 350 ppm.
    Therefore co2 levels have increased by 64.5 ppm in the last 32 years or about 2 ppm per year over that time.
    But in the last 5 years that number has increased again by nearly an extra 1 ppm every year compared to the 32 year average of 2 ppm.
    And all this after the Paris cop 21 BS and fraud. Little wonder that Dr Hansen was so hostile in the Guardian interview in Dec 2015. He probably truly understood what these donkeys had agreed to and that’s why he spat the dummy.
    IOW the whole co2 increase is getting worse as time goes by, yet no journalist has bothered to explain this to the public. Fair dinkum you couldn’t make this stuff up.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, like with the wu-flu, progressive western wankers don’t wish to discuss the facts.

      We can’t embarrass the guilty.

    • Stu says:

      Question. What would the rise per year be now if there were no renewable sources in the world that would otherwise require additional conventional sources? The latter would be coal, oil and gas as the world seems to have “cooled” to the idea of more nuclear.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Not a great deal different because of the CO2 emitting spinning reserve that must always be there.

        Or we could go nuclear.

        • Boambee John says:

          Sorry, haram!

        • Stu says:

          Sorry but I think you are wrong on that. The renewables have replaced swathes of coal power across Europe. Those plants are not sitting “spinning in reserve” they are not there anymore. A bit like the ones that used to dot the shores of the Tuggerah lakes. And they took quite a bit of disposing.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            And there are all those French nuclear power stations that can cover the gaps.

            PS, you are aware that the Germans are digging up lots of brown coal, aren’t you? Or perhaps not, you tend to look for what you want to see.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “The renewables have replaced swathes of coal power across Europe. Those plants are not sitting “spinning in reserve”’

            You don’t pay attention do you stu:

            “Almost half of the Name Plate value of Power generation in Germany, the UK and France in 2019 was Weather Dependent Renewables, Wind (Onshore and Offshore) and on Grid Solar PV. However those installations contributed less than one fifth of the power output. Being unsynchronised and their times of production was poorly coordinated with demand, so that power output was often effectively worthless or indeed damaging to Grid stability, In addition the mandated “Renewables Obligation” meant that those vagaries could only be supported by dispatchable power from conventional sources, mainly Gas-firing, Nuclear and an amount of Coal / Lignite. By European and Government policy these high quality, controllable and dispatchable resources were often forced to work inefficiently and thus non-profitably to maintain Grid frequency and consistency.”

            Not only is Germany’s supply questionable it is the world’s most expensive.

            And why is France the world’s greatest exporter of electricity?

          • Don Aitkin says:

            Any link to ‘took quite a bit of disposing’? Costs would be most welcome.

  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s the NOAA Mauna Loa co2 level data for March 2020.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      Stu,
      Germany hs not substantially reduced its GHG emissions for almost a decade because of the need to operate its coal plants below optimal load (therefore less efficiently) and France has increased as consumption as it has increased wind generation (which is a blight on the landscape) because its nuclear plant cannot cope with the variability of wind output.

      • Stu says:

        What you say is affected by the decision to phase out nuclear power. They are running late on the original plan but I understand will be down to 6 plants from 19 by the end of this year. That has required an offset with both renewables and extending the life of the charming lignite burners. Many folk here love nuclear but it seems the Germans are not so keen. They are still looking for somewhere to store the 28,000 tonnes of very toxic waste. Maybe we could help them!
        Britain is a better example of the switch to renewable, why don’t people quote their figures?

  • Stu says:

    BJ, wrote “ Question for you, why do you delight in forecasting the relatively imminent demise of all coal fired power stations? ”

    Where do you find that? I would love to see their demise but it is not happening. In fact as you posted the world is still building more. And on the other hand here in Oz I cannot see signs of any new one being built here to replace the now quite old ones reaching end of life. You know that because you keep bleating about it. So what do you think will happen?

    As with the rest of this debate, we have two levels one national and the other international. Not always the same but in a safe world there is an obligation to co-operate for the best total outcome.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      So when you quoted that AEMO report from the SMH, you were regretting the potential loss of back up power for your pet renewables? Give it a break Stu, you regularly forecast the end of coal fired power generation in Australia.

      Though somehow I doubt that you remember much of what you post here

      • Stu says:

        I do forecast the end of coal fired power in Australia but probably not for twenty or so years. Happy.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          And can you guarantee that renewables and battery/pumped hydro storage will then provide continuous, reliable power at the correct frequency and voltage, adequate to support a modern industrial society with the same or larger population as now?

          Do you expect to be alive in 20 years time? Perhaps one of the younger commenters could offer you an updated version of the Julian Simon bet that Ehrlich lost in the 1980s? Would you take it on?

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    For some reason this comment has been stuck in moderation since 10.22 this morning, so I ma assuming there a technical issue and trying again.

    I haven’t been following this thread for a couple of days. Frankly it becomes a bit tiresome trying to have a fact-based discussion when a couple of contributors keep lapsing into what they learned at the School of Wishful Thinking, University of Gaia. But I notice Don asked a question about comparisons between renewables of conventional energy. I have published a couple of essays at quadrant over the past couple of years dealing with some of these issues. They are available on-line:
    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/07/future-solar/
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/05/labors-plan-for-an-impoverished-energy-future/
    Unusually, the editor allowed be to list references. and I can recommend the following
    Ueckerdt, F., Hirth, L., Luderer, G., & Edenhofer, O. (2013). ‘System LCOE: What are the costs of variable renewables?’ Energy, 63, 61-75.
    They deal with the system costs of renewables – the costs that are usually conveniently ignored by advocates.
    Michael Shellenberger is worth reading. Google him, especially his articles for popular consumption in Forbes, such as:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/sola…kes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/#611d9c2e21d4
    He’s and environmentalist, form believer in climate change, who eventually decided nuclear was the only option.
    Money quote in that article:
    ‘It would take 696 storage centers the size of Tesla’s in Australia to provide just four hours of backup power for the Australian grid — and cost $50 billion;’
    With solar, its not just energy costs, but emissions of NF3 and SF6 during manufacture that need to be considered if we are interested in climate impact.
    The late Professor Sir David MacKay FRS also has a free e-bokk that’s worth reading:
    https://www.withouthotair.com/about.html

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Aynsley, the reason is the number of URLs in your post. WordPress puts any comment with more than one link into moderation, and I was busy today, so I didn’t see your problem until just now.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Aynsley, Good stuff. FYI, usually if your comment has more than 2 links it has trouble getting through.

    • Stu says:

      Aynsley,
      Thanks for those links. I liked the McKay book, it seems very balanced. A pity he has passed on as it would be nice to see an update reflecting things that have changed. For example LED’s have advanced (trivial in the scheme of things) and offshore wind has advanced to where they are now commissioning 12MW systems and there is the prospect of modular nuclear.

      In fact much of the wind construction in the last year or so in the UK has been 8, 10 and 12 MW systems which has a dramatic impact on price.

      He does not mention Australia which is a pity. And regarding Nuclear the issue clearly is political rather than technical.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        And Germany started closing its nuclear plants, after Fukushima, for purely political reasons. Now they increase their use of brown coal! Great for the atmosphere!

        Sensible alarmists recognise that nuclear is the path to continuous, reliable power for a modern society. Wildly optimistic ones tout solar, wind and batteries, and cross their fingers hoping for a technical breakthrough. Raving misanthropic idiots like Gibbs and Moore reject them all, and dream of genocide (but with themselves amongst the survivors).

        • Stu says:

          All very true. So how do you propose to negate the current opposition by both sides of politics here to the idea of nuclear? Looks like a big task to me and I am keen to see you try. I am in for it. Meantime it is an ongoing lose/lose situation. And you will have to import all the technology and skills as we have none here. Even if you succeed it will be a long time to starting a project then years for construction and commissioning. So in the meantime perhaps we should persist with a suitable amount of viable alternatives, maybe even “clean coal” if someone can solve the economic problems.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Unfortunately, both sides are totally corrupted by decades of Green/environmentai/alarmist propaganda. Efforts are being made, but it will take a couple of major blackouts after a couple of coal fired plants close for reality to dawn.

            At that point, modular nuclear will be accepted. Being modular, everything will need to be imported, reactors, staff, fuel rods. The lot. But we already import major elements of current power plants, including renewables.

            There are plenty of examples of earlier generation modular reactors in nuclear powered naval vessels. Times for building the reactor are likely to be a lesser problem that overcoming the political problem.

            This is not to say that there are no applications for solar/wind/batteries, but they suit smaller isolated users, not major population centres.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Clean coal, aka HELE, will be the obvious immediate reaction to major blackouts, built on the site of an existing coal fired power station.

            The “economic problems”, many of which stem from green tape/lawfare, will pale into insignificance compared to the cost of a couple of major blackouts in Sydney or Melbourne. (Brisbane is probably pretty safe for the moment, as Queensland has some newer coal fired stations.)

          • Stu says:

            BJ, but do you have any idea how to even begin demolishing the lethargic through to fanatical opposition to nuclear. I declare a bias. Many years ago I knew a nuclear engineer in the UK who was building new plants. He convinced me that properly engineered and managed it was very safe, very reliable and very effective. I still recall the almost go ahead at Murrays Beach in Jervis Bay. Alas it never happened. I remain sceptical it will ever happen here.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            The current opposition to nuclear is semi-religious in nature. It took 40 or 50 years to get to this stage. We don’t have that much time to reverse the opposition. I think that only major power outages will cut the Gordian knot.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Latest info on full life costs [Bloomberg]

    http://archive.is/oYr89

    Personally, I expect that future developments in producing hydrogen from water will hopefully get rid of all these wind farms and acres of solar farms.

    You just need to spend a similar amount of effort on hydrogen catalysts compared to the millions spent on fusion (with little progress).

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      Chris, the source of that report is Bloomberg NEF – NEF stands for New Energy Finance. ‘Bloomberg’ you might recognise from Moore’s movie.
      If you want reliable figures, try Lazard.com. They are a reliable and neutral source of advice on both renewables – firmed -and storage. Bloomberg NEF gievs the LCOE, which ignores the system integration costs (including transmission, storage, etc). What is important is the System Levellised Cost of Energy.

      • Ian Hore-Lacy says:

        That LCOE compared with system cost distinction is vitally important, and if our policy makers don’t see that we will end up in a terrible mess. We are already on the way there it seems with AEMO contemplating 75% renewables, ie about 70% wind and solar.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps we should remind ourselves again of the start of the Ind Rev in about 1750 in the UK.
    Then co2 levels were about 280 ppm and increased to about 283 ppm by 1800.
    Today we’ve been told by McKibben and Dr Hansen + many other scientists + IPCC that the 1988 co2 level of 350 ppm is the safe level and we must strive to reduce co2 ASAP.
    But co2 levels in March 2020 are now 414.5 ppm or 64.5 ppm higher than 1988. Of course the increase in co2 levels 1800 to 1988 is 67 ppm or just a little more than the increase of 64.5 ppm from 1988 to 2020.

    The first increase took 180 years and the latest increase just 32 years for similar addition via mainly NON OECD co2 emissions since 1988 ( look up the data). Anyone not understand the problem and the very simple sums involved?

    Also the CSIRO tell us that the SH is the NET SINK for co2 and the NET SOURCE is the NH and this will be the case for a very long time. At the moment the SH population is about 0.8 bn and the NH is about 6.9 bn or probably higher by 2020. And the SH countries emit just 7% of human emissions of co2 per year (but zero net emissions).

    Obviously the world needs to find new cheap, reliable base-load power to meet our future needs like modular nukes, or fusion ( but when?), or hydrogen or who knows what? S&W + batteries are an environmental disaster and can never power our modern world economies and should be dropped immediately in favour of HELE coal or Gas etc. Adaptation plus R&D + new tech is the only answer and the sooner the better.

  • Neville says:

    Interesting that the USS Ronald Reagan flight deck covers about 4.5 acres, yet a much smaller area 20 stories below deck holds the Nuclear plant that could easily provide the power for a 100,000 population and doesn’t need refueling for over 20 years.
    I’m sure new safe,modular nukes could service our needs for now and have a service life of at least 50 years, but I doubt any government would pursue the introduction of nuclear energy during an election campaign any time soon.

    https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03lD4mAo4Cwx2ILzfc-lAt6NZ8ufw%3A1588549185618&ei=QVavXpmzJcfF4-EPpPCIWA&q=nuclear+power+source+and+fueling++for++uss+ronald+reagan&oq=nuclear+power+source+and+fueling++for++uss+ronald+reagan&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDoECAAQRzoHCCMQsAIQJzoECCEQClDGYFjUigRg1NgEaABwAngAgAGUAogB80uSAQcwLjMyLjE2mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjZ16rv7pjpAhXH4jgGHSQ4AgsQ4dUDCAw

  • Neville says:

    People suffering from CV-19 have been found to suffer very low blood oxygen levels and doctors are amazed that some patients are still conscious while suffering such low levels.
    Fortunately a pulse oximeter can be used to register the early warning signals.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/05/mysterious-amazingly-low-oxygen-levels-how-pulse-oximeter-gives-the-first-warning-of-coronavirus/

  • spangled drongo says:

    More lies told about our planet by the usual suspects; the Con, who else?

    The author, Sebastian Leuzinger, acknowledges in passing that increased carbon dioxide helps plants grow faster and larger, and even improves their use of water. He attempts to dismiss this by putting the worst possible spin on it, suggesting that the primary result is people will have to more frequently engage in the unpleasant task of mowing our lawns. Leuzinger also complains that more abundant, faster-growing plant life will not necessarily absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. . But we don’t want all or most of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide to be locked away forever.

