JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

This month China has spray painted on its green tan, just in time for the Glasgow Climate Beauty Contest.

China doesn’t want to win the Glascow Climate Beauty Contest. It just wants the other contestants to keep fighting for the booby prize. They win the trophy and lose the trade war.

Green paint for Chairman Mao

It’s Green paint for President Xi

China’s great green theatrical ploy fools the gullible Western leaders

Coal power is the cheapest source of electricity in the world and China controls most of it. Meanwhile it’s doing a smashing job of cheering on the other competitors as they take Coal Chastity Vows and run barefoot, naked and green into the quicksand pit of Energy Doom.

The UK and Europe are already thigh-deep, struggling with an energy shakedown of their own making. Yet China, with more coal power than the entire rest of the world combined, puts on the Green-cloak, beaming from Coal Mountain to tell us what sacrifices it will make.

This is the same China that built three times more coal power than the rest of the world did last year. The nation in 2020 that opened more new coal power than the rest of the world shut down.

China’s net construction of coal power capacity within the country grew by 29.8 gigawatts, essentially wiping out the gains of the rest of world, where net coal power capacity decreased by 17.2 gigawatts, according to the Centre.

— New York Times

So China makes a big show of shutting down foreign funding for coal plants. It’s not promising to shut actual coal plants, just to not fund even more overseas than it already has. And in any case, those foreign plants China is helping to build are but a tiny 8% of the size of it’s own gargantuan domestic power.

Domestically, China produces about 1,200 gigawatts of energy from coal, according to Greenpeace China. The coal power plants it has helped build abroad produce less than 100 gigawatts, the group said.   

— New York Times

And who can forget, in 2017 China made a big show of cancelling more than 100 coal plants.  But in 2018, China was caught secretly building those same coal plants instead.  Since China lies, all these promises in the lead up to Glasgow are just the breadcrumb trail to CCP trade-war supremacy that China is hoping the West will suck up obediently.

As the GWPF points out, China is selling the solar and wind power the West is hobbling itself with. No nation can compete with Chinese cheap coal fired manufacturing and the bargain slave labor deal. The West congratulates itself on how cheap renewables have become without realizing the irony that the West couldn’t possibly use their own renewables to make the renewables to sell to themselves. Every nation with lots of wind and solar power also has the most expensive electricity on Earth.

GWPF spells out the game:

China plays its green card, promising to sell the world its wind and solar projects produced by cheap coal

1. By building up its coal-powered economy, [China] can continue to produce and export renewables much cheaper than most OECD nations. China will thus cement its role as the world’s foremost producer and exporter of renewable energy.

2. By ending support for building coal-fired power plants abroad it reduces the pressure on coal demand, improving China’s domestic coal market which is currently struggling with high coal prices.

3. By announcing this move, China is playing the green card in the run-up to COP26 in order to reduce Western pressure and kick the ball back into Joe Biden’s court.

If and when China stops adding coal power on domestically, it’s only because it has the fastest growing nuclear power fleet in the world and it was going to stop coal power anyway.

China, after all, is poised to be the largest global player in nuclear power as soon as 2030.

By the time the West realizes it was tricked out of coal power, it will have lost the nuclear race too.

In related posts:

Original pic of Chairman Mao by by Daderot. Adapted by Jo Nova.

10 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

95 comments to This month China has spray painted on its green tan, just in time for the Glasgow Climate Beauty Contest.

  • #
    Richard+Ilfeld

    If you believe that men can have babies and the US Southern border is secure, its not hard to believe that China is an environmental champion. Nurture modest ability with trained ignorance and virulent emotion – add tribalism and narcissism, and you have the domestic progressive voting majority. Proving docile under domestic repression in most western countries, as well; I’d say the revolution is almost complete except for 300 to 400 million uncontrolled guns out there that may be a bit harder to reclaim in the US than they were in Aus, as there is little to no residual trust in the good intentions of a progressive government that I can see outside of its own echo chamber.

    410

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Colour me surprised!

    World Bank cancels ‘Doing Business’ report after being caught manipulating data on behalf of China …

    @4.50 Malpass (world bank boss) says the World Bank – over 50% of investment is climate related … also talks about vaccinations, video is approx 8 minutes.

    World Bank seeks ways to help Business Climates as report ends

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-22/world-bank-seeks-ways-to-help-business-climates-as-report-ends

    h/t: @junkscience

    110

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Under the heading “China’s great green theatrical ploy” there’s that great first paragraph that literally destroys Chins’ green credentials.

    The bit about “fools the gullible Western leaders” may be debatable though.

    On the surface,Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, No.
    Just here in Australia we have shining examples of our “leaders” who are obviously immersed in, and using, the system.

