Lo and Behold — climate change “may” help feed the starving Ethiopians and turn the nation into a “food exporting country”.
( That sounds pretty serious. Pay billions – Stop That Now!)
With so many climate models, sooner or later one was going to turn up something good — in much the same way that Lotto somehow “finds” the winner. Incredibly the happy possibility even made it into a press release.
Perhaps it is safe to admit that climate change may help people in a country where the UN is not wanting to scare the voters into buying carbon credits?
Where are the headlines “Burn Oil and help feed Ethiopia?”
Where are the Green NGOs who see an opportunity here to get Ethiopia on its feet? Don’t they believe the climate models – Or is it that they don’t really give a toss about hungry black kids?
A team of researchers from Virginia Tech have predicted that water availability in the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia may increase in coming decades due to global climate change. It could also lead to increased crop production, spur massive hydroelectric power projects, and foster irrigation development in the region.
“For all the catastrophic impacts of climate change, there are some silver linings,” said Zach Easton, associate professor of biological systems engineering. “The sad irony is that climate change may be the catalyst Ethiopia needs to become a food-exporting country.”
What if a climate model found that a wealthy developed nation (aka “a UN cash cow”) would be better off …
Moges B. Wagena, Andrew Sommerlot, Anteneh Z. Abiy, Amy S. Collick, Simon Langan, Daniel R. Fuka, Zachary M. Easton. Climate change in the Blue Nile Basin Ethiopia: implications for water resources and sediment transport.Climatic Change, 2016; DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1785-z
Restrictions needed on overseas charities funding legal battles
The US money was designed to bankroll a strategy developed five years ago by green activists to “stop Australia’s coal export boom”.
The focus of these efforts was to “run legal challenges that delay, limit or stop all of the major infrastructure projects (mines, rail and ports)”.
A particular priority was to stop the Adani coalmine in central Queensland that would employ up to 10,000 Australians and provide high energy, low impurity coal to India, where 300 million people still do not have access to electricity.
And Hillary wants us to believe that Trump is “risky” and “unpredictable” for foreign relations? This kind of industrial sabotage is a good way to hobble the competition — though playing mean and deceitful with your dedicated allies usually works better if done from secure computers, eh? For Hillary it’s such cosmic bad luck that she keeps employing people who brag about deplorable, dishonorable and even criminal actions in emails and on video. A pack of cheats. Naturally she’ll sack the lot of them, and make it clear to US donors that this sort of thing is never to happen again: “Think of the children in India”.
The emails show that the funders included the Sandler Foundation, the Sea Change Foundation, the Tilia Fund, the Growald Family Fund and the Flora Family Foundation.
In other words, the legal challenges have not come from Mackay, Bowen or Townsville or from local landholders.
Instead they have come from Boston, Boulder and Berkeley from vanity pose foundations uninterested in the double digit unemployment rates in northern Queensland towns or energy access in India.
Green activists keep looking more and more like useful idiots for big money, and in this case, for foreign interests. These are true international grade suckers who help to keep people unemployed in Australia, and keep millions of children in poverty in India while they try to stop the sea rising with windmills.
Brendan Pearson notes:
A legitimate question is this: Did Podesta actively support, co-ordinate, condone or encourage this effort while in the White House?
We give him the benefit of the doubt.
The Adani mine is hoping to be a 40 year project. If Australia doesn’t dig up this coal, India will have to buy lower quality coal from elsewhere, or dig up their own, and that will produce up to 30% more CO2 (as well as increasing real pollution).
The Australian Editorial: Australia’s reputation as a reliable source for investment is on the line. For that reason, but also in the interests of our balance of trade, federal and state budgets and 200 million poor people in remote Indian villages in urgent need of power, Australian governments must not allow their authority to be abrogated by green activists across the Pacific, in inner-urban areas of Australia or elsewhere. As Tony Abbott said before he lost the prime ministership, the rules covering environmental groups delaying major mining projects through the courts should be tightened. The Turnbull government needs to act sooner rather than later to prevent vexatious litigation holding up vital projects.
In their quasi-religious zeal to rid the world of fossil fuels, green activists have elevated themselves, in their own narrow minds and those of their followers, to infallibility status (egged on, ironically, by Pope Francis’s flawed climate change encyclical, Laudato Si). But their arguments against the Adani project are morally and economically bankrupt and would confine millions of people to poverty and filth.
A highly orchestrated, secretly foreign-funded group of Australian environmental activists opposing the $16 billion Adani coalmine in Queensland has “dampened” Indian investment interest in Australia and received heated criticism from the federal Coalition and Queensland Labor governments.
Indian Power Minister Piyush Goyal told The Australian yesterday the years of legal challenges to the vast Carmichael coal project, now revealed to have been funded by multi-million-dollar foundations in the US, “will certainly dampen future investments” from India.
The Australian has several articles (probably paywalled).