    Higher carbon dioxide levels and modest warming have resulted in crop yields setting records nearly every year. This is much more impactful than mowing lawns more frequently, and an incredible benefit for human health and welfare. Also, greater crop yields mean we can preserve more open spaces for the environment rather than farms.

    https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-arent-good-news-even-if-some-plants-grow-faster-137235

    • Stu says:

      SD “Higher carbon dioxide levels and modest warming have resulted in crop yields setting records nearly every year. ”. Wow, that is a big call. We have been down this path before, acknowledging other contributors like improved crop varieties, pest controls, machinery, understanding of soils etc but to put the insignificant (as you have said of it) increase in CO2 as the driver of crop records “nearly every year” surely is a stretch too far. Worth a good laugh though.

      • spangled drongo says:

        What’s worth a laugh, stu, is those who are incapable of assessing the bleedin’ obvious for themselves.

        Just as you have never taken note of the other strong indicators of the real world outside your window such as sea levels, you obviously have paid no attention to growth and greenness of that part of the countryside vegetation that is not supported by any personal attention from humans and only owes its improvement to what happens “naturally”.

        There is a huge sea-change right under your very nose if you ever bothered to pay attention.

        • Stu says:

          You are avoiding the issue. As you often say “show the data”. Prove your point about the repeated record crop yields brought about by rising CO2. And while you are at it check on the research indicating reductions in nutrition occurring .

          • spangled drongo says:

            You are the one doing the avoiding, stu. It has been established for a long time that extra carbon dioxide is the wonder fertilizer that has greened deserts and created a global crop boom, but you have been brainwashed to think that just because plants love CO2 that more of it won’t be an utter disaster come to wreck your dinner! Yet again, we are at the tipping point, and everything is just about to fall apart. How unlucky can one planet be!

            If you are convinced of this stupidity please provide one scientific study to support your POV.

            But in the meantime there are many that describe the benefits;

            https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/20/20-new-papers-higher-co2-global-warming-increase-crop-yields-green-the-earth-reduce-weather-extremes-extend-human-life/

          • Stu says:

            SD here are some words from a science paper on the subject “Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are likely to increase grain yield but reduce grain protein concentration (Lam et al., 2012). Comparison between elite wheat et al., 2010). To achieve higher yield with a high grain protein concentration requires ever greater rates of nitrogen fertilizer. As this can be associated with negative environmental consequences, the nitrogen perspective raises a series of interacting issues that need to be managed.“

            This is from ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729760/

            There are plenty more like it. Do we really need to go down that path of he said/she said

  • Neville says:

    More wonderful news that some of the fools who’ve tried to stop Michael Moore’s new doco have now been instructed by a judge to pay the legal fees to some other parties for their past misdeeds.
    This doesn’t directly apply to Moore, Gibbs etc but the main action taken was a dispute over the previous claims made about so called renewables like S&W.
    Michael Mann is also allied with this group and has tried to shut down Moore’s access to You tube as well. Just incredible that Mann is the person most frequently called upon to argue the case for the US DEMS in the Reps and the Senate.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/04/30/stanford-professor-cant-muzzle-planet-of-the-humans-must-pay-defendants-legal-fees-in-slapp-suit/#51d543fce0ac

  • Neville says:

    Peta Credlin will cover Moore’s new Planet of the Humans doco on her Sky News show sometime after 6 pm tonight.
    I hope Peta will devote enough time and have a good debate about the BS and fraud of so called renewable energy, but we’ll have to wait and see.

  • Stu says:

    Not quite related to the subject of this thread but here goes anyway. I just watched the press conference on Covid-19 from Canberra. Something that struck me was the gulf between the performance of Morrison and Trump. Like him or loathe him I believe Morrison shows the bearing, knowledge, skill etc to talk off the cuff on a wide variety of subjects in a very calm and convincing manner. It contrasts with watching a little earlier several events presided over by a totally inarticulate bit player out of his depth totally as President of the USA. We are very lucky to have a system that generally provides leaders with a capacity to lead.

    Perhaps Don could use his considerable knowledge and experience to give us an update on the Trump experiment in the USA.

  • Neville says:

    Stu have you been asleep for the last few months? Here Rita Panahi gives a very good summary of Trump’s Dem rival for President and there’s a lot more available on You tube.
    How this creepy fool could be seriously considered for President of the US is probably the joke of the century. Just watch some of Rita’s examples and plenty more to come as they head toward November.

  • Stu says:

    Neville, never mind your political leanings, are you really saying you think Trump is smart enough to be president and is doing a great job? If so you have a very low benchmark for performance. It is fascinating that people now think George W is incandescent compared to Trump.

    Everything he says and does is about him. He is full of praise for what he has done. Sane people don’t do that. He is so picked upon, even worse than Lincoln. Does he not remember what happened to Lincoln. No he probably does not. He thinks the revolutionists took over all the airports in 1776. He thinks it might work to inject bleach to fight Corona virus.Remember, much will be revealed when he is out of office and various investigations into the corruption of his presidency are concluded. Come on tell me you think he is coherent when talking without notes or a teleprompter. And when he is using those he struggles to read.

    Biden may be getting old but is not as mentally incapacitated as Trump, who suffers serious narcissistic personality disorder. Apparently he scores on every measure of the diagnostic test.

    His supporters, I assume including you, say he has done a great job building the worlds best economy. Excuse me if I say hooray fuck. He inherited the best economy from Obama who rebuilt it after the GFC with obstruction from the Republicans. And the GDP growth the last three years has been lower than in Obama’s last three years. And now he presides over a train wreck of an economy. That is not his fault, but history shows incumbent presidents need a strong economy for re-election.

    The Republican power brokers like McConnell et al are starting to get nervous. Do you want to place a bet against them activating the 25th Amendment? Of course the Democrats would have to back that action and they may well say, “no you kept him despite impeachment, you wear him, right through to the election.

    He did not drain the swamp, he refilled it. He did not build his wall and Mexico has not paid any money. He has worked to destroy the post war order without having a replacement. He has not revoked Obamacare. The Chinese have not paid the tariffs but Americans have. Iowans cant sell their beans. The coal mines have not reopened. He has made a mess of handling Covid-19, and as I wrote above compare him with Morrison, night and day image. He would not play golf but has played more in three than Obama in 8 and has made millions out of it while doing so. He has 25 sexual assault allegations pending including one where he is refusing to provide DNA which would clear him if innocent. He has not released his tax returns as promised, too revealing presumably. He has flaunted the emoluments clause of the constitution. His best “friends” are all dictators, not leaders of the free world. And so it goes on. Certainly he has been unconventional, but to what final purpose.

    But from what you have written over previous months I can quite understand why you think he is wonderful. But it is not down to us to judge. The American people have the say and barring efforts to undermine voter turn out and other gerrymandering processes the Republicans engage in we should get a clear answer on Nov3 (4/here). Of course there is the unknown response of the gun toting morons that Trump is encouraging (eg Michigan) which could end badly if he claims he has been defrauded. Such a claim would of course be ludicrous given that he runs the Government. But as Don would know the US does not have an equivalent of our Electoral Commission, so anything is possible including the Republicans stealing the election. Watch this space.

    I will not predict the winner. But I will predict that if he wins Merica will be one step closer to becoming the Untied States or the Dis-united states. They are close now. Life will go on here either way, but his fingers are not safe on the nuclear buttons.

    You perhaps are a manifestation of the often quoted Trump Derangement Syndrome. The one where people think Trump is Presidential, Statesmanlike or even moderately intelligent. But there you go!

  • Neville says:

    Geeezzzz silly stu tries to put words into our mouths. For the record I can say that Trump isn’t my preferred type of President and I’m sure the Republicans have a dozen better people they could call on.
    But creepy Joe is ACTUALLY the Dems fresh CHOICE and this shows the clueless nature of that very left wing party. If the Bernie Sander’s supporters really spit the dummy in Nov he’ll be toast anyway and even more so if Hilary is his choice for VP running mate.
    But I agree that Morrison is very impressive and his mighty personal effort over the last week or so in May ’19 carried the Coalition over the line. But then again he had that scared rabbit in the spotlight Shorten to lend him full support.

  • Neville says:

    The UK seems to be further advanced in Fusion energy research than other countries, but I’m sure the US, Russia, Japan, China, the EU, India etc all have teams working on this so far mission impossible quest.
    Here in this 2018 TED talk Fusion scientist/ Engineer Melanie Windridge provides us with the latest design info on this source of energy that powers the stars and of course our sun.
    It all seems to be the impossible dream and so far it has certainly proven to be so. Who knows one day fusion modular plants could be running off assembly lines all over the world, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

  • Ted1. says:

    I regarded Michael Moore as not a complete fool. Some of his output made sense. But this blows all the boundaries. Why?

    Is this driven by his recognition that the scam has reached the limit of its lies? That the campaign is about to collapse? I suspect so, though he himself may not have really been a scammer anyway.

    This doco should bring the whole AGW scam down in a pile of ashes.

    For me it was an absolute stunner to see Bill McKibben passionately promoting wood chipping. How the wheel can turn!

  • Stu says:

    For those interested here is a link to a very thorough critique of “Planet of the Humans”. It points out some serious issues with the film. For those without time or inclination I will say one of the major problems covered is the use of outdated footage, sometimes with very suspect intent, eg the California Solar Farm and the emotion charged mountain top removal story. Also cases of quoting academic reports from way back that have been updated with counter claims to that shown in the movie. Poor film making.

    https://youtu.be/ZmNjLHRAP2U

    If anyone does watch it I would be interested in the response.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Shock, horror!! Michael Moore is intellectually dishonest!

      Most of us knew this years ago, but “progressives” loved him until he used his standard techniques to get stuck into one of their sacred cows.

      FWIW, I think that, like a stopped clock, he is (possibly accidentally) on the money this time. There is plenty of evidence of environmental harm caused by the blind pursuit of renewables, including cobalt mines in the Congo, rare earth processing in China, land clearing in the US to feed Drax, harm to people and endangered species caused by wind farms, the massive amounts of concrete and steel need to build them, land clearing for large scale solar farms.

      I could go on, but I hope that you get the message.

      • Stu says:

        You have not watched it have you? If you had it would be other points you would be raising. And it is not Moore, it is Gibbs. The former is prominent now but all the footage is Gibbs. Did you like the bit about the festival venue power source? Oh I forgot you have not seen it.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          If you had paid attention earlier in the thread, you would have seen Moore giving support to Gibbs. It seems that your idol having feet of clay is too much to bear.

          And the festival power source also got a mention above. Do try to keep up.

          Do you deny the points I made above? Still burying your head in the sand?

          • Stu says:

            Once again. Forget about Moore. Did you watch the video? If yes then respond to the very valid points made in it. Just the time lines are a total demolishing. The Gibbs movie is rubbish. Yes.

          • Stu says:

            Sorry I should have added the bit about the festival power source. That was year one of the festival, 2005. Had Gibbs been honest and shown how it developed you would see a completely different picture. Same is true of Apple and Google, things change a lot when you cover the current picture, not decades old data. Sick, sick, journalism., But you would know all that if you watched the video.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Sick, sick, journalism., But you would know all that if you watched the video.”

            So pretty much normal standard for modern journalism, except that this time it was your sacred cow under attack.

            That kind of practiceis modern journalism exemplified, just with a different target.

  • Stu says:

    BJ “That kind of practiceis modern journalism exemplified, just with a different target.”. Really? I am not sure I would describe Borlace as a journalist. Any way you imply this video is “poor” journalism. Please explain how fact checking, explaining misrepresentations etc is not good journalism. It is what Gibbs and Moore should have done, but did not, because it would not have suited their narrative.

    As I indicated above but you refuse to acknowledge there are some real howlers in the POTH. The solar festival is just one. The movie shows how things started out way back in 2005 when the whole show represented an aspirational goal. They had no money so begged and borrowed. A small scale solar PV system for demo purposes and a backup generator because they had no batteries. The festival has grown and well before now has been fully solar both in real time and in generated offsets throughout the year. But Gibbs did not bother to check things now and update his story, poor journalism.

    Similarly his “solar dead zone” neatly showed the interval between the original system which utilised what in PV terms is very old technology with a brand new system running since 2015. He even used some emotive phrases like the “growing sand dunes” as part of his misleading show. Poor journalism not to check the full story.

    Same story with Lansing. A very old system since updated. As Borlace says it is akin to doing a show on the usefulness of mobile phones and basing it on the original Motorola Brick. Not very informative except to deceive.

    Similarly his attempts to defame groups like Sierra because of links to Bloomberg are demolished. That by the way was back in 2011 and was to help them with an anti coal project.

    And so it goes on through the entire movie.

    People, not BJ, I urge you to view the video. You may not agree with it all but you might learn what a misleading piece of filmmaking the POTH is.

    Here is the link again.

    https://youtu.be/ZmNjLHRAP2U

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      I know you are a bit slow, so I will explain again.

      I have no respect for Moore as a documentary maker. He always edits and twists to meet an agenda. I disagree violently with his current agenda, which seems to favour population control at a genocidal level.

      As you might be aware, I see no reason to believe that renewables at their present state of development can provide reliable, continuous, electric power al levels to support a modern industrial state. I also think that their adverse impact on the environment is greatly underestimated. Moore and Gibbs attack that understatement using the usual tricks of advocacy documentary making, tricks that got Moore acclaim for his earlier work. They do this as an introduction to their real agenda.

      I am amused by the reaction of the Green Blob to this attack on its renewables gravy train. That reaction is exemplified by the video you are pushing, itself another advocacy documentary.

      Neither of them changes my views on renewables, but both confirm my scepticism about advocacy documentary makers.

      • Stu says:

        Great, so you agree the documentary by Gibbs/Moore is total rubbish. Fine, then don’t try and have it that it supports your backward looking view of the world. Because the negative holds true. The movie is rubbish, what they attack is clearly good technology and responsive to climate problems, where are you on that? And so we beat around the bush again. Don’t bother.