    For a moment let’s pause and think of Julie B. moving across the world stage as our rep at the United Bloody Nations on Manhattan. Dressed to kill with her token male in tow: she gets off on showing off. Perpetual holiday, free trips and feted by the media.

    Then our former leaders: Mr. Hewson, Mr, Trumble (family of) with significant investments in the highly fashionable and profitable “Renewables” industry. There are also a couple of former University Chancellors here in Australia who have “taken the plunge”. And that’s just the tip of the greenberg.

    Perhaps they have a secret commune up on the Great Big Barrier Reef?

    The “paragraph” stands brilliantly; “Coal power is”, “Coal Chastity Vows”, etc, etc.

    Wouldn’t it be great to see all the Elites “run barefoot, naked and green into the quicksand pit of Energy Doom”.

    That’s where they belong.

    And then there’s the paradox to end all paradoxes;

    There Is No Scientific Truth behind the driving force of CO2 Incineration.

    Absolutely None!

    320

    • #
      TdeF

      Good stuff. And there is no scientific truth behind man made CO2 levels. If CO2 levels are not man made, man controllable, what is the point of COP26?

      Nothing which has happened in the 33 years since man made Global Warming was dramatically announced by James Hansen, an expert on the climate of Venus, has had any impact on CO2 growth and the rapid constant warming and rapid sea level rise has not happened. What was predicted is now in the dustbin of history. Not a single prediction has come true. That in Rational Science should be the end of it but unbelievably China is pushing man made Global Warming as a major thrust in its secret war on the naive West. Steal their secrets, educate their children, cripple their manufacturing with fake Climate Change and shatter their economies with a virus. President Xi will save you.

      I hope it is freezing in Glasgow, as it was in Copenhagen. It will be hard again to sing songs about warming when you need to import gas to stay alive in the freezing winter. But cults do not break easily and people will freeze to death to prove they believe in warming.

      330

      • #

        “And there is no scientific truth behind man made CO2 levels.”

        This is incorrect. Burning fossil fuels certainly increases atmospheric CO2 levels, as does respiration. Photosynthesis reduces atmospheric CO2, and while this is increasing owing to more CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s not enough to offset the combination of respiration and emissions.

        What’s lacking scientific truth, and in fact is readily falsifiable, is the idea that CO2 has the absurdly large effect on the surface temperature claimed by the IPCC and its self serving ‘consensus’.

        42

        • #
          TdeF

          ” Burning fossil fuels certainly increases atmospheric CO2 levels”

          Prove it. Instantaneously of course, but for how long?

          To argue for man made CO2 levels you have to argue against equilibrium which drives all physical systems. We humans did not invent CO2. And in the scheme of things, human CO2 output is still tiny. But to argue that it selectively accumulates in the atmosphere is to argue against a world which sets its own levels. Rapidly.

          Even the IPCC agree. They state that the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 80 years. It is their standard. In fact they are demonstrably wrong by a factor of ten as CO2 levels exponentially decay to the equilibrium level and is absorbed into the oceans rapidly, as are all gases. It is how fish breathe and they do breathe.

          The equilibrium level between a dissolved gas (98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the oceans) and the thin air above is set by Henry’s law which means the level is set solely by the temperature of the ocean surface. Thus slight ocean warming and a lot more CO2 is in the air.
          But people would have you believe ocean warming is caused by CO2 when real physical chemistry says the exact opposite.

          If you want to see the % of Man made CO2, try this Royal Society paper as far back as 1958 where it was 2.3%+/-0.15% after two world wars. Radio carbon dating can directly measure the amount of fossil fuel CO2 in the air as it is different. It is how radio carbon works. You can date CO2.

          You are quite right about the CO2 warming. It is not only not proven, it is very unlikely, an incredible assertion which needs proof, not conjecture. Besides CO2 is still going up steadily with ocean warming and temperatures stopped ten years ago.

          150

          • #

            The historic equilibrium was mostly based on the CO2 production and consumption of biology including sequestration which adds a downward pressure on concentrations which is mostly offset, but not completely, by natural emissions.

            Including emissions from burning fossil fuels, the production of CO2 by biology has increased significantly while the consumption by biology has increased only modestly and sequestration has remained largely constant. More CO2 going in with about the same going out means that concentrations will increase and will only stop increasing if CO2 emissions stop, which is not a good thing both economically and for the biosphere.

            CO2 equilibrium between oceans and air is almost instantaneous, relative to the rate CO2 is increasing. Also, the oceans are not warming by any significant amount and again, equilibrium as the temperature changes is virtually instantaneous.