Poll after poll shows that the public are happy to say they “believe in climate change”, and don’t mind if “the government” wants to give their grandchildren nice weather. But don’t ask them personally to pay: when their money is on the table, the awful truth is they don’t believe the experts, and they don’t want to spend their own money. The poll results are devastating:
So bring it on, say we skeptics, get that climate talk out into the election campaign, put it front and centre and watch the voters run away from anyone who wants to force them to pay to slow the storms.
Carbon schemes have to be hidden to get past the voters
Rarely have voters had a real choice on the climate policies — but they did in Australia in 2013, and they voted for the skeptic in a landslide. Since then, the smarter climate lobbyists know that they can only get “carbon trading” legislation if the public don’t know its coming. The dead dog that is climate action must be hidden under some other meaningless title like the “Safeguard” mechanism. That’s how it happened in Australia. Australians voted for “no carbon tax” two times in a row, then the party threw out the PM, and the carbon tax was quietly snuck in as a subclause, a spare mechanism, that could be sold as “nothing much” if anyone discovered it, but had the potential to be amped up as needed after the legislation was passed by a House and Senate that probably didn’t even know what they were signing.
[T]he media’s entire campaign against Trump is to prevent him from talking about policy. They would rather talk about fat-shaming than trade, immigration and jobs.
Sometimes, it seems like Trump is cheating by taking the vastly more popular side of every issue. The official GOP used to send its candidates out with ankle weights, a 75-pound backpack and blinders. But Trump didn’t agree to take any staggeringly unpopular positions, however much the Business Roundtable loved them.
He’s against amnesty, for building a wall, against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for Social Security, against the Iraq War and for extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants.
That’s why the media have to change the subject to something flashy that will capture the attention of the most down-market, easily fooled voters. Trump is a groper!
Trump has been a rich celebrity for 40 years, employing thousands of women, but this is the first time he has been seriously accused of any sexual impropriety. You will recall that, just this May, The New York Times conducted a major investigation into Trump’s treatment of women — and came up empty-handed. …
Add climate scares to the list of topics the Dems would rather weren’t an election topic.
Other ways to stop people talking about the issues: block, censor, ban
Candians Ezra Levant and Rebel Media have been banned by the U.N. Media Censor from attending the U.N. Marrakech Climate Change Conference as accredited journalists.
The three banned journalists are full-time professionals: Sheila Gunn Reid, the Rebel’s Alberta bureau chief and bestselling author; Meaghan MacSween, a producer, formerly with Global News and Sun News Network; and Alex Jones, a cameraman and editor, also formerly of Sun News Network.
The one-line excuse offered by the UN is that we are “advocacy journalists”…
Most voters still disagree with the FBI’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information when she was secretary of State, and even more rate the issue as important to their vote.
Trump would have been crazy to sign a blank cheque on election results when high ranking Democrat operatives admit on video that they cheat the system as much as they can. Scott Foval bragged they have been busing people in to key seats ” to deal with you fuckin assholes for fifty years, and we’re not going to stop now”. Who plays nice in the face of that rank hostility?
It is hard to think of an innocent reason why Democrats spend so much time, energy and money, scarce resources all, resisting attempts to purge the voter rolls, that is to remove people who are dead or otherwise have left the jurisdiction. It’s hard to think of an innocent reason why they fight so tremendously against Voter I.D. laws. They say, well that burdens the exercise of a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has said that travel is a fundamental right and no one thinks that showing an I.D. at the airport burdens that fundamental right.
It’s not Donald who has contempt for Democracy, it’s the Democrats.
If it can be done, why wouldn’t a means-to-an-ends team do it?
If you want a reason to be worried, ask yourself why the mainstream media is so keen on framing the election as “not rigged.” The message I’m getting from them, collectively, is that they think it will be. (Because it will be.) We just don’t know how much the rigging will matter.
Why do I say it will be rigged?
Because whenever humans have motive, opportunity, a high upside gain, and low odds of detection, shenanigans happen 100% of the time. Our vote-counting systems have plenty of weak spots. Rigging (to some degree) is a near guarantee.
So there will be rigging. There already has been rigging (see the paper below). But is it enough to change the outcome? The political researchers think so. In a 2014 study Richman et al found that vote rigging was already happening, and it “likely” did matter.
Non-citizens can vote themselves healthcare (which is a pretty sensible scam if a nation will let you get away with it)
“We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”
Amazing, Pat found this in the Washington Post: Trump won the third debate. OK, just one among many in the same paper that said the opposite.
See the Clinton Cash movie if there is any one out there who still thinks Ms Hillary has US best interests at heart.
Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?
a b s t r a c t
In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the
frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections.
Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United
States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of
voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally
representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some
non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough
to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional
elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote
needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama
administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
h/t to a friend in the EU
Richman (2014) Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?, Electoral Studies 36, 149 — 157
Allegedly, these schemes to illegally bus in false voters and to disrupt Trump rallies with deliberate violence, were approved “at the highest level” of the DNC. The second scalp claimed here (Bob Creamer) admitted on video that Clinton is aware of “all” of his work.