  • Neville says:

    Do our two laughable donkeys really believe the nonsense they link to?
    Attenborough telling us to live frugally and uphold the Paris fairy tale is beyond belief.
    Can’t any of these fools add up very simple sums over the last 32 years or even the last 5 years? Actually less than 5 years, so over 3 ppm per year from DEC 2015 to March 2020 or about 4.5 years.
    The world’s co2 level has increased by 64.5 ppm since 1988 ( 2 ppm per year) and has increased by 3 ppm since DEC 2015. In March 2020 it has reached 414.5 ppm and we know that’s because of China, India and the rest of the NON OECD developing countries.
    And they have hundreds of new coal power stns to come over the next few years and beyond. Ask yourselves why they’re NOT building all of their new energy requirements from fraudulent S&W energy?
    And do I really have to link to the real world data since 1970, 1990 and 2015 AGAIN? We know you just love your BS and fraud and all the rest of your fantasy world, but don’t expect the rest of us to fall for it.

    • Stu says:

      “Ask yourselves why they’re NOT building all of their new energy requirements from fraudulent S&W energy?”

      Answer. Probably something to do with the FRAUDULENT actions of the coal lobby which has much to lose so pours vast monies into the campaigns of which you are a possibly an innocent dupe. But I love the way you think those forces are squeaky clean and not fearful of losing their influence and money. Massive gullibility on show.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        So, absolutely nothing to do with the times when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine? I continue to be amazed by the power of Big Coal to control the sun and the wind!

        The open fear of the renewables lobby that they might lose their influence and money shows in their reaction to the Moore/Gibbs mockumentary.

        • Stu says:

          No, not at all, it is about the total picture. Meantime this is what really goes on.

          “A gas industry union leader and chair of a group funded by California’s largest gas utility threatened to protest with “no social distancing” a vote last month on a city policy in San Luis Obispo that would support electrification in new buildings, according to emails obtained by Climate Investigations Center and first reported in the Los Angeles Times. That threat to bus in hundreds of protesters, “potentially adding to this pandemic,” apparently worked as San Luis Obispo city officials have postponed the April 7 vote on its Clean Energy Choice Program indefinitely.

          And while the March 16 protest threat preceded right-wing reopen groups protesting stay-at-home orders across the country, both have something in common — an appearance of grassroots organizing with underlying ties to big funders including fossil fuel interests.”

          And just look at what is going on here in recent days with Clean Energy initiatives. Same story, minus the protest threats.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Sounds just like the reaction of the renewables lobby to the Moore/Gibbs effort.

            This might come as a surprise to you, but people are remarkably unhappy about losing their jobs and futures.

          • Stu says:

            “people are remarkably unhappy about losing their jobs and futures.”. Very true, and that has been going on for centuries. The realists appreciate that there are more, and better, jobs in the renewable sector. Better to get with the future than cling to a disappearing past. But of course that is standard fare for reactionaries. If the cap fits mate, wear it. Trump’s coal miners of Appalachia are not too happy that he has not brought back the coal jobs. Something about gas and renewables. Oh dear, never mind.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “The realists appreciate that there are more, and better, jobs in the renewable sector.”

            Yet, strangely, with more and better (paid??) jobs, distributed generation requiring additional transmission lines, FCAS, the need for expensive back up for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, renewables are guaranteed to be cheaper!

            Offers still being accepted for that bridge.

          • spangled drongo says:

            ” The realists appreciate that there are more, and better, jobs in the renewable sector.”

            You mean like Drax, stu, built on top of a coal seam but instead they destroy enormous forests on the other side of the world and ship them to be burnt, producing greater amounts of CO2 for less energy.

            That is the story with all the renewable sector.

            Lose, lose, lose, lose.

            But you refuse to get it.

            What’s that called again?

          • Stu says:

            “Yet, strangely, with more and better (paid??) jobs, distributed generation requiring additional transmission lines, FCAS, the need for expensive back up for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, renewables are guaranteed to be cheaper!”. Oh, you agree, even more jobs, great.

          • spangled drongo says:

            When Moore and Gibbs are advocating that climate change has been real since the world began, it’s time even you woke up, stu.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “Oh, you agree, even more jobs, great.”

            Indeed! Highly paid, technically advanced, jobs like cleaners removing dust from solar panels, disposal crews burying wind generator blades in landfill and breaking up old concrete foundations.

            Tomorrow belongs to you!

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, your inability to recognise sarcasm is becoming legendary.

  • Boambee John says:

    Michael Moore on Extinction Rebellion.

    “I came across them last year and I thought, ‘wow, more of this.’ They’re like doing things I’m even afraid to do [laughs]. I had immediate admiration for them … for all of us to win this battle, to save the planet, to save our species and to be a different way than the way we’ve been .. we have to reach out to all kinds of organizations and people … we may not agree on everything, and that’s OK.”

    Moore followed up that praise with an interview of Extinction Rebellion co-founder Clare Farrell.”

    Extinction Rebellion behave like a bunch of fascists. Anyone who supports them deserves condemnation.

    • Neville says:

      Yes BJ and why would we be surprised that Moore would be attracted to such a mob of totalitarian barbarians?
      Their barking mad co founder even used mind altering drugs to help her see the light and develop their extremist agenda. Just the sort of crazies that an uneducated young teen should join and help in their quest to stuff up our democratic economies, NOT.
      Never mind the UN even allowed this uneducated young girl to address them and deliver her extreme hogwash and idiocy to the world.
      Of course clueless Attenborough is also a big fan and Jeremy Corbyn etc and any number of prominent lefties all around the world. And if that doesn’t enlighten us to their idiocy then nothing will.

  • Stu says:

    Oh SD, your misunderstandings and misrepresentations are showing again. “When Moore and Gibbs are advocating that climate change has been real since the world began, it’s time even you woke up, stu.“. What a waste of space. The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has seen many changes including snow ball earth and massive extinctions from asteroid impacts etc. Those changes occurred slowly over millenia with occasional faster bursts. Science agrees that the primary drivers have been orbital changes as well as cataclysmic earth based events. The issue which you and your fellow travellers cannot grasp is that the pace of change right now is rapid, and is exceeding the ability of the natural environment (plants and animals etc to you) to adapt fast enough to survive the changed conditions.

    Scientists have studied the change and sought to explain why it is occurring. All of the forces known to have caused change in the past have been examined. The only cause found so far to explain things now is the elevation of CO2 in the atmosphere with ensuing green house effects. It is not the case that scientists simply set out to prove the CO2 link, ignoring every other possible cause, as your mates continues to claim. As with all good science they have looked at everything.

    Anyone who can come up with a better answer and good science to back it up will b endowed with great praise and riches. Funny how that has not happened. Yes there are plenty of folk, some of them actually scientists, who say it is not so. Sure it is hard to prove conclusively but even harder for you to prove the negative, which is your only route as there is not as yet an alternative hypothesis, apart from your over hyped crap about natural variation.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Anyone who can come up with a better answer and good science to back it up will b endowed with great praise and riches. Funny how that has not happened.”

      Where have you been hiding, stueyluv?

      There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers, disproving that silly statement.

      But of course your collective doesn’t appreciate logic, measureable EVIDENCE and the real world, so scientific acceptance, praise and riches are denied.

    • spangled drongo says:

      IOW stu, the status quo [nat var] has been happening forever and it is up to you enuresistics to show that this climate today is any different.

      But you fail every time.

      It’s even obvious to Moore and Gibbs.

      • Stu says:

        SD. “There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers, disproving that silly statement.” Relatively a very small number and all on narrow, contested parts of the picture, but not adding up to the full unassailable position of the main thrust of climate science.

        “IOW stu, the status quo [nat var] has been happening forever and it is up to you enuresistics to show that this climate today is any different.”

        Once again you ignore, presumably deliberately, the main thrust which is the scale and timing. Natural variation cannot explain the speed and coverage of current global changes.

        I remind you once again, nothing we say here will change anything, thank dog. This is not a space where scientists are engaging in opposing research. So we can go on disagreeing and it will only piss off other people following this thread, understandably. Therefore we should let it rest. Time will prove who is on the right horse. In a shorter time frame the Northern Hemisphere summer “weather” may provide some early indicators. Let’s see eh.

        And there are much more immediate forces at work in our world with perhaps quite unforeseen consequences such as the progress of the pandemic, it’s economic consequences and probably closely related US Presidential election. I declare my hand, may the naked man lose massively, or even only just, but lose, the world cannot risk him again. A pity we don’t get a vote.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu, if you ever summon the courage to read any of those hundreds of papers showing it has all happened before and in much greater scale and faster time, using measureable EVIDENCE, as opposed to your assumption-based models and dubious proxies, you will see that the sceptic argument beats yours every time.

          When you don’t even know if clouds are a + or – feedback how can your “science” come to any conclusion?

          When it’s all based on silly models that are wrong and getting wronger with time?

          And if you’re relying on votes to prove science theories, who won the last “climate” election here?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “but not adding up to the full unassailable position of the main thrust of climate science.”

          Do you believe brother?

          As Einstein said, it doesn’t take a group of scientists (or even a lot of papers, pal reviewed or not) to disprove an hypothesis, it takes only one good empirical measurement.

  • Stu says:

    SD, BJ the best response to that rubbish is yada, yada. Just as a matter of interest can you inform us where you fit in the corona story. The reason I ask is there is a strong correlation in the US between climate denial, corona virus pushback and even the anti-vax movement. It seems to hinge on the commonality of strategy of all those groups. Here is what they say in NYT.

    “Since the outset of the crisis, elements of the right have sought to bolster the president’s political standing and justify reopening the economy by questioning the death toll. Climate-change skeptics have employed techniques perfected in the fight over global warming to raise doubts about the deadliness of the virus. Others, including Mr. Trump’s media allies as well as some in the anti-vaccine movement, have repurposed fringe theories about “deep state” bureaucrats undermining the president to argue that the official numbers should not be trusted.

    They have a found a receptive audience, and a booster of their ideas, in Mr. Trump himself. For the president, the death toll has become a pivotal political indicator, as important to his re-election prospects as his approval ratings and his standing against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in swing-state polls.

    Late last month, with the number of dead in the United States approaching 75,000, according to figures compiled by The New York Times, projections foresaw another spike in Covid-19 cases and deaths as social-distancing rules relaxed. One draft government report projected as many as 3,000 deaths a day by the end of May. Yet according to administration officials, Mr. Trump has begun privately questioning the models and the official death statistics.

    His skepticism is shared by others in an administration that has regularly disregarded the advice of scientists. ”

    So maybe you are out of line only supporting part of the trilogy.

    Meantime more seriously you are back again claiming a win with the negative science research. I have not the time to look up your far flung sources and even less interest in reading papers that cannot garner more serious support in the science community. So please give me some evidence that explains why your narrow view should be better supported by science institutions, universities, governments and plain rational, thinking humans rather than just the current narrow far right proponents who mostly have an agenda.

    • spangled drongo says:

      So what stu advocates is his usual fall-back position; bugger the facts and evidence when you can use confusion and hand-waving.

      And after his dodging and ignoring of specifics and the imperial evidence constantly supplied to him, such as lack of current SLR, factual historical warmth etc., he has the hubris to ask that we should produce evidence of his assumption of our new position.

      He certainly displays an ability, similar to all his heroes, of wild assumption and groupthink.

      Why don’t you tell us, stu, of just one of your heroes’ many warming predictions that have actually eventuated?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Your obsession with conspiracy theories is quite concerning. You regularly discuss things you follow on websites I have never heard of, and seem to assume that others share your obsession.

      Get help.

  • spangled drongo says:

    A good follow-on from Planet of the Humans:

    “The intermittent generation from wind and PV plants affects the reliability of the national electricity system, [impacting] the sufficiency, quality and continuity of power supply,” Cenace wrote in a document setting out the rules of the country’s electricity market during the Covid-19 lockdown.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/08/mexicos-president-is-betting-big-against-renewables/

  • Stu says:

    SD, Bj, Oh you guys can really excel at misreading, misrepresenting and generally buggering up an argument. I did not quote some weird conspiracy site, it was the New York Times. But like Trumps reaction to the Lincoln Project video (would you like a link to that?) you jumped right in, so I guess it really did strike a raw nerve with both of you. I am not surprised. Are you going to refuse the vaccine when they develop it?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You live in a world of wacky conspiracy theories.

      You have Big Coal and Big Oil conspiring together to oppress poor, honest, solar and wind generation, which are already saving the world. Then there is the eeeeviiil Rumperdink Mudrock using his eeeviil media empire to crush all that is good and wholesome in the world. Then you occasionally refer to a mysterious group called “Q” which is presumably linked to M and 007. Weird doesn’t begin to describe some of your conspiracy theories.

      Get help!

      • Stu says:

        BJ, why are you always so wrong in your interpretation of the written word? It is like a kind of dyslexia.

        I do not follow or subscribe to any “wacky conspiracy theories” . But I do acknowledge such things exist. “Big coal” and “Big oil” are acknowledged powerful interest groups that lobby forcefully and with considerable money. If you deny that you are a blind and ignorant.

        Murdoch is also acknowledged to at least attempt to exert a less than benign influence on political outcomes both here and in the USA. There are many credible sources that back that up. Just look at Fox news and Sky News for confirmation of a misinformation campaign. They are wrongly labelled, should be Fox Entertainment not News. Again, if you are unaware you are not looking.

        Q Anon is a weird force. It is not really understood where the base of it lies. Look at footage of any of the crazy “liberate” protests in USA and you will see Q signs. They and groups like them are behind much of the unrest and strong conspiracy rubbish laying blame for the virus on people like Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci. Again, if you don’t believe me look at the coverage of yesterdays manic protest in Melbourne where there were chants of “Arrest Bill Gates”. Explain that.