            Henries law defines a ratio of concentrations where both the concentration in the air and in the water are functions of the partial pressure of the gas, independent of the temperature. Consider a closed container half full of water at a constant temperature. If CO2 is pumped into the air in the container, both the partial pressure in the air increases and the concentration in the water increases without any temperature change!

            10

        • #
          TdeF

          ” it’s not enough to offset the combination of respiration and emissions.”

          That’s not how it works in physical chemistry. When you move away from the equilibrium level, the forces which drive the balance quickly restore the balance. You could double aerial CO2 tomorrow and in twenty years it would be back to normal. We measured this directly in 1965 with a sudden doubling of C14 tagged CO2. It’s all gone now.

          The idea that the world is not in equilibrium is anti science. Everything you know is in equilibrium. All chemical reactions are based on this idea. It’s a bit like Newton’s Third law, every force is met with an equal an opposite force. CO2 is going out of the ocean into the air and from the air into the ocean all the time. Increase it on one side and more leave that side, restoring equilibrium.

          The idea that the planet is out of control is absurd. And the idea that CO2 ’emissions’ are trapped in the atmosphere is nonsense. They simply upset the balance for a very short time, but fish have to breathe and so do we. And CO2 is converted back to oxygen, producing a bloom across the world in crops and forests and even recently, a huge bloom of phytoplankton across the Pacific. Balance is restored and very quickly.

          90

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          CO2,

          In a sense, you are both right.

          TdeF has frequently outlined the means of determining the levels of human origin CO2 in the atmosphere in order to show that the presence of such in the atmosphere is not cumulative.

          The IPCCCCC has put out the deliberately incorrect “science” that our CO2 remains in the atmosphere either forever or “thousands of years”.

          This contrasts with both real science and several highly credible studies that indicate that CO2 turns over every four years or so or, at least has a half life of seven years.

          TdeF rightly dismisses the scale of human origin CO2 claimed by the IPCCCCC but obviously acknowledges the presence of a small amount.

          If all human activity ceased then human origin CO2 would be gone in twenty years.
          Paradoxically, the total atmospheric CO2 would remain the same.

          I think we all agree.

          71

        • #
          jpm

          Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a very small portion of the total. Between the years 2000 and 2010 man’s CO2 emissions were 3 times as great as 1990 to 2000 according to published statistics. Of course this is supposed to make us feel responsible for Climate Change. The Atmospheric CO2 concentration data released by the Keeling observatory on Mauna Loa shows no commensurate increase in the rate of increase in concentration and after all it is the atmospheric concentration that is supposed to count not the emissions. This means that our emissions are trivial and not noticeable in the grand scheme. The yearly increase is mainly from natural sources which we can’t control, oceans out-gassing, vegetation rotting etc.
          John

          80

          • #
            TdeF

            Totally agree. My one refinement is the “the yearly increase is mainly from natural sources which we can’t control, oceans out-gassing, vegetation rotting etc.”

            As almost all CO2 is in the oceans stored over thousands of years as it is both highly soluble and highly compressible, unlike oxygen, even slight warming of oceans with 98% will increase the CO2 in the 2%. And the scale of this is so great that human activity is not noticeable.

            However I have a theory that the small annual perturbation can easily be correlated to summer and winter. What I would love to see is the comparison of the North and Southern hemisphere CO2 graphs to see if the perturbations are in phase or not. I expect they are 6 months out of phase. And I expect as large in the Southern as Northern hemispheres as the Southern Hemisphere is all water.

            So not only is the CO2 level not man made, it should be exactly predictable from ocean temperature. That would not suit the IPCC because their allegation is that CO2 levels are almost all man made when our contribution is not only small, it quickly vanishes, as has been proven.

            30

            • #

              “the yearly increase is mainly from …”

              Then why were CO2 levels so much lower during the last interglacial when global temps were 3C warmer than today?

              You’re implying that natural emissions have increased significantly since the last interglacial, and unless you consider emissions from burning fossil fuels natural, there’s no evidence that natural emissions have increased. If anything, as the planet’s core cools, natural emissions will decrease owing to less volcanism.

              The fact that burning fossil fuels increases CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is nothing to be concerned about as its effect on the climate is small. Trying to dismiss this is just adding fuel to the denier rhetoric and de-focuses from the real problem which is that the IPCC’s climate sensitivity is at least a factor of 3 too large.

              20

              • #
                TdeF

                Understood but whether CO2 affects the Weather, is an ’emission’ which implies noxious industrial emission or affects the ‘Climate’ when in fact all that was predicted was a slight increase in temperature is irrelevant if we humans cannot control CO2 even if we can vary ’emissions’. And then there is the small matter of the extra 6 billion humans in the same time. Are they to be culled? If so, who decides?