This newly revealed Reichstag fire of a plot by Democrats at the highest levels is “a direct assault on democracy and the rule of law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last night. “This is a hundred times bigger than Watergate.” …
Steyn points out that some Australians think that there are higher priorities than removing 18C, but I’m with him, all freedoms start with free speech. Until we get rid of 18C we can’t even discuss other problems.
The Human Rights Commission (HRC) takes $25 million dollars a year from Australians to stop people talking.
I hope The Australian won’t compound that mistake by vigorously defending the cartoon on its merits. When Maclean’s and I ran afoul of the equivalent Canadian law – Section 13 – over a book excerpt from America Alone, the most important decision we made was not to defend the content of the piece: the facts, the quotes, the statistics, the conclusions, etc. Our opponents were not disputing our position; they were disputing our right to have a position.
Likewise, Mr Leak’s opponents are not attempting to engage him in debate; they’re attempting to close down the debate. And there’s no point getting in a debate with someone whose only argument is “Shut up – or else.”
In that sense, the Australian “human rights” regime and the Charlie Hebdo killers are merely different points on the same continuum: They’re both in the shut-up business, and they shut you up pour encourager les autres. They know that, for every cartoonist they silence, a thousand more will never peep up in the first place.
So this isn’t a debate about aboriginal policy or Islamic imperialism or anything else. It’s a debate about whether we’re free to debate. I take the view that the Australian state, like the Canadian state, should not be in the shut-up business. And, when they are, it’s they who are the issue, not you. When it’s a contest between a book or cartoon, on the one hand, and, on the other, a guy who says, “You can’t say that!”, it’s the latter who’s on trial. If you’re on the side that’s saying “Shut up!”, you’re on the wrong side.
Cartoons will be subject to all matter of public debate. It's a healthy part of our democracy that we have that debate.
Sorry. A legal action is not a "debate". Mr Leak is being "subject to" not debate but state thought-policing. Because ideological enforcers like Soutphommasane find debate too tiresome and its results too unpredictable. Which is why he gets a third of a million a year from Australian taxpayers to prevent debate.]
The likes of Commissar Soutphommasane are not interested in a debate with you; they’re interested in eliminating you from the debate…
I am, unfortunately, not being satirical when I say we can’t discuss the deadly and dismal problems affecting certain ethnic groups. Please in comments, be mindful, that this post is about Section 18C.
The law reads:
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another personor a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
The Human Rights Commission helpful explains here with examples just how vague, arbitrary, and subjective this law is. No Australian can know in advance if they are acting illegally unless they say nothing about anything, and that’s the point. No matter how honest you are and despite your good intentions or even if you speak the truth someone else gets paid to decide if a phrase is “likely” to offend, and to judge whether the same words might be legal or illegal if they are art, or you are trying to be funny. Are you a licensed artist? Is your intent “comedic”. The HRC will whip out the Funny-0-meter, the Mind-reader, and Their Lens of Artisticiness.
The IPA wants to repeal 18C. It should take five minutes in parliament to get rid of the words “insult” and “offend”.
Some thoughts that are used in debate,
May fall foul of an arm of the state,
And one can’t, by the way,
Suggest thoughts we can’t say,
As to do so invites a court date.
The reason for the decline is complicated. Wolves have taken moose, and grizzly bears have been expanding their presence.
But climate could be the biggest challenge. Part of the problem is ticks. A moose with too many of the parasites during the winter can lose its hair and freeze to death.
We all know, before Columbus there was one perfect quota of moose, bear, wolf. The numbers didn’t vary from the sacred Gaia Triangle Ratio (whatever it was). There were no cycles. Moose never declined. Then man came, used air conditioners in Florida, caused tick outbreaks in Saskatoon, and da fur fell off doz’ mooses. Cold moose!
In general, moose are simply better adapted to colder temperatures. When it’s too warm, they spend more time in the shade trying to cool down and less time feeding, Courtemanch said.
You might have thought fur-free moose might like warmer weather. They just can’t win eh?
“The warmer winters and warmer summers are incredibly stressful to them,” she said. “They’re so heat-stressed all the time. It cascades into poor body condition for females, and that impacts their ability to have a calf. They are so stressed they can’t put on enough weight every year.”
Sounds like da stressed mooses need psychotherapy. If we stopped trying to buy nice weather with solar and wind we could afford a psychotherapist for every mother moose. Stop a windfarm, save a moose!
What are these people on? Moose survived 60,000 years of climate change
Moose struggled through ice-ages and a holocene optimum when the arctic was so warm there was no sea-ice for thousands of years. I did a long 0.89 second search for “evolution of the moose” and the first paper that turns up tells us that moose have been squeezed through population bottlenecks many times and are noted for their ability to adapt to a changing environment.
One day, news outlets may teach writers to use google.
How’s that ground breaking, world leading Paris agreement going?
Australia is the worlds largest coal exporter but our total exports of coal in 2014/15 were a tiny 393Mt (of both thermal and metallurgical coal). I’ve marked that in blue on the graph. We are only a large exporter because everyone else keeps the coal for their own use.
More mining of India’s coal,
Fills another significant role,
That of plant-food increase,
By CO2 release,
Which should really be all mankind’s goal.