        Underlying much of that are extreme anti-vax views from people like Judy Mikovits displayed in the weird movie “Plandemic”. And from there you get to the 5G nutters burning down phone towers. Quite how the 5G turns on the virus in people they have not explained. Bizarre stuff especially in countries where there is Corona but no 5G.

        Have you come across Alex Jones? Sandy Hook was a hoax etc. Or One America Network, Trumps new go to source. One of the guys behind the tragic “pizza Gate” conspiracy theory plays in that space. It should be called “Only in America……”.

        So, they are not “my” conspiracy theories, they are just crazy conspiracy theories that exist and spread, possibly with the help of internet troll bots of unknown origin, but possibly Russian and Chinese to sow unrest. But they could equally be just dodgy right wing westerners also, mainly of US origin, but we have some here also.

        This last lot are not a threat to our existence but the fossil forces and Murdoch are.

        You are welcome to remain in denial. But if you need some light entertainment some of the stuff these groups put on the internet are really quite hilarious.

        But don’t suggest I need help. I merely seem to have more time than you to follow current events around the world. That is why I am able to check out the rubbish you promote. People who do not cross check sources widely are subject to the narrow influences of the sources they do follow. I wonder if your main electronic source is Sky News, it would seem to fit.

        Avoid the virus it is nasty. And remember half the population has less than average intelligence.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          You demonstrate the dyslexia you claim that I suffer from. See:

          “Boambee John
          May 10, 2020 at 9:43 pm
          Stu

          Your obsession with conspiracy theories is quite concerning.”

          In your long diatribe you state

          “This last lot are not a threat to our existence but the fossil forces and Murdoch are.”

          Perhaps in your obsessed mind, but not in a rational world. Spend your time more productively than wasting it on

          “merely seem to have more time than you to follow current events around the world.”

          It’s a wonderful worod. Go out and smell the roses. Hug your grandchildren. Get a life.

          • Stu says:

            “It’s a wonderful worod. Go out and smell the roses. Hug your grandchildren. Get a life.”. I have a great life and I want to leave the worod in better shape for my grand children, not worse. Cheer up grumps.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            It is sad that a few days ago you were making sensible comments about nuclear power, and now you see eeeviil conspiracies everywhere.

            You keep telling us that renewables have won the political battle, but your current obsession suggests that even you do not believe that.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “Are you going to refuse the vaccine when they develop it?”

      Poor ol’ stu carries on with his world of assumption-based blithering.

      If and when you ever get around to dealing in facts, evidence and living in the real world, stu, we can continue this discussion.

      [Now just wait for more wild assumptions]

      But don’t forget, your mate Michael Moore just told you that wind, solar and biofuel energy are devastating Planet Earth.

      Has that sunk in yet?

  • Neville says:

    The govt flu tracker up to 3-5-20 continues to show that so far this year flu infection is very low, compared to 2019 season and average of the last 5 years.
    This is the same for every state and territory and is the one positive that has come from Australia’s lockdown because of CV-19. And so far I’ve heard that flu vaccinations across OZ are very high compared with normal rates for this time of the year. Big surprise NOT.

    file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/WeeklyReport_202019_AU%20(2).pdf

  • Stu says:

    Let me rephrase into simpler form so you can follow. The coal and oil groups are a self interested lobby. It is not a conspiracy it is lobbying to maintain business profits. When they resort to misinformation or funding fringe groups to serve their ambitions it is simply scum bag behavior. A conspiracy is the creation of false narratives such as the 5G switched nano particle vaccine rubbish that has no basis in fact. Some of the climate denier activities do fall into that category. The biggest one being the total upside down argument that the climate change forces are a giant conspiracy. Good for a laugh anyway.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    Backing away from your hysteria? Good.

    The “self interested lobby” description applies equally to solar and wind connected businesses. Which claim to be offering the cheaoest power, but still need a compulsory RET. Suggest dropping that and watch the self interest come into play.

    Really, what you are complaining about is businesses you do not agree with using the same tactics as businesses you do agree with. The NYT uses the same techniques as News Ltd to make its favoured points.

    A bit like being unhappy when Moore collaborates with Gibbs to use his well established documentary techniques to get stuck into renewables. Did you criticise him when he used those deceptive techniques earlier? Of course you didn’t!

    • Stu says:

      I agree with a part of what you say there. But disagree on the claimed equivalence of NYT and Fox. The content of the NYT is by journalists reporting news plus more than a few credentialed journalists who post opinion pieces on the news. Fox is 95+% opinion or in fact entertainment by acknowledged pundits and a very small sliver from a couple of journalists, who in general do a fair job. Note that for three years Trump has regarded Fox as his support group, he even follows their lead on some topics. Many folk there are commonly referred to as Trump surrogates.

      Regarding Gibbs and Moore I will take in what you say when you make even a small attempt to respond to the points made in the Borlace response. Or failing that a reasonable explanation for using very dated, in fact negated by time, examples to bolster the emotional impact of the film. The film is not honest.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Matt Ridley’s article again about how much better our world is today and the record improvement we’ve made in the last decade.
    But this was DEC 2019 and his forecast for an even better decade ahead could be tested by CV-19. See his last paragraph. But I’m sure he’ll be correct, yet there will be harder times ahead as govt’s try and pay off debt and curb unnecessary spending. Like wasting money on idiocy like S&W energy for a guaranteed ZERO return. BTW that comment by stupid Ehrlich when he lost his bet to Simon is a classic and proves what a dope he is.
    Perhaps he was looking in the mirror at the time? Here’s Ridley’s article and the link.

    “WE’VE JUST HAD THE BEST DECADE IN HUMAN HISTORY. SERIOUSLY”

    Published on: Saturday, 21 December, 2019
    “Little of this made the news, because good news is no news

    My article from The Spectator:

    “Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time. We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 per cent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 per cent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.

    Little of this made the news, because good news is no news. But I’ve been watching it all closely. Ever since I wrote The Rational Optimist in 2010, I’ve been faced with ‘what about…’ questions: what about the great recession, the euro crisis, Syria, Ukraine, Donald Trump? How can I possibly say that things are getting better, given all that? The answer is: because bad things happen while the world still gets better. Yet get better it does, and it has done so over the course of this decade at a rate that has astonished even starry-eyed me.

    Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint of human activity is probably shrinking’ and ‘we are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet’. That is to say: our population and economy would grow, but we’d learn how to reduce what we take from the planet. And so it has proved. An MIT scientist, Andrew McAfee, recently documented this in a book called More from Less, showing how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. Not just in proportion to productivity: less stuff overall.

    This does not quite fit with what the Extinction Rebellion lot are telling us. But the next time you hear Sir David Attenborough say: ‘Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources is either a madman or an economist’, ask him this: ‘But what if economic growth means using less stuff, not more?’ For example, a normal drink can today contains 13 grams of aluminium, much of it recycled. In 1959, it contained 85 grams. Substituting the former for the latter is a contribution to economic growth, but it reduces the resources consumed per drink.

    As for Britain, our consumption of ‘stuff’ probably peaked around the turn of the century — an achievement that has gone almost entirely unnoticed. But the evidence is there. In 2011 Chris Goodall, an investor in electric vehicles, published research showing that the UK was now using not just relatively less ‘stuff’ every year, but absolutely less. Events have since vindicated his thesis. The quantity of all resources consumed per person in Britain (domestic extraction of biomass, metals, minerals and fossil fuels, plus imports minus exports) fell by a third between 2000 and 2017, from 12.5 tonnes to 8.5 tonnes. That’s a faster decline than the increase in the number of people, so it means fewer resources consumed overall.

    If this doesn’t seem to make sense, then think about your own home. Mobile phones have the computing power of room-sized computers of the 1970s. I use mine instead of a camera, radio, torch, compass, map, calendar, watch, CD player, newspaper and pack of cards. LED light bulbs consume about a quarter as much electricity as incandescent bulbs for the same light. Modern buildings generally contain less steel and more of it is recycled. Offices are not yet paperless, but they use much less paper.

    Even in cases when the use of stuff is not falling, it is rising more slowly than expected. For instance, experts in the 1970s forecast how much water the world would consume in the year 2000. In fact, the total usage that year was half as much as predicted. Not because there were fewer humans, but because human inventiveness allowed more efficient irrigation for agriculture, the biggest user of water.

    Until recently, most economists assumed that these improvements were almost always in vain, because of rebound effects: if you cut the cost of something, people would just use more of it. Make lights less energy-hungry and people leave them on for longer. This is known as the Jevons paradox, after the 19th-century economist William Stanley Jevons, who first described it. But Andrew McAfee argues that the Jevons paradox doesn’t hold up. Suppose you switch from incandescent to LED bulbs in your house and save about three-quarters of your electricity bill for lighting. You might leave more lights on for longer, but surely not four times as long.

    Efficiencies in agriculture mean the world is now approaching ‘peak farmland’ — despite the growing number of people and their demand for more and better food, the productivity of agriculture is rising so fast that human needs can be supplied by a shrinking amount of land. In 2012, Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and his colleagues argued that, thanks to modern technology, we use 65 per cent less land to produce a given quantity of food compared with 50 years ago. By 2050, it’s estimated that an area the size of India will have been released from the plough and the cow.

    Land-sparing is the reason that forests are expanding, especially in rich countries. In 2006 Ausubel worked out that no reasonably wealthy country had a falling stock of forest, in terms of both tree density and acreage. Large animals are returning in abundance in rich countries; populations of wolves, deer, beavers, lynx, seals, sea eagles and bald eagles are all increasing; and now even tiger numbers are slowly climbing.

    Perhaps the most surprising statistic is that Britain is using steadily less energy. John Constable of the Global Warming Policy Forum points out that although the UK’s economy has almost trebled in size since 1970, and our population is up by 20 per cent, total primary inland energy consumption has actually fallen by almost 10 per cent. Much of that decline has happened in recent years. This is not necessarily good news, Constable argues: although the improving energy efficiency of light bulbs, aeroplanes and cars is part of the story, it also means we are importing more embedded energy in products, having driven much of our steel, aluminium and chemical industries abroad with some of the highest energy prices for industry in the world.

    In fact, all this energy-saving might cause problems. Innovation requires experiments (most of which fail). Experiments require energy. So cheap energy is crucial — as shown by the industrial revolution. Thus, energy may be the one resource that a prospering population should be using more of. Fortunately, it is now possible that nuclear fusion will one day deliver energy in minimalist form, using very little fuel and land.

    Since its inception, the environmental movement has been obsessed by finite resources. The two books that kicked off the green industry in the early 1970s, The Limits to Growth in America and Blueprint for Survival in Britain, both lamented the imminent exhaustion of metals, minerals and fuels. The Limits to Growth predicted that if growth continued, the world would run out of gold, mercury, silver, tin, zinc, copper and lead well before 2000. School textbooks soon echoed these claims.

    This caused the economist Julian Simon to challenge the ecologist Paul Ehrlich to a bet that a basket of five metals (chosen by Ehrlich) would cost less in 1990 than in 1980. The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, Simon said, arguing that we would find substitutes if metals grew scarce. Simon won the bet easily, although Ehrlich wrote the cheque with reluctance, sniping that ‘the one thing we’ll never run out of is imbeciles’. To this day none of those metals has significantly risen in price or fallen in volume of reserves, let alone run out. (One of my treasured possessions is the Julian Simon award I won in 2012, made from the five metals.)

    A modern irony is that many green policies advocated now would actually reverse the trend towards using less stuff. A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions. Organic farming uses more land than conventional. Technology has put us on a path to a cleaner, greener planet. We don’t need to veer off in a new direction. If we do, we risk retarding progress.

    As we enter the third decade of this century, I’ll make a prediction: by the end of it, we will see less poverty, less child mortality, less land devoted to agriculture in the world. There will be more tigers, whales, forests and nature reserves. Britons will be richer, and each of us will use fewer resources. The global political future may be uncertain, but the environmental and technological trends are pretty clear — and pointing in the right direction”.

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/best-decade-in-history/

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville. Yes, one thing Ridley makes clear is that the free market is still and always the best thing we have in our favour. When people are competitive they are designing things that always end up better and more economical whereas green philosophies follow a certain fenced path that has nothing to do with economics or broader visions.

      In fact, it ends up becoming the complete reverse.

      But the more economical we become with everything we use and consume the better the future is in every respect.

      And the measureable evidence is right there before us.

  • Stu says:

    And for those defending Trump, how do you explain this “TRUMP: “Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive … this is why the whole concept of tests aren’t necessarily great … today, I guess, for some reason, she tested positive.”. Please explain the level of intellect at work here.

    • spangled drongo says:

      I think you’re on the wrong planet, stueyluv.

      Lost again, hey?

      • Stu says:

        Are you truly saying you cannot see the lunacy and incompetence in that statement by Trump. If you can’t see that I think you and I are finished communicating. You are in the same boat as him, not very smart at all. That is a direct quote from video I have watched. Just to help you, if you are just dim witted rather than obtuse. What he said was somewhat akin to saying, “I had a pregnancy test every month and it was negative then suddenly it was positive, go figure”. Please explain or just fuck off. Loser.

        • spangled drongo says:

          What? Not just lost, stueyluv?

          Confused too, as usual?

          You alarmists are such tolerant and obliging people. It is not enough simply to argue a case against your opponents. When your brethren do wake up, as with Gibbs and Moore, and do a service in exposing hypocrisy and self-dealing, you shut down those dissenters instead.

          Back to square one with you right away, and repent to your dog.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You seem to be suffering from the same dyslexia that you think afflicts me. Read my words:

      “A bit like being unhappy when Moore collaborates with Gibbs to use his well established documentary techniques to get stuck into renewables. Did you criticise him when he used those deceptive techniques earlier? Of course you didn’t!”