                I am also pointing out how the cunning catastrophists have taken over the language, ‘The Science’ is ‘in’, ’emissions’, ‘Climate’ and ‘Climate Change’ and even the very idea that extra CO2 is very dangerous, warming is very dangerous and there is a ‘tipping point’ we have just passed. All are make believe scenarios and as far as NASA and the CSIRO and others have concluded to their great embarassment, the increase in CO2 is very beneficial.

                The pushers of Climate Extinction skip over the statement that CO2 is man made as a given fact but there has never been any credible proof. Correlation is not causation. If anything the idea that ocean surface warming and CO2 increase correlate far better is ignored.

                20

              • #
                jpm

                I am suggesting that with a tripling of the rate of anthropogenic emissions there was not a similar increase in the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the main cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that rate of increase should have also have increased by three times. Man’s emissions have been increasing at an exponential rate since the early 1940’s while the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been at a linear rate, a serious disconnect.
                In the above case we are dealing with high definition recorded data while the data concerning the previous interglacial is very low definition. It is not a reasonable comparison. The last couple of hundred years of recorded data is just a speck on the graph going back to the last interglacial. The graphs of that period that I have seen don’t show error bars and that is a problem!
                Co2 measurements prior to the recent Keeling observatory ones (50,000 of them) with wet chemical analysis show measurements up to 400 ppmv range which disagrees with the ice core data (280 ppmv). I have read of serious concern regarding the ice core data. With the CO2 concentration being about the same back then as now and the IPCC declaring that mans emissions are a problem subsequent to the 1950s, I don’t see a problem!
                The ice cores do show that the change in CO2 lagged the change in temperature by over 800 years suggesting that CO2 did not cause the change.
                John

                00

            • #
              Peter+C

              What I would love to see is the comparison of the North and Southern hemisphere CO2 graphs to see if the perturbations are in phase or not. I expect they are 6 months out of phase. And I expect as large in the Southern as Northern hemispheres as the Southern Hemisphere is all water.

              Here you go TdeF.
              As you surmised the pertubations are out of phase. Mauna Loa peaks in May and lowest in September. Cape Grim is the opposite. However the pertubations are larger at Mauna Loa,

              MaunaLoa:https://www.odysseytraveller.com/articles/atmospheric-measurements-at-mauna-lao-cape-grim/

              Cape Grim:
              https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural-environment/atmosphere/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

              10

              • #
                TdeF

                Could not see the detail from Cape Grim, but there is this comment

                “As well as the obvious seasonal variations and long-term trends in carbon dioxide concentrations, there are also more subtle variations, which have been shown to correlate significantly with the regular El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon and with major volcanic eruptions. ”

                You may as well say the CO2 levels correlate well with sea surface temperature, which is my whole proposition. And if you can see sea surface temperature has such a big effect, why isn’t the whole thing sea surface temperature driven? Why do so called scientists ignore the behavior of a gas dissolved in warm water? Why is NASA determined to argue that the oceans are heated by CO2 and even the latest nonsense the the oceans stole the heating from the air, without actually heating the air. Who writes such nonsense?

                The next challenge is to see if the magnitude of the oscillations matches the temperature changes, using Henry’s law. Then the explanation for steadily rising CO2 is self evident. 98% of the CO2 is already in the water.

                20

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                TdeF:
                Don’t you realise that Henry’s Law was repealed around 8,000 B.C. ?
                Temperatures in the following Holocene Optimum were higher than present, even Wikipedia agrees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
                Up to 4℃ warmer in summer in the Arctic yet the CO2 levels were lower than present. So even after a few thousand years of warmth the atmospheric CO2 level was way below the present level, so obviously warmer waters weren’t releasing CO2.
                So lower CO2 causes higher temperatures and higher CO2 also causes higher temperatures.
                I think I will call this the Fitzroy Effect.

                10

              • #
                Peter C

                Could not see the detail from Cape Grim,

                If you hover your cursor of the Cape Grim graph, it shows the date. From that you can point point the dates of the high and low points.

                00

    • #
      Ian

      ““For a moment let’s pause and think of Julie B. moving across the world stage as our rep at the United Bloody Nations on Manhattan. Dressed to kill with her token male in tow: she gets off on showing off. Perpetual holiday, free trips and feted by the media.””

      That is a totally incorrect and biased view of the woman who was deputy leader of the LNP for 11 consecutive years. I am unable to write my comments on your denigration of Ms Bishop so perhaps, although I think it very unlikely, you will read her achievements for yourself.

      https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-long-career-of-incredible-trailblazer-julie-bishop/e52ffc7f-9b99-4330-b400-3f437f8fec6e

      113

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        ““For a moment let’s pause and think of Julie B.”

        No thanks, I don’t want to spoil the day.

        140

        • #
          Ian

          ““For a moment let’s pause and think of Julie B.”

          No thanks, I don’t want to spoil the day.

          If that is the case why did you ask us to do so in your original comment (#3)? I was replying to your original statement. Is your memory OK?

          26

      • #
        TdeF

        Sorry, I accidentally gave this a green tick. My mistake.

        30

      • #
        peter

        Ian,
        That SBS list of “achievements” was a list of promotions NOT achievements. There was nothing in her career that particularly shines out as an achievement except perhaps her failure in Finance and her endurance in being deputy leader for 11 years, hanging out waiting to be promoted to Leader. When she was finally rejected by her party for the job (even her WA colleagues voted against her) preferring Scomo, Peter Dutton and just about anyone else for the job, she spat the dummy! Being a sycophantic friend of Malcolm Trumble, she was suspected by her party of being a Turnbull-light if voted in as PM, and everyone had had enough of him. The main things she may be remembered for will be a ‘steely-stare’ and those red shoes.

        50

    • #
      Zigmaster

      I like to look at the role of CO2 and climate is imagine if the CO2 theory didn’t exist would I walk outside and suddenly think “ oh my God it feels like at least 1.5 degrees hotter than 60 years ago when I was 7 . The only thing real about man made Global warming theory is that man made it up. Climate and temperatures have gone through cycles for ever and ever and whether we burn coal or not the variation to that cycle would not be noticeable. Whilst the causal link between CO2 and temperature is tenuous at best and non existent at worst the belief that we can actually do anything about it is even for fanciful.
      All that all this global warming religious fervour has done is change the global dynamics in favour of China and created a generation of very anxious and manipulated children. The economic suicide of western governments will be payed for by generations to come who will have to learn to live with energy becoming a luxury for only the elite few.

      60

  • #
    Global Cooling

    Climate politics has nothing to do with Earth’s climate. Sending more money (to China) does not change it. Climate politics is the energy branch of geopolitics. “Who” is the keyword in politics. Who earns with the policy and who should pay the costs. Oil from Soviet Union was a good idea but oil from Russia is not.

    Virtue signals are for the sheeple whose money the oligarchs would like to share in Glasgow.

    100

  • #
    Graham Richards

    As long as it’s even slightly green it’s really simple to fool any western politician. Our own are perfect examples.

    60

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    China has 18% of the lords population, and is the largest state. So it will alway have the largest coat, nuclear, solar, car, soy, rice etc etc.

    As to their public statements on reducing greenhouse pollution, it is doing this out of self interest, as it does suffer from bad air quality in its major cities.

    For a country which is able to lift its population out of abject poverty in a record time, they have a track record of success which is making the west extremely envious, hence the denigration.

    125

    • #
      clarence.t

      And all that lifting has been done on the back of one main electricity supply… COAL !

      PS.. CO2 is not pollution. It does not affect air quality.

      220

    • #
    • #
      David Maddison

      As to their public statements on reducing greenhouse pollution, it is doing this out of self interest, as it does suffer from bad air quality in its major cities.

      There is no relation between “greenhouse pollution” and bad air quality. The so-called greenhouse pollution is an invisible trace gas that has no impact on air quality which is approximately 5000ppm maximum acceptable concentration in a work environment. There is no way a power station could produce that much CO2 to affect an entire city with that concentration of CO2.

      Particulate, NOx and sulphur emissions from power stations and other combustion processes are different and are regulated and controlled in Western countries which is why Western countries have good air quality in cities unlike your beloved Communist China.

      201

      • #
        Steve4192

        Not to mention that all life on earth would cease to exist without that ‘greenhouse pollution’. Plants can’t grow without it, and animals exhale it.

        In truth, climate optimum that greenies want to return to (early/mid 18th century levels) was catastrophically bad for plant growth and led to widespread crop failures and starvation. I much prefer our modern atmospheric level, which is leading to massive plant life proliferation and ‘greening the earth’. And we still aren’t anywhere near the ‘optimum’ that plants prefer. Greenhouses regularly boost their CO2 to quadruple our current atmospheric levels in order to further stimulate plant growth.

        20

    • #
      a+happy+little+debunker

      China has been around since at least 1250BC – suggesting that it has lifted itself out of abject self-imposed poverty in ‘a record time’, is somewhat disingenuous…

      200

      • #
        Deano

        I remember hearing a Chinese official boasting that China had done in just 40 years what had taken the West over 250 years – the Industrial Revolution. This is like some freshly graduated physics student boasting that he had discovered all the main principles of physics in just 4 years whereas Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Faraday, Maxwell, Bohr etc had taken hundreds of years.