      Note the phrase “deceptive techniques”. I made the point even more clearly earlier that Moore uses dishonest techniques in his mockumentaries. So-called “progressives” only got upset when he turned those techniques on one of their sacred cows. I said:

      “Boambee John
      May 6, 2020 at 5:01 pm
      Stu

      Shock, horror!! Michael Moore is intellectually dishonest!

      Most of us knew this years ago, but “progressives” loved him until he used his standard techniques to get stuck into one of their sacred cows.”

      The “reasonable explanation for using very dated, in fact negated by time, examples to bolster the emotional impact of the film. The film is not honest.” is simply that that is what he does. It is his style, loved by people like you until he used it against you. The real dishonesty is in that.

      • Stu says:

        Oh I get it. You are saying Moore is wrong, guns are great. Thank dog your views are narrowly held, at least in this country.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          You really are thick.

          I said earlier that

          “Boambee John
          April 30, 2020 at 4:10 pm
          PS, like a stopped clock, Moore can occasionally be correct (or right?).”

          You simply cannot (or will not) see that he uses the same techniques all the time. Occasionally he comes up (probably accidentally) with a correct answer. Usually he just produces “progressive” propaganda.

  • Neville says:

    I think I should highlight what Matt Ridley says at the finish of his article in my link above, because I think it is very important.
    IMO those last few paragraphs are spot on and that is the reason I don’t trust Labor and the Greens, or any other lefties that blindly go along with popular group-think just because it happens to be the latest ignorant cause of their lives. Here’s Ridley’s quotes.

    “This caused the economist Julian Simon to challenge the ecologist Paul Ehrlich to a bet that a basket of five metals (chosen by Ehrlich) would cost less in 1990 than in 1980. The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, Simon said, arguing that we would find substitutes if metals grew scarce. Simon won the bet easily, although Ehrlich wrote the cheque with reluctance, sniping that ‘the one thing we’ll never run out of is imbeciles’. To this day none of those metals has significantly risen in price or fallen in volume of reserves, let alone run out. (One of my treasured possessions is the Julian Simon award I won in 2012, made from the five metals.)

    A modern irony is that many green policies advocated now would actually reverse the trend towards using less stuff. A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions. Organic farming uses more land than conventional. Technology has put us on a path to a cleaner, greener planet. We don’t need to veer off in a new direction. If we do, we risk retarding progress.

    As we enter the third decade of this century, I’ll make a prediction: by the end of it, we will see less poverty, less child mortality, less land devoted to agriculture in the world. There will be more tigers, whales, forests and nature reserves. Britons will be richer, and each of us will use fewer resources. The global political future may be uncertain, but the environmental and technological trends are pretty clear — and pointing in the right direction”.

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/best-decade-in-history/

  • Neville says:

    Angela Merkel’s CDU party are now having second thoughts about the EU’s clueless position on their so called CAGW.
    Germany is sick of the cost to their economy and now the extra burden posed by the WU-flu. We can only hope they look at their recent history and all of that pain for literally ZERO gain since 1988.
    Let’s face it the data and evidence is ridiculously easy to understand. 1988 co2 levels 350 ppm and today 414.5ppm or 64.5 ppm increase in just 32 years. Also since the Paris BS and fraud agreement the trend has increased from 2 ppm per year to now 3 ppm per year. Just very simple first grade maths required, yet nobody seems to understand and this is costing us endless tens of billions of $ every year.
    When will these con merchants start to wake up? And China, India etc are laughing all the way to their banks.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/angela-merkels-mps-rebel-against-eu-climate-plans/

  • Neville says:

    Could a 3 D printer type technology help to build a nuclear reactor? This group with a long history in the nuclear industry are hoping to achieve this by 2023.
    Who knows, only time will tell, but if successful we’d have to ask is there anything we couldn’t build using 3 D technology?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/11/3d-printed-nuclear-reactor-promises-faster-more-economical-path-to-nuclear-energy/

  • Chris Warren says:

    Michael Moore on Planet of the Humans

    • Boambee John says:

      Chris

      Proudly boasting of his connection with the proto-fascists of Extinction Rebellion!

      Lie down with dogs (even the one Stu thanks), get up with fleas.

  • Neville says:

    Even more crazy nonsense from the creepy Joe Biden campaign trail and definitely from the ” you couldn’t make this stuff up” box of goodies.
    Just imagine having AOC on your team advising on their climate change policy? I mean she claims we only have about 11 years until we see the end of the world.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-to-serve-on-joe-bidens-climate-policy-team/

  • Neville says:

    India will produce over 600 mil tonnes of coal this fiscal year and expect to increase this to 700 mil ts next year. Anyone not see a problem for the hysterical “I don’t want to know brigade” as they continue to bury their heads in the sand?

    https://www.deccanherald.com/business/indias-coal-production-to-clock-record-700-mn-tonnes-in-fy21-coal-secretary-835857.html

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the results of the first CV-19 trial using Hydroxychloroquine + zinc sulphate and one other drug that has just been released in New York.
    932 people were treated with different combinations and this is the best result so far and seems to be very impressive, if these first reports are accurate.
    This would seem to be the best and so far only path to follow until we have a vaccine. Let’s hope for the best and the 4 Aussie trials back up this NY trial as well.
    In the meantime anyone on the wrong side of 40 should consider taking at least 1000 units per day of vitamin D, because as we age our levels of vitamin D always drop and sometimes to dangerous levels.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8309337/Zinc-hydroxychloroquine-effective-COVID-19-patients-study.html

  • Stu says:

    I just re-read that piece by Neville quoting Ridley which finished “ To this day none of those metals has significantly risen in price or fallen in volume of reserves, let alone run out. (One of my treasured possessions is the Julian Simon award I won in 2012, made from the five metals).”

    Think about that. One of your oft repeated gripes about renewables is the fate of the “rare earths”. It strikes me you may be in the very same boat. If not, explain why.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “One of your oft repeated gripes about renewables is the fate of the “rare earths”. It strikes me you may be in the very same boat. If not, explain why.”

      My concern is not about the fate of the “rare” esrths, which are not particularly rare. It is about the pollution caused by their processing. You might recall that I linked to, and you looked at, an item about a horribly polluted processing city in China. Your response to that example was “But coal”!

  • Neville says:

    Gosh stu, I don’t think a lot of cobalt mining for lithium ion batteries etc is very good for the 100,000 adults and kids who toil in deplorable conditions in the Congo either.
    But most stupid lefties just turn the other way and couldn’t care less.
    Of course some of the similar cesspits in China wouldn’t be tolerated in OECD countries and yet people praise them for having a lot of so called renewable energy as well. Of course S&W generates little of their total energy and fossils + bio over 90%. Coal alone generates 66.7% of Chinese TOTAL energy and USA just 17.1%.
    Sometimes it doesn’t matter whether these resources run out soon or not, but we shouldn’t be supporting these types of industries now and into the future.
    Just consider how this will be ramped up if we were stupid enough to vote Labor/Greens and their mad rush for net zero emissions.
    Does anyone really want more of this BS and fraud just to see more clueless EVs on the road.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/

  • Neville says:

    BTW even the NZ govt has shelved any serious action on net zero emissions until after the election in a few months.
    If the voters are fooled then they will only have themselves to blame and Labor will run riot for another term of govt.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/16/new-zealand-budget-ditches-climate-change-prioritises-the-economy/

  • Stu says:

    Yes you would say that and avoid the question. Meantime give me your comments on this new development. “ Now, after the devastating “black summer” fire season, the former heads of the Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Treasury, along with former chief scientists, have decided they can no longer stay silent.

    They believe there has been a colossal failure by politicians of all stripes to comprehensively tackle climate change.” Mark Brissenden

    No doubt you think they are a bunch of dills, who don’t know what they are talking about.

    • Neville says:

      No I’m sure you’re the dill for your lack of any logic and reason in relation to fires and your so called CAGW.
      I’ve provided the data and evidence from here and the rest of the world and if you can’t understand it that’s your problem not mine.
      Again I remind you that the entire SH co2 emissions are NET ZERO according to the CSIRO and emissions have been soaring in the NON OECD countries since 1988 and even more so since the Paris BS and fraud in DEC 2015.
      What is it about the REAL WORLD co2 data and evidence that you don’t understand?

      • spangled drongo says:

        “What is it about the REAL WORLD co2 data and evidence that you don’t understand?”

        Pretty-much everything, hey stu?

        But stick around, you’ll learn. You are more aware than out blith.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Treasury, along with former chief scientists, have decided they can no longer stay silent.”

      The ex senior public servants seem not to have been particularly effective in their jobs. My observation of chief scientists is that they rarely shut up while on the job. Except now, when they have been eclipsed by chief medical officers.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “They believe there has been a colossal failure by politicians of all stripes to comprehensively tackle climate change.”

      Well stu, here’s another beautiful failure by politicians of all stripes to comprehensively tackle climate change:

      50 – 80 aboriginals consuming 140,000 litres p/a of F/F to generate electricity. The govt spends at least 3.5 million to build a solar farm to solve the problem. So how much F/F do they now consume? Why, 140,000 litres of course!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umuwa,_South_Australia

      How come Gibbs and Moore can wake up but you can’t?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a way to quickly further understand the Green extremists and con merchants.
    This video called Planet of the Greens further highlights the hypocrisy of Attenborough, Monbiot etc and tops it off with Branson and Gore laughing about the meaning of the words profit and prophet. I’m sure we know what those pair of elitist scumbags mean.
    Only about 8 minutes but it’s hard hitting and I suspect very accurate. Left wing loons like Attenborough have been yapping about human population for decades as he tells Monbiot, but Gibbs, Moore + Ozzie are attacked as far left fascist extremists for mentioning the same agenda.
    In fact the fastest way to level off our population is to educate young girls, particularly in Africa and Dr Rosling has videos on you tube explaining the procedure over a period of time.
    But all lefties hate criticism of any kind and think everyone should believe the same religious group-think and we should never think for ourselves. In fact these delusional cranks hate so called Green apostates the same way Islam hates former believers who’ve woken up to the so called religion of peace.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/planet-of-the-greens/

  • Neville says:

    The ABC’s so called Science show must be the most appalling load of delusional nonsense that anyone could hope to find.
    Missy Higgins further promotes herself by appearing on the show to talk about their new fad called “climate grief”.
    She yaps about ZIP for a very long time and of course no data, no evidence to tell us why she suffers so much from periods of depression. It’s all about emotions and feelings and how much the Coalition’s return in 2019 impacted on her state of mind etc.
    Bolt reminded Robyn Williams last night that his 2008 SLR forecast needed to catch up quickly if he expects another 99.955 metres by 2100.
    He’s already lost 12+ metres of his apocalyptic SLR so the rate required from 2020 is going to be a whole new game changer. So why do they call this clown show a Science show?

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/climate-grief-2—missy-higgins/12250422

  • Neville says:

    Dr Roy Spencer has been following co2 levels since the CV-19 lock down.
    So far the EIA calculates about 11% reduction in emissions for this year, yet it would need about 43% reduction to stop the observed rise in co2.
    Here’s his update so far to the end of April 2020.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/

    • Boambee John says:

      So we essentially need to reduce economic activity by three times more than we have already? Good luck with making that happen without causing a revolution!

  • Stu says:

    4 Corners!

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      So a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats, now on good pensions funded by the taxpayer, now boast of their incompetence while in office, and expect to be praised for it? ROFLMAO!

      • Stu says:

        Expecting praise! No I don’t think so, that is not their style. Regretful for missed opportunity and awareness of the destructive nature of politics is much more likely. But interesting to see that the usual “know it all better than anyone else” belief system is still alive and well in this particular space. Only one correct view and no grey scale. Got it.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          I agree, they probably do not expect praise for their incompetence. I was being sarcastic!

          Their roles essentially boil down to advising government on proposed policies and implementing those agreed by government.
          It seems that their advice was not compelling!

          I note your reference to the “destructive nature of politics”. To quote a wise man, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.

          Still, if you prefer a dictatorship, please confirm that you no longer wish your vote to be counted. Strangely, I suspect that your preference would be that yours should be the only one counted.

          “Only one correct view and no grey scale. Got it.”

          Surely that is the view of the climate scientists? Those so unwilling to debate or expose their data and workings to scrutiny.

          PS, how impressed were you by the Neil Ferguson epidemiological models? Great work, eh? Until real computer types finally got to review the code.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    On Shergold and Parkinson. My view is that they both became believers. I knew Peter S before he became famous and powerful, and though I didn’t know Martin P I heard him talk to a few people (I was one) about AGW, and there was little doubt in my mind that he was a believer too. PS was trained in history and politics, while MP is an economist. I doubt that either has real scientific knowledge or experience. Of course, you pick up a lot in senior civil service positions. But it is belief, not a scientific background, that fuels them. Only my judgment, of course. Another senior civil service man I know, trained in law is also a believer.

    • Stu says:

      Don, what about Chubb? You must have crossed paths with him many times. Perhaps less so Penny Sackert.

    • Stu says:

      Don, what about Chubb. You must have crossed paths with him on occasions. And I assume Penny Sackett less so, but both scientists.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Chubb is a neuro scientist, Sackett an astronomer. Not sure how they meet your definition of a “climate scientist”.

        However, I am quite happy if you are willing to extend climate science credibility to anyone with a science degree. Now there was Carter, paleontologist and geologist, expressed some opinions on the subject … Would you like some more names?

        Didn’t you mention once that you are not a scientist?

        • Stu says:

          Pardon? Where did I say either of them was a climate scientist? You protest too much, a sign of lack of confidence in your position perhaps.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You didn’t. I was referring to your routine dismissal of the opinions of “non climate scientists” as unworthy of consideration. You might have “forgotten” that, others haven’t.

            “sign of lack of confidence in your position perhaps.”

            Bit rich from the man who routinely claims total victory in the battle to save the world, but seems to be as much trying to convince himself!

      • Don Aitkin says:

        Stu, I never met Penny Sackett. Ian Chubb I knew very well. I wrote an essay about his response to Maurice Newman a few years ago. You can read it here: http://donaitkin.com/professor-chubb-responds-to-maurice-newman/.

        • Stu says:

          Thanks Don, interesting article. It would be great if the anti view was found to be correct, through some shift in patterns over the next few years. I fear however the reverse is occurring and I remain in the camp that accepts the conventional science view while viewing the denier side as the “believers”.

          We will have to continue to disagree and let the planet show the way. It may not be that long.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh stu, don’t they just love to virtue signal ad nauseam?
    Very proper response using common sense and very simple maths since 1988 tells us they are yapping a load of BS and porkies.
    Or can you add up the non OECD countries’ emission sums a different way over the last 32 years? AGAIN check the data from the real world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

  • Stu says:

    Once again, I don’t understand your fixation on non OECD emissions since 1988. As you keep drawing attention to them I assume two things. First that you agree AGW is a real, serious and worsening problem for mankind and two you think those emissions make it unnecessary for us to take any action. Correct?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      You are somewhat slow.

      The point has been made many times here that the big increases in CO2 emissions are occurring in China, India and the developing nations. IF you BELIEVE that reducing CO2 emissions is important, then you need to persuade those nations to reverse course, rather than keep bleating about those which are already doing so.

      I don’t accept that you will be successful, but you should try, IF you think it is important.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the 4 Corners transcript, so everyone can read it and try and make any sense of it. Good luck with that, but here’s the REAL WORLD problems AGAIN.

    NON OECD emissions have soared since 1988 and an even higher rate since DEC 2015.
    The CSIRO tell us that all SH emissions are ZERO NET emissions and the NH are the NET source of emissions.
    Dr Finkel our Chief Scientist has told the Senate inquiry that we could stop all Aussie co2 emissions today and there would be no difference to the climate. His reply was “virtually nothing”.
    The Royal Society + NAS study found that even if ALL human co2 emissions stopped today, co2 levels wouldn’t change for a thousand years. See Zickfeld et al and even maths guru Nic Lewis agreed with a lot of the Zickfeld study.
    So the 4 Corners nonsense is just more stupid pandering to very stupid people and more endless virtue signalling by the clueless chattering classes.
    OH and Matt Ridley has shown that we’ve just had the best decade in human history and Dr John Christy has checked the data and tested most of their CAGW claims and provided a lot of real world data and evidence to the contrary.

    https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/climate-wars/12254562

  • Stu says:

    So, the corollary of your argument is that as constraining CO2 does not matter we can burn as much as we like (globally) and it will make no difference. Or do you in fact agree that continually increasing emissions will make things worse? I remain confused as to what your proposal is for the future.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      To the extent that you “remain confused as to what your proposal is for the future”, it is because you have never comprehended the position that I have stated on many occasions. Whether this is because you cannot comprehend it, or because you do not want to, is for you to consider.

      • Boambee John says:

        PS, to a large degree it doesn’t matter what I think about CO2 emissions, China, India and developing nations will continue to increase their emissions annually by more than Australia’s total emissions. Nothing we do, including fully closing down the economy and all stopping breathing will have any practical effect. We need to look at other options.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Total EV sales will plunge 43 % in 2020, according to new research from Wood Mackenzie.

    In China, the world’s largest EV market, sales of all types of cars fell 21% in January compared to last year, and by an eye-watering 80% in February. Things were even worse for EVs, with February sales projected to be down more than 90 %:

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/electric-vehicle-sales-set-to-crash-in-2020-as-coronavirus-bites-and-oil-stays-cheap

  • Boambee John says:

    Has Stu retired hurt?

    • Stu says:

      No, it is just hard to concentrate when laughing so much at the bull dust flying around in these pages. Cheers and don’t choke on your hydroxychloroquine remember your man Trump talks a lot of rubbish.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, if you get COVID-19, a disease for which there is currently no cure or vaccine, make sure you don’t try hydroxychloroquine.

        Australian medical experts don’t know what they are doing, trialling this successful drug that has been around for years and is, at least, available.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        So, still trying to convince yourself of the correctness of your position? Keep whistling, you will be past the graveyard of failed alarmist forecasts soon!

      • Don Aitkin says:

        On hydroxychloroquine, it might be worth looking at what doctors actually do in prescribing drugs for this virus, and this one seems to be widely used. https://www.sermo.com/covid-19-press-releases/#post-9139

  • Neville says:

    Just looking at the Worldometer population counter/data and yet very few people understand how the human population has changed since 1800 or 1900 or since 1970 etc.
    Dr Rosling was very annoyed by the ignorance of so called educated people about the world pop data etc and projections for the future.
    In fact the rate of growth is slowing every year and you can look up the data . Africa’s strong positive growth rate is now an outlier and is at odds with the other continents. Of course Africa’s median age is very young compared to Europe or Nth America or Australia or Japan or Russia etc.
    Very soon the pop of the world will tick over to 7.8 bn, with about 7 bn in the NH. But I still think that the average life expectancy today of about 72 years is remarkable, compared to 30 years ago, 50, 70, 100 and 200 years ago.
    And Matt Ridley follows this data closely ( like a good biologist) and even he is amazed at the increasing wealth, health + life expectancy for our much higher global population.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Matt Ridley’s latest article about vitamin D deficiency and the CV-19 pandemic. Well worth the read and a quick cheap way to give yourself an advantage against the flu this winter and that nasty new virus as well.
    If you’ve a white skin,not obese, and a female you already have a distinct advantage.
    Certainly police should be advised to stop harassing people when they are trying to sunbath in the cooler months.

    “IT IS TIME TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THE LINK BETWEEN VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY AND MORE SERIOUS COVID-19 SYMPTOMS”
    Home >Blog >Vitamin D deficiency and Covid-19
    Published on: Sunday, 03 May, 2020
    There has long been evidence that a sufficiency of vitamin D protects against viruses
    My article for The Telegraph:

    “A suggestive set of numbers was published online in April by a medical scientist in the Philippines, Dr Mark Alipio. Of 49 patients with mild symptoms of Covid-19 in three hospitals in southern Asian countries, only two had low levels of vitamin D; of 104 patients with critical or severe symptoms, only four did not have low levels of vitamin D. The more severe the symptoms, the more likely a patient was to be not just low but deficient in the vitamin. Could vitamin D deficiency make the difference between getting very ill or not?

    There has long been evidence that a sufficiency of vitamin D protects against viruses, especially respiratory ones, including the common cold. Vitamin D increases the production of antiviral proteins and decreases cytokines, the immune molecules that can cause a “storm” of dangerous inflammation. It has long been suspected that most people’s low vitamin D levels in late winter partly explain the seasonal peaking of flu epidemics, and rising vitamin D levels in spring partly explain their sudden ending. Vitamin D is made by ultraviolet light falling on the skin, so many people in northern climates have a deficiency by the end of winter. Eating fish and eggs helps, but it is hard to get enough of it in the diet.

    Here is a list of people who are more likely to be vitamin D deficient than the average: dark-skinned people (pigment blocks sunlight); obese people (the vitamin gets sequestered in fat cells); type-2 diabetics (vitamin D improves the body’s sensitivity to insulin); the elderly (they tend to avoid the sun and eat more frugally); city dwellers (they see less sunlight). Does that list ring any bells? All appear to be more likely to hospitalised with severe cases of Covid-19.

    In addition, men tend to have slightly lower levels of vitamin D than women in winter, but slightly higher in summer, though the difference is probably not enough to explain why men are much more likely to die of Covid-19.

    One recent study in Manchester found that average levels of vitamin D were 30 per cent higher in summer than in winter and three times as high at all times in white people as in South Asians. The latter had a median level of just 5.8 nanograms per millilitre in their blood in winter, way below the 20 that is regarded as sufficient. Surprisingly, despite guidelines from Public Health England, NHS GPs do not routinely check vitamin D levels or advise taking supplements.

    Might it not be a good idea to tell everybody to take vitamin D supplements at this time, just in case it helps? In a letter to the British Medical Journal last week urging attention to Dr Alipio’s results, a long list of doctors wrote as follows: “Vitamin D biology is a mature well-researched field, dating back 100 years. Doses, and risks, within clinical parameters, are established and well quantified. Governmental intake guidance exists. Vitamin D deficiency is a medically accepted condition, requiring treatment.”

    And for goodness sake, will somebody please tell the police to stop harassing sunbathers in parks”?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest 3 months of Gallup polling in the US and CV-19 is the biggest worry for the voters and by a long way.
    Worries about so called climate change or pollution etc have now dropped to just 2%, because people now have real problems to worry about.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/309038/covid-quickly-becomes-important-problem.aspx

  • Neville says:

    A very good accurate commentary by Andrew Montford looking at the lies, half truths and distortions by the WHO and even the RS etc. Of course he links to the latest studies and data from Dr Indur Goklany who follows this closely and has himself been a rep for the USA and has worked for the IPCC for a period of time.

    This latest nonsense is certainly a pandemic of lies.

    https://conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-change-and-a-pandemic-of-lies/

    “THE health establishment was looking away when the coronavirus struck; it had other priorities. If you look at the World Health Organisation’s list of health threats, number one is climate change. Pandemics were down in third place, behind ‘non-communicable diseases’ such as diabetes and obesity.

    Wherever you look, you will find some of the biggest names in the public health establishment declaiming on the risks of climate change to world health. On the eve of the outbreak, the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene declared that we would be seeing ‘mass migration, emerging infectious diseases such as dengue and a shortage of food’. As the first people fell ill in Wuhan, the WHO announced that in ten years we would be seeing 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress as a result of global warming. Epidemiologist Professor Andy Haines told readers of the Telegraph that ‘climate change is a threat to global and national security that is costing lives and livelihoods right now’.

    Haines has made a career out of promoting the idea that global warming is going to bring about a public health disaster. As part of this effort, he was instrumental in setting up the Lancet Countdown, a coalition of 35 universities and UN agencies that produces a report to keep these ideas in the public eye. In 2018 it said unequivocally that climate change ‘the biggest global health threat of the 21st century’. In current circumstances, this claim looks rather foolish, but a new forensic review of the Countdown suggests that it is actually worse than that. You cannot come away from reading Indur Goklany’s The Lancet Countdown on Climate Change: The need for context, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, without concluding that the Countdown’s authors didn’t set out to tell the whole story.

    For example, Goklany observes that the Countdown’s Executive Summary makes a lot of vague insinuations that climate is causing serious public health problems. It says there are ‘downward trends in global yield potential for all major crops’ and that ‘trends in climate suitability for disease transmission are particularly concerning’. Apparently ‘the number of days suitable for Vibrio (a pathogen responsible for part of the burden of diarrhoeal disease) has doubled’ and ‘families and livelihoods are put at risk from increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather conditions’. If that weren’t bad enough, ‘77 per cent of countries experienced an increase in daily population exposure to wildfires’.

    But when you look at the dataset used by the Countdown, you uncover a very different story, and one that is unequivocal: climate-related mortality has collapsed, and is now less than half the level it was in 1990, when the dataset starts. This is nothing less than a public-health triumph.

    The improvement is seen pretty much across the board, but diseases of the gut (‘enteric infections’ in the jargon) are a good example. The data shows that mortality from these conditions has more than halved over the last 30 years. But the only mention in the Countdown’s executive summary is that dark warning about the ‘number of days suitable for Vibrio’ noted above.

    And what do they mean by ‘number of days suitable for’ anyway? This is a trick that is employed repeatedly in the report, namely the use of ‘proxy’ measures, when perfectly good real measures are available. So when considering hunger, the Countdown ignores crop yields, preferring to talk about falls in ‘global yield potential’. In other words, we are being told a tale about what a mathematical model tells us about food availability. But why would anyone use a mathematical model when there is hard real-world data available? Suffice it to say that food is plentiful, yields continue to rise, and hunger is almost a thing of the past outside war zones and egalitarian paradises such as North Korea and Venezuela.

    We are not just winning the battle against enteric diseases and hunger. Another good example is tropical diseases, where mortality has fallen dramatically too. So once again, the Countdown resorts to a proxy measure, ‘suitability for disease transmission’, as well as adopting a Nelsonian focus on dengue, a relatively rare disease which has worsened. The executive summary fails to mention malaria at all, despite the fact that it is a much bigger killer than dengue, and despite the fact this is another healthcare war we are winning, with mortality down between 30 per cent and 67 per cent in various regions of sub-Saharan Africa.

    It’s a sorry tale, and an indication of how far the vast sums of money that are available for climate change research are distorting public health research priorities, just as they are in so many fields. As we look at the destruction wrought by the pandemic, it’s hard not to wonder if people in the field should have spent less time poring over dubious unvalidated mathematical models about the spread of malaria and more about whether we had the wherewithal to respond to a major pandemic.”

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      “And what do they mean by ‘number of days suitable for’ anyway? This is a trick that is employed repeatedly in the report, namely the use of ‘proxy’ measures, when perfectly good real measures are available. So when considering hunger, the Countdown ignores crop yields, preferring to talk about falls in ‘global yield potential’. In other words, we are being told a tale about what a mathematical model tells us about food availability. But why would anyone use a mathematical model when there is hard real-world data available? Suffice it to say that food is plentiful, yields continue to rise, and hunger is almost a thing of the past outside war zones and egalitarian paradises such as North Korea and Venezuela.

      We are not just winning the battle against enteric diseases and hunger. Another good example is tropical diseases, where mortality has fallen dramatically too. So once again, the Countdown resorts to a proxy measure, ‘suitability for disease transmission’, as well as adopting a Nelsonian focus on dengue, a relatively rare disease which has worsened. The executive summary fails to mention malaria at all, despite the fact that it is a much bigger killer than dengue, and despite the fact this is another healthcare war we are winning, with mortality down between 30 per cent and 67 per cent in various regions of sub-Saharan Africa.”