        20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Peter F:

      Bad air quality doesn’t come from carbon dioxide, rather from slack control of solids pollution, as was obvious in the killer smogs in the UK in the 1950’s, and the ghastly air quality in major cities in the USA at that time.
      Installing water and electrostatic scrubbers on coal-fired power stations would help substantially, and even more would getting rid of burning low grade coal for household heating and cooking which the Chinese are doing by switching to electricity. Even better might be to eliminate diesel trucks, busses etc. but there aren’t (economical or practical) alternatives.
      The Chinese may, and probably will, clean-up the air in their cities but they have no intention whatever of reducing “greenhouse pollution”.

      150

    • #
      John Hultquist

      ” it does suffer from bad air quality in its major cities ”

      And therefore it does make sense to close the smaller old facilities and build large efficient ones. CO2 goes up while actual pollutants go down. The climate approves.

      20

    • #
      TedM

      “For a country which is able to lift its population out of abject poverty in a record time,”.
      Except for the part of the population that they keep in abject poverty, and Oh don’t forget the portion of the population that is in slavery. Also remembering how China made economic progress, apart from the handouts from the West, the technology gifted to them, the technology that they stole, and the fact that they ignore patents so just copy the innovations of Westerners. I have a friend whose patent was stolen by the Chinese, and they market the product in Australia.

      20

  • #
    PeterS

    The trouble though is there are so many gullible people around today they will fall for the CCP propaganda. They may be excused for being so gullible and stupid but what about our leaders who are pushing for the same Greens agenda? Ignorance can’t be an excuse as they are supposed to be above the lies and propaganda. Yet they are doing the exact opposite and falling in line with the BS. Why? Well, that’s the big question on the lips of those who are not asleep but aware something is terribly wrong. There are a number of theories to explain it but I tend to believe most if not all of them have at least some truth in them. So, it doesn’t really matter simply because the agenda will be executed to completion; that is the destruction of the West as we know it, and we now know by what means because it’s no longer kept a secret – the Great Reset. Meanwhile “Let us be thankful we have commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy. And be happy.” – quote from THX 1138.

    120

    • #
      David Maddison

      As to their public statements on reducing greenhouse pollution, it is doing this out of self interest, as it does suffer from bad air quality in its major cities.

      There is no relation between “greenhouse pollution” and bad air quality. The so-called greenhouse pollution is an invisible trace gas that has no impact on air quality which is approximately 5000ppm maximum acceptable concentration in a work environment. There is no way a power station could produce that much CO2 to affect an entire city with that concentration of CO2.

      Particulate, NOx and sulphur emissions from power stations and other combustion processes are different and are regulated and controlled in Western countries which is why Western countries have good air quality in cities unlike your beloved Communist China.

      110

    • #
      Ian

      “They may be excused for being so gullible and stupid ”

      As the majority of Australians accept the climate scientists’ view of climate change perhaps it is you not them that is gullible and stupid.

      121

      • #
        David Maddison

        Since when is science about consensus? That’s not how science works. Here is an illustration of how it works from Einstein.

        Inevitably, Einstein’s fame and the great success of his theories created a backlash. The rising Nazi movement found a convenient target in relativity, branding it “Jewish physics” and sponsoring conferences and book burnings to denounce Einstein and his theories. The Nazis enlisted other physicists, including Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, to denounce Einstein. One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.

        https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein/Nazi-backlash-and-coming-to-America

        100

        • #
          Ian

          Science isn’t about consensus but about evidence based on fact which, as the tectonic plates theory showed, can overturn the accepted view.

          So far climate sceptics have not had much of an impact on the majority of the population. Why is that?

          06

          • #
            David Maddison

            So far climate sceptics have not had much of an impact on the majority of the population. Why is that?

            For the same reason that many people used to think the earth was flat – ignorance and official dogma.

            In fact, non-ignorant people have known the earth was “round”, since about 500BCE although its correct shape as an oblate spheroid was not known until about the 17th century and it was mentioned by Newton.

            40

          • #
            Deano

            The Greenies have had a big impact on the media and so the media portrays belief in anthropological climate change as accepted by the vast majority. If that was true, then use of renewables wouldn’t need any incentive. We would all believe our very survival would be in the balance. Yet the only way people can be encouraged to use ‘clean and green energy’ is by making conventional energy hellishly expensive to pay subsidies to wind farms and solar sources.
            Electric cars are still mostly a novelty.

            10

      • #
        el+gordo

        We need to differentiate between CO2 (benign invisible gas) and smog.

        https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-include-more-cities-2021-winter-air-pollution-campaign-2021-09-16/

        Peter talks through his hat, nevertheless on the topic of climate change a majority of Australians are ill informed.