      I am shocked, I say again, shocked! The climate alarmists fudging the data and using proxies in preference to available real data.

      Still, at least they did not produce another hockey stick graph.

  • spangled drongo says:

    And now, with govt handouts to failed industries, China is one of the main beneficiaries of windpower.

    China’s curious role in support of taxpayer wind energy subsidies in the U.S. is now raising suspicion. They have partnered with Warren Buffet, whose Des Moines-based Mid-American Energy owns 2,600 wind turbines in Iowa, is a longtime backer of the subsidy program, which he has used to reduce his company’s tax bill.

    “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet said in 2014. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
    :

    https://iabusinessdaily.com/stories/536610217-wind-farm-taxpayer-subsidies-come-with-a-now-controversial-beneficiary-china

  • spangled drongo says:

    That might be why Trump just issued an executive order declaring a national emergency over threats to the U.S. power system which bans the use of equipment for the power grid that was manufactured by a company under the control of a foreign power:

    “Additional steps are required to protect the security, integrity, and reliability of bulk-power system electric equipment used in the United States,” Trump wrote. “In light of these findings, I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to the threat to the United States bulk-power system.”

    https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/495711-trump-issues-executive-order-to-protect-us-power-grid-from-attack

    Following our mild request for an investigation into wuflu, we might have to do likewise.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I wonder if Moore and Gibbs know the whole truth?:

    “Poor solar home owners are feeling pretty miffed. They didn’t realize their panels were never economic, a burden on the grid, and they’ve been riding on the backs of fellow Australians for years. And after reading this ABC story (below), they still won’t know. So it’s a complete surprise to them that the green electrons they produce are expensive and unwanted, and so useless — worse than useless — the Energy Market Operator wants to have the power to turn them off at their peak time of day.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/05/solar-owners-worried-big-brother-aemo-wants-to-turn-off-their-panels-at-noon-in-emergencies/

    • Boambee John says:

      More to the point, how does Stu feel being a burden on other members of the community, particularly those renting or too poor to ante up the capital to install panels?

      • Neville says:

        SD & BJ, a long time ago I started to understand their CAGW scams and fraud and then I was offered a very good deal from Origin to install solar panels on my roof.
        The return on my money was very attractive, but I told them I wasn’t interested and from then on I started to get more regular calls from them plus other groups.
        By then I was reading more from Bolt and Terry McCrann about all the pitfalls, like grid instability, much higher electricity prices across OZ, a drain on taxpayers and of course ZERO change to the temp or climate at all etc.
        One day I received a call from Origin asking me why I wouldn’t take up their very generous offer and I told him why.
        He seemed to be totally ignorant of all the data but kept returning to how quickly I would pay off the panels and what a good deal they were offering.
        Anyway I had several close neighbours who took up their offer with gusto and installed panels on sheds etc as well and boasted how fantastic the deal was.
        Most of them scoffed about CAGW or even AGW ,but like Warren Buffett they laughed all the way to the bank.
        Since then panels are much cheaper to buy, but the returns have dropped a lot and I’m sure it’s not as good a deal as it was a decade and more ago.
        And so many billions taxpayer $ poured down the drain and ZERO change for their so called CAGW and a much more fragile grid to contend with as time goes by.

        • Boambee John says:

          Neville

          When the likes of Stu bleat about supposed “subsidies” to fossil fuel companies, they forget about the billions going into installation subsidies and feed in tariffs for rooftop solar (possibly out of a sense of guilt).

          • Stu says:

            You overlook the biggest subsidy of all. The one that is overlooked in comparisons of fossil fuel energy and renewables. One of the greatest failures of the market system. And the subsidy has been and still is enormous. I refer to the fact that since the start of burning coal and oil on an industrial scale there has been no cost for the pollution. A carbon price would remedy that situation. Other industrial pollutants have been reduced either by pricing or regulation. I refer of course to things like CFC’s (affecting ozone) and sulphur and nitrogen oxides (causing acid rain) and of course fine particulates from power stations.

            A good example of the benefit of regulation is the view over the harbour bridge from North Sydney where the dense smog layer of the 1960’s is much reduced, mainly a result of putting catalytic converters on cars and removing lead from petrol.

            The recent, but sadly short lived, ability to see the top of the Himalayas from Kathmandu is a good example of the effects of pollution.

            I find it sad these days visiting europe and observing the loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago. It is one of the many pluses of life in the southern hemisphere that we can still enjoy such deep blues and clear skies at night. Not today unfortunately.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And don’t forget the Dickensian era, stueyluv.

            Your “subsidies” could have been off-set by handing out the cat o’nine tails for people to whip themselves with.

            How do you think your F/F “subsidies” would compare with Norway offering a subsidy of $90,000 per car plus free fuel for EVs.

            https://taz.de/Elektroauto-Boom-in-Norwegen/!5055767/

        • spangled drongo says:

          Yes Neville, likewise I went through a similar experience and all the while I was trying to explain to a Uni lecturer neighbour what a con for taxpayers and burden it all was on the grid but he refused to see that.

          The penny has finally dropped for him but he enjoys his discount and does not wish to discuss it.

          But it is so easy for most believers to convince themselves they are saving the planet.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “the fact that since the start of burning coal and oil on an industrial scale there has been no cost for the pollution.”

          Indeed. Now add a rare earth processing pollution and a cobalt mining pollution tax to be levied on ruinables.

          “Other industrial pollutants have been reduced either by pricing or regulation.”

          You (or whatever alarmist website you trawled this drivel from) are astonishingly ignorant if you are unaware of the range of actions taken in the last 40 or 50 years to scrub sulphur dioxide, fine particulates and other pollutants from the exhausts of power stations.

          “I find it sad these days visiting europe and observing the loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago.”

          Yes. Nothing like the old London pea souper to improve the colour of the sky! And now lost after all those windmills were installed. Get real Stu.

          • Stu says:

            “ unaware of the range of actions taken in the last 40 or 50 years to scrub sulphur dioxide, fine particulates and other pollutants from the exhausts of power stations.
            “I find it sad these days visiting europe and observing the loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago.”
            Yes. Nothing like the old London pea souper to improve the colour of the sky! And now lost after all those windmills were installed. Get real Stu.”

            That is what I wrote. Yes they did all that out of the goodness of their hearts didn’t they? Nothing to do with regulation. Get real.

            And where do you think the london pea soupers went. Nothing to do with banning the burning of coal etc in London houses and removal of steam trains from the system and Battersy power station. Take off your arrogance blinkers and read what I wrote again.

            And as usual you miss the point. You continue to amaze!

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Read your own drivel.

            After all this regulation and clean up, the blue skies of 50 years ago are gone and missed???

          • Stu says:

            “After all this regulation and clean up, the blue skies of 50 years ago are gone and missed???”. Yes indeed. Think for just a moment how it would be if the regulations had not changed so that all the additional volume of traffic and power stations around the world belched the way they did back then. Things would be much worse, just as they would be if you add in all the additional fossil fuel to replace the renewable power now being generated. That is why it is sensible deploying more and more renewable energy not just more pollution going forward. And get real, don’t throw up point location problems like 1950 London. We now have a global problem, just that we are somewhat better off being in the comparatively unpopulated and unindustrialised southern hemisphere.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You are unable to comprehend your own words.

            “loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago.”

            You attribute that loss to “regulations had not changed so that all the additional volume of traffic and power stations around the world belched the way they did back then. Things would be much worse”

            So removing all that polution caused the formerly blue skies to disappear?

            Peehaps if the Germans had kept their nuclear plants going, they might not have had to resort to lignite to cover the gap that unreliable ruinables can’t? Could that have caused the current problem?

            “Progressive” environmentalists are supposed to be able to think holistically. You do not display that capability.

          • spangled drongo says:

            You simply deny reality, stu.

            The whole world has improved out of sight in recent times.

            Mostly due to fossil fuels and ACO2 emissions.

            As Neville pointed out to you upthread via Matt Ridley:

            “Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time. We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 per cent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 per cent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.”

            Plus climate-related deaths are down exponentially.

            Even China is cleaning up its air act while consuming ever more f/fs

            It’s simply what people do when they drag themselves out of poverty.

            And the best ever dragger outer of poverty is f/fs.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Things would be much worse, just as they would be if you add in all the additional fossil fuel to replace the renewable power now being generated.”

            Hey stu! Do us all a favour and demonstrate how any of your renewables have replaced any f/f generation and/or reduced any CO2 emissions.

            In my experience it is the reverse; renewables need 100% f/f backup and their construction plus operation and maintenance virtually doubles CO2 emissions for no more reliable energy but a huge increase in environmental problems.

            Not to mention, of course, dearer electricity which requires more emissions to produce the money to fund it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You do make one useful point.

            “Think for just a moment how it would be if the regulations had not changed so that all the additional volume of traffic and power stations around the world belched the way they did back then. Things would be much worse,”

            Imagine now if the ruinable generators continue without proper regulaion of their pollutants. Might we assume that you would favour regulations on cobalt mining in the Congo and rare earth processing in China to avoid the kind of problems you discuss in relation to coal?

          • Stu says:

            Oh you are so thick.

            “You are unable to comprehend your own words.
            “loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago.”. “

            Mate , they are your words, read back a bit.

            Yes they have gone because of the ongoing build up of cars and industry. The point was that without the regulatory changes things would be even more dire.

            End of story, boring.

          • Boambee John says:

            Sto

            I’ll be gentle with you, because you seem to have a short term memory loss problem. The first reference to “blue skies” on this thread was in your comment at 1145 yesterday, as quoted back at you by me.

            “I find it sad these days visiting europe and observing the loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago.”

            I challenged this remarkable statement, you now claim that I said it first? Get help.

            “Yes they have gone because of the ongoing build up of cars and industry.”

            If anything, heavy industry in Europe has declined over that period. There was, of course, that embarrassing period when the EU went all hot for diesel, before discovering what most intelligent people already knew, fine particulate emissions!

            Regulatory changes need to be well thought through. That one wasn’t.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Where has stu been hiding?

    A bit of info from NASA:

    During the first half of the twentieth century, coal burning at power plants, factories, and homes filled the air over much of the western world with pollution. “Smoke” or “smog,” as air pollution was usually called, used to block so much sunlight that people were occasionally forced to carry lamps in the middle of the day. In some eastern cities, particulate levels likely exceeded 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter—about twice as high as they are on a bad air quality day in modern Beijing, now one of the most polluted cities in the world.

    Extreme pollution outbreaks in the United States and Europe did much to put air pollution on national agendas. Satellites and astronauts accelerated the process by providing the raw imagery that helped inspire the environmental movement.

    Levels of lead dropped 90% and most pollutants up to 80% during a period when energy consumption rose enormously.

    But you’re sure that skies over Europe were “bluer” 50 years ago, hey stu?

    • Neville says:

      SD,thanks for reminding me about that data from NASA.
      This supports so many of the well researched articles from Willis and other scientists at WUWT over the years.
      Jo Nova has also looked at the data and evidence as well over a long period of time.
      Also there’s a very good reason why all humans today are so much healthier and wealthier and enjoy a longer life expectancy than they did even 30 or 50 years ago.
      But if anyone dares to link to the latest data/ evidence they are hated with a vengeance by the CAGW extremists and now even banned from the ABC’s Clown ( Science???) show.

  • Neville says:

    I think we’re wasting our time with stu, but what’s new? Here the EU world data has been updated 1990 to 2018.

    GLOBAL co2 emissions by sectors.

    Power industry up by 82%.

    Other Industries up by 60%

    Buildings up by 6%.

    Transport up by 77%.

    Other sectors by 110%

    Amazing too that NZ and OZ have increased our co2 emissions by about 50% since 1990 or exactly in line with our pop increase. OZ now 1.1% and NZ 0.1% of global co2 emissions.
    So for the world the S&W fraud is a complete waste of time and money and should be abandoned ASAP, because it doesn’t achieve anything.
    And GLOBAL co2 levels have increased by 64.5 ppm since 1988 and have increased by an extra 1 ppm per year since DEC 2015. See NOAA data from Mauna Loa.
    So how much longer can the donkeys ignore the REAL world data and evidence?

    https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2019

  • Stu says:

    “But you’re sure that skies over Europe were “bluer” 50 years ago, hey stu?”

    Yes, I was there. Just look at those numbers Neville posted above for the increase in CO2 (and therefore all the crap that goes with it) just since 1990. So go back 50 or 60 years and the atmosphere was not as polluted. There was a period at least in Europe where the regulation changes reduced the deadly smog like in London and the skies were indeed bluer and importantly visibility was much greater than today. An example of the latter is the view to the ground from 40,000 feet was much clearer back then than now.

    So for the umpteenth time the stuff SD wrote above is exactly what I am saying. The world cleaned up from the first half of the 20th century, then was a short period where things were not bad then as the rest of the century unfolded, growth took off and the skies became obscure. The best example of what is going on is presented by the clearing of the smog in Delhi during the virus lockdown. But never fear you lovers of coal I am sure there will be enough pollution back soon to keep you happy.

    And there is support for your position. Check out the speech to the Senate by Concetta Ferranti-Wells (famed scientist not) back in February. Right up your alley.

    And by the way your fantastic ability to misread what is written by someone you instinctively oppose is proof of the cognitive bias built into your denialist belief system. If you like I will post some links to papers diagnosing your problem. It is closely aligned with the same issues with religious cults.

    • spangled drongo says:

      How thick must you be stu?

      Like the skies of your youth?

      NASA tells us the skies have improved enormously in the last 50 years.