        70

      • #
        Hanrahan

        WHICH climate scientists?

        Desmog has a list of hundreds [thousands?] they have patiently assembled who DO NOT accept the climate scientists’ view of climate change.

        Sadly their site is down but
        https://littlesis.org/lists/941-desmog-s-list-of-global-warming-deniers/members
        has a list that I do not believe is complete.

        60

      • #

        At one time the majority of the world’s population thought the world was flat. They also thought the Earth was the center of the Universe and a lot of other ‘science’ that we now know to be wrong. Many people today are just as gullible as our distant ancestors, especially when it comes to science since far less than 1% of all people understand enough about science to have an informed opinion. What makes this so pernicious regarding climate science is that the IPCC has replaced the scientific method with conformance to a political narrative as they became the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science based on what they choose to publish in their reports.

        91

        • #
          Serp

          The proposition that “At one time the majority of the world’s population thought the world was flat” is a daft one.

          Eratosthenes would not have been the only person throughout history to observe the variation of shadow lengths with latitude and deduce earth’s topology from that.

          Had you done a search on “origin of flat earth theory” before posting you’d have eliminated a little of the modernist superiority complex afflicting you, and possibly “the majority of the world’s population”.

          12

          • #

            Yes, a few knew better then, just as some know better about the climate today. The majority of the people did not, which is also true today regarding the climate.

            I never said that everyone thought the world was flat or that everyone thinks that CO2 is the control knob of the climate. I was only pointing out the consequence of mass ignorance which is that people then and now will easily believe things that are not true, especially when the truth is counterintuitive.

            20

      • #
        clarence.t

        You do realise that there is no scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2, don’t you.?

        Whoever these “climate scientists” you are talking about, they are basing their comments on scientifically unsupportable nonsense.

        In the case of “climate science” belief, gullible is the consensus.

        71

      • #
        el+gordo

        Beijing understands the West is gullible and stupid over the question of AGW, with their precautionary principle, putting on sack cloth and all that. The heathens are laughing up their sleeve, but they will play the long game and win.

        They’ll stop building coal fired power stations in Third World countries and absolve their sins, which means the masses won’t be uplifted any time soon.

        32

    • #
    • #
      el+gordo

      The Great Reset is a myth.

      04

  • #

    I’ll give the CCP credit for acting in the best interests of its citizens by wearing a green cloak of deceit to fool the customers of their green hardware into thinking that the CCP also cares about the green agenda, despite being the worlds biggest user of coal. No doubt the Chinese climate scientists also know how wrong the IPCC is thus justifying both the deceit and all of the coal fired power stations. Too bad they don’t care about real pollution.

    70

  • #
    David Maddison

    Are people forgetting the massive toxic waste dumps the Chicomms generate from mining and processing rare earth minerals for the economy destroying windmills they sell us (or are used in windmills produced by someone else for us to use).

    You know it’s bad if even Leftist The Guardian says it’s bad as indicated in this 2014 article.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs

    Rare earth mining in China: the bleak social and environmental costs

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Chicomms are on a dream run.

    1) With the successful coup d’état against President Trump there is no one to stop them militarily or economically including their taking possession of the South China Sea and their forthcoming invasion of Tawain and possibly Afghanistan if the Afghans won’t permit massive mineral exploitation.

    2) They have unlimited access to cheap coal power, and of course no protesters against it and no freedom of speech in any case.

    3) They have a vast slave army of useful idiots in the West, including socialist media and even the US “President” to support and comfort them and suppress criticism of their actions.

    4) Most Western politicians are now following Chicomm-style totalitarian policies such as suppression of freedom of speech, draconian lock ups, draconian fines and freedom to trade depending on some determined status such as being loyal to the CCP or in Australia’s case whether you are based or not. We have all these policies in Australia in the world’s most severe application.

    40

    • #
      David Maddison

      That was meant to read “Australia’s case whether you are based vaxxed or not”.

      20

    • #
      Tel

      Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, and it seems unlikely that China would be arrogant enough and stupid enough to attempt to invade. But if they do really want to, they are welcome to bleed out, like what happens to every other occupation force in that country.

      I have a feeling that a more likely outcome is that China does deals with the Taliban and sets up a network of bribery … paying the protection money. It’s their style, and likely to get results.

      The easiest way to protect Taiwan would be for the USA to pack up all their troops in Okinawa and shake hands with the Japanese leaders. Tell them, “It’s been a blast but we are outa here … you are a free and independent nation from this day forwards and you want to use it wisely, play nice with the neighbours, mkay?”