      They say that even Beijing, the most heavily polluted city in the world today, is only half as bad as city skies of 50 years ago.

      But you say the opposite.

      “Yes, I was there.”

      Along with your selective memory?

      Why don’t you show us some supporting evidence that skies are less clear today than 50 years ago.

      But I forgot, you don’t do evidence, hey?

      • Stu says:

        Talking of evidence show us the evidence. Saying “NASA. says” is not sufficient.

        Regarding your claim I have no argument with reductions in particulate pollution in North America and Europe leading to improved air quality there and reduced deaths. All true. But don’t extend that to the whole world and also higher levels of the atmosphere. And don’t tell me I don’t know what I have seen. There is now, or was before shutdown, a general increase in haze particularly across the northern hemisphere, affecting visibility. That is why there was such a dramatic change in recent months in India and China, and of course In Beijing during the Olympics.

        So you are really claiming that the global increase in coal and oil consumption over the last fifty years has no consequences. Get real.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “So you are really claiming that the global increase in coal and oil consumption over the last fifty years has no consequences.”

          How you deliberately blither, twist and lie, stueyluv.

          And are you actually claiming NASA did not make that claim about clearer air today?

          As someone who has never produced any evidence to support his climate claims, as opposed to us who never stop producing evidence, I’ll let you lead the way to support your wacky claim.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “Regarding your claim I have no argument with reductions in particulate pollution in North America and Europe leading to improved air quality there and reduced deaths. All true. But don’t extend that to the whole world”

          Your claim specifically related to Europe, not the “whole world”. Stop squirming.

          On Europe, I was again there, for three years, in the mid 1980s, that time with my family.

          My wife had never been outside Australia before, she commented specifically on the insipid colour of the sky compared to here.

          My anecdote is as good as yours!

          • Stu says:

            Mid 80’s is not 50 years ago. Anyhow I originally said in the 50’s and 60’s.

            And where is the specific NASA reference. Actual words and context matter.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You originally said “I find it sad these days visiting europe and observing the loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago” at 1145 yesterday.

            In the 1950s, the London pea soupers were just being cleared up, yet you clearly remember the “blue skies”! Yeah, right. You twist your story at each telling.

            I was also in Europe in 1972 and 1974, not quite 50 years, but did those blue skies really disappear in just two years?

            I didn’t mention NASA.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, you show me yours and I’ll show you mine.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Stu
      May 23, 2020 at 10:42 am
      “But you’re sure that skies over Europe were “bluer” 50 years ago, hey stu?”

      Yes, I was there.”

      Do you have photographs, or are you relying on memory? I ask because I was also there twice in the 1970s, in Britain, France and Germany, for periods totalling more than three months. I don’t have a clear memory of lovely blue skies, certainly compared to Australia.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Just look at those numbers Neville posted above for the increase in CO2 (and therefore all the crap that goes with it) just since 1990.”

      You see what you want to see. The big increases in CO2 emissions since the 1970s have been away from Europe. You almost get to it when you mention Dehli, but are stuck with your romantic memories of 50 years ago.

  • spangled drongo says:

    There is not only good evidence that Moore and Gibbs are right but also better evidence that there is no climate emergency to worry about anyway:

    “The temperature progression of Greenland Ice Cores, (during the Holocene interglacial above), shows that each high point in the past of our current benign epoch:
    •Optimum
    •Minoan
    •Roman
    •Medieval
    •Modern

    has been colder than its previous high point.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/22/there-is-no-climate-emergency-2/

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    What you said at 1145 yesterday.

    “I find it sad these days visiting europe and observing the loss of the blue skies that were there fifty years ago”

    Then today at 1042

    “Yes, I was there.”

    Then again today.

    “Stu
    May 23, 2020 at 5:05 pm
    Mid 80’s is not 50 years ago. Anyhow I originally said in the 50’s and 60’s.”

    Were you “there” 50 years ago, as you originally implied, or 60 to 70 years ago, as you implied at 1705 today? How old are you?

    Or are you just making it up?

    • Stu says:

      None of your business but I was there yearly from 1956 through 1970 then on and off every five years or so, satisfied. And I was born here well before that so I know what I was looking at when comparing the locations. Time to drop your pedantry regarding MY observations.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Just give us some evidence to support those observations of yours, stueyluv, and they will get a lot more respect.

        But one person’s 50 year old obs, especially when they have an agenda, are like your fav renewables.

        Not worth much without backup.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Time to drop your pedantry regarding MY observations.”

        The pedantry related to your accounts of your observations, which changed with time, as I recorded above.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    I don’t want to engage in this bunfight, but I lived in Oxford and London in 1964/65, and remember very well the unending grey skies, and the dreadful green fog on a couple of days that winter, where my wife had to walk in front of the car so she could see the parked cars and I could see her. By April we had had enough and drove to the Med, where we saw bright sunlight once more. The grey winter put me off living and working in England. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1956 because of the lethal fog in London of 1952. And when I commented on the 1965 fog I was told that the one of the previous year was even worse.

  • Stu says:

    Don, I fear you are confusing weather and climate effectively . Everyone knows about the “grey skies of England – the crappy weather etc”, particularly, but not only, in winter. But often in summer the skies were clear and the glorious summer sun shone down, you must remember that also. The grey skies were the result of the weather, and they still often are the same. But now on the clear days things are not always as bright. I also remember the 64/65 winter and the fog, but at least in Berkshire it was fog, not smog, and I expect the same in Oxford.

    While our memories are of the same time and place and even “recency” I could say my memory is not as old, but that would be ageist wouldn’t it? Cheers

    • Don Aitkin says:

      How am I confusing climate and weather? I didn’t mention either word. Yes, there were sunny days, in summer, but the prevailing humidity in England meant that it was not bright, blue sky such as we get here in Canberra, let alone further inland. I do remember one bright sunny day at henley on the Thames, where i commented it was almost like home. But such days were few and far between.

      • Stu says:

        Yes that is the English weather, probably always was. That is why we prefer to live here, I guess. Nothing like a crisp Canberra winter morning with clear sky and thick frost. I actually miss them now I live elsewhere. But to be fair to the old place we still often see nice days while watching a test match from Lords or Wimbledon, but not the same as our skies.

        At one stage I used to host visiting Japanese scholars and business men visiting Canberra (1990’s). It was always amusing to hear their comments on the clear days and then their stunned reaction out at night and seeing stars of an intensity they had never seen. Of course the evening view was as much about light pollution as it was particulates. But the effect was profound.

        Oh yes bring back a normal world soon please.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu, when are you going to stop this silliness of yours about clearer skies 50 years ago and go and study all the NASA Earth Observatory links that tell you precisely the opposite.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Don, I fear you are confusing weather and climate effectively .”

      Weather causes thick fog and climate causes blue sky? Who would have guessed?

      • Stu says:

        You are sort of correct. I should have written you are confusing the common English shitty weather and cloudy days with the actual nice summer, and sometimes winter, days where the sky is clear. But nowadays in the NH generally they are less clear. The view across the bay of Naples is not as clear as it was in the 60’s and 70’s.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Just as you asked SD for the data from NASA, I now ask you for specific data on atmospheric clarity in the NH locations you have mentioned.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    “Oh yes bring back a normal world soon please.”

    You seem to be having a severe bout of nostalgia for the long past days of your youth. Days when nightingales sang in Berkeley Square, and blue birds circled in the clear blue skies over the White Cliffs of Dover.

    Sorry, we can’t wind time bacjwards, we can only do our best in the world as it now is. Understanding the difference between what we desire and what is achievable is an essential element of maturity.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Is activism taking control of today’s science or what?

    Cause of Death? Climate Change.

    “Climate change is a killer, but we don’t acknowledge it on death certificates,” co-author Dr Arnagretta Hunter, from The Australian National University (ANU) Medical School, said. “There is second component on a death certificate which allows for pre-existing conditions and other factors.

    “If you have an asthma attack and die during heavy smoke exposure from bushfires, the death certificate should include that information. We can make a diagnosis of disease like coronavirus, but we are less literate in environmental determinants like hot weather or bushfire smoke.” …

    “Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face globally even after we recover from coronavirus,” Dr. Hunter said.

    https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/05/21/calls-to-add-climate-change-to-death-certificates-new-study-demands-climate-change-be-added-as-pre-existing-condition/

    • Boambee John says:

      SD

      It would be interesting if the certificate were to incluslde any climate related cause. I wonder how many deaths in winter would be labelled as “Caused by excessive cold”?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Exactly, BJ!

        Longreach just had its coldest May day evah!

        All those Queensland deaths lately, even half the wuflu ones, were probably due to climate change.

  • Neville says:

    The amazing thing is that everything today is improving and at a faster pace.
    Biologist Matt Ridley who makes a study of such things has looked at the data/evidence and has found further improvement in just the last 10 years. He also expects further improvement by 2030.
    And Dr Christy tested all their claims about climate change in his study in 2019 and came to the same conclusion. We also know that the world is greening because of the extra co2 in the atmosphere and CSIRO and NASA studies confirm this is the case.

  • Neville says:

    There’s a very quick way to check todays’ improvement around the world and the poorest continent data proves the case.
    At the time of the devastating Ethiopian famine in the 1980s the population of Africa was about 549 Mil and today it is about 1300 Mil or an increase of about 751 Mil and today they all have a higher life expectancy, calorie intake and much improved education etc. All of this in just the last 35 years.
    And every continent has become much wealthier and healthier etc over that time period. Ethiopia has shown vast improvement as well from about 40.6 Mil at the time of the famine to about 114.9 Mil pop today. It’s difficult to find any problem with the climate etc since the 1980s. Think about it?

    BTW Ethiopia is 1.1 mil square klms or about 1.4 times the size of NSW at 0.8 sq klms.
    https://www.populationpyramid.net/ethiopia/1985/

    • Stu says:

      Yes, roll forward that rate of “progress” another 50 years and where are you?

    • Stu says:

      But of course there is hope. Maybe they will realise the benefit of educating the girls and we will see a different outcome. Meantime you are assuming no more droughts in East Agrica. Big call.

    • Stu says:

      And I suggest you go back and check your claim of “no problem with the climate since the 1980’s”. If you are saying drought is normal and ok as part of the climate in East Africa, you are correct. If you are saying everything has been just dandy since then, you are wrong.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry last sentence above should read ——

    BTW Ethiopia is 1.1 mil square klms or about 1.4 times the size of NSW at 0.8 mil sq klms.

  • Neville says:

    Stu there will always be droughts, floods, bush fires, cyclones etc, but I just wanted to point out that everything has improved over the last 10 years, 35 years, 50 years, 100 years and 200 years.
    And deaths from extreme weather events have fallen off a cliff since 1920 and with billions more people in high risk areas. Think about it.

    • Stu says:

      “And deaths from extreme weather events have fallen off a cliff since 1920 and with billions more people in high risk areas.”

      I agree they have and it is the gradual improvement in forecasting and communication etc which has been the major contributor to that drop. Look at the latest storm in the Bay of Bengal, they had days to prepare and evacuate people etc. And where they occur the rescue and recovery is aided by better knowledge, machinery, communications etc.

      Unless of course you are suggesting that the number of events and their severity has “fallen off a cliff” since 1920. In which case you are wrong.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Half-empty stu never gives up.

        Even though it is very likely that man-made emissions are a non-problem and our ever-increasing population is coping better than ever with our every day problems in spite of the Ehrlichs of this world, the half-empties are certain we are doomed.

        Smile, stueyluv.

        • Neville says:

          Yes SD, but stu isn’t as clueless as Ehrlich’s and others Earth day 1970 predictions.
          According to those morons the world today would have much lower pop, standard of living, mass starvation etc by 1990 and beyond into the 21st century abyss.
          How lucky are we that we didn’t listen to the imbeciles and their nonsense 50 years ago?

  • Neville says:

    The latest ENSO and IOD wrap up from the BOM does allow some cautious hope for our farmers.
    At best we could see a negative IOD develop by mid to late winter and perhaps a weak la nina as well. Who knows, but forecasts made during the autumn don’t have as much accuracy in some years.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

  • Neville says:

    Just a few more facts about another poor continent. South America’s pop in 1985 was 400 mil and today is 430 Mil.
    But the median age is 11 years higher than Africa or 19.7 years compared to about 31 years.
    Even the devastation of HIV Aids hasn’t stalled the African pop because of their very young median age. And in the CV-19 crisis we would expect that a younger pop would have higher natural immunity than most other countries and continents.
    Brazil also has nearly half of Sth America’s pop or about 211 Mil and a median age of about 32 years.
    Also most Sth American countries have higher than average world life expectancy today.

    https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/life-expectancy-south-america

  • Chris Warren says:

    More Neville gibberish;

    “We also know that the world is greening because of the extra co2 in the atmosphere and CSIRO and NASA studies confirm this is the case.”

    In fact the extra greening is not proportional and depends on availability of nitrogen and water.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Naomi Seibt’s first video in the series trying to make it easier for the lay person to start to understand the so called science behind their so called Catastrophic AGW.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/24/the-consenus-fraud-part-1-climate-of-freedom-series/

  • Neville says:

    Here Dr Hans Rosling takes us on a journey about world population from the early Holocene to the present day and past 2100.
    He uses UN data for future pop projection and the ignorance he’s encountered from the most highly educated elites is unbelievable. Once again the chimps win by simply using random choice.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Ah, the excrement of global warming!

    The media uniformly claim that a small bit of life forming from the nutrients in penguin excrement in very small portions of Antarctica is a climate crisis.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/small-algae-blooms-antarctica-freaks-alarmist-media/

    • Boambee John says:

      SD

      Don’cha know?

      There were no penguins in Antarctica before climate change! Or if there were, they used flush toilets.

Leave a Reply to John Stankevicius Cancel Reply