      50

  • #
    Neville

    Meanwhile the so called science that underpins much of the so called GHE DATA is challenged AGAIN by Dr Happer and Wijngaarden.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/21/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and-happer/

    30

    • #
      Ross

      I really hate that term “Greenhouse Effect”. The earth’s atmosphere works nothing like a greenhouse – not even close. Anyone who has worked in a greenhouse knows that biggest heating/cooling force inside the structure is due to air circulation or convection. The glass wall/ roof structure biggest effect is keeping outside air ( cooler or hotter ) from entering the inside of the greenhouse. In winter the structure keeps out the cooler outside air, so it stays warmer. In summer if you want to cool the structure down, you open the top vents to let the outside cooler air in. (which is relatively cooler). How can an atmosphere work like a greenhouse when its open to space and is affected by winds and moving air masses? Greenhouse gases are a lazy term, only reinforcing the unsupported theory of AGW, because then the lay person will recognise it. We should always use the term “atmospheric gases”. Or maybe even “natural atmospheric gases”.

      60

  • #
    Serge Wright

    This is the joke that keeps getting bigger, and the joke is on the naive climate worshipers that want to believe in every false word uttered by the Chinese CCP. China will continue to fund all of the coal plants that have been announced, but what happens afterwards ?. Well if you listen carefully to the announcement, one greeted by the ABC in full godly worship, Xi Jinping did not say his country would stop the build or supply of new coal power, only the funding. Therefore, if any country wishes to build a new coal plant in the more distant future such as Vietnam, then it only needs to secure local funding from its own banks or government and China will come in and build the plant if they need external expertise. China can also provide cash loans to these governments to achieve the same outcome if required, which would circumvent their committment. And of course as Jo mentions, China will still ramp up its own coal power infrastructure by whatever it chooses.

    60

  • #
    Neville

    The CCP is now interested in helping the Taliban terrorists develop their trillion $ rare earth deposits.
    What a scary, EVIL combination of non believers and religious extremists, what could possibly go wrong?
    And who could care less about the persecuted Muslim slaves working for the CCP and supplying the stupid OECD countries with so called GREEN energy?

    https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/572932-china-seeks-to-extend-critical-minerals-monopoly-with-help-of?mc_cid=fb14f7865f&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

    10

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘ … the Chinese government might cut off all exports of rare earth minerals to the United States.’

      Its feasible, but unlikely because its not in Beijing’s political interest. They want to show the world that there is another way besides adventurism.

      20

  • #

    Meanwhile it’s doing a smashing job of cheering on the other competitors as they take Coal Chastity Vows and run barefoot, naked and green into the quicksand pit of Energy Doom.

    Man, that’s the best line I have read about this situation in years.

    Tony.

    200

  • #
    Neville

    Another accurate summary from Matt Ridley about their stupid pursuit of so called GREEN energy.
    No doubt this is the greatest fra-d and con trick in world history and China, Putin etc must be laughing at our religious fanaticism as they in turn plan for a more prosperous future. AT OUR EXPENSE.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10010693/Power-mad-devastating-audit-lays-bare-costly-errors.html?mc_cid=41ef2597c7&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Interesting to look at China’s life expectancy since 1950.
    1950 – 43.5

    1988 – 68.9

    2021 – 77

    The moment they massively increased their use of coal since 1990 their life expectancy has increased to almost the level of the USA.
    But lower than other wealthy countries like Australia at about 83 in 2021.
    But the UN/ World bank data also shows us that everyone will be much healthier and wealthier by 2100 and China’s life expectancy then will be about 87 years.
    So much for their EXISTENTIAL THREAT idiocy.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/life-expectancy

    50

  • #
    Flok

    When communist regime starts throwing barbs and flexing its verbal muscle, they are on the back foot.

    China’s manufacturing fills the waste dump of all countries. Nothing green about CCP anywhere and ever. Soon we will have slogans such as “buy a solar panel and save a Chinese”.

    Coal is the only manageable source of energy in every regard and in perfect harmony with the living planet.

    Australia never had an energy problem till solar and wind got forced onto the stage. This created new levels of management and like all big corporations the sector became top heavy. Someone has to pay for this.

    10

  • #
    Mal

    I’m a retired engineer
    Risk management, who of life cost and environmental assessment was all part of my functions
    As I got older there were more and more shades of grey (50) at last count
    Everything was a trade off
    Need to know what was important and apply the 80:20 rule
    Throw geopolitical risks and it becomes evident clear that coal fired plants are the cheapest for of electricity generation with possibly back up gas and hydro.
    In the future nuclear
    Australia generates 1 molecule of co2 per 10 million parts of the atmosphere ,so we have effectively zero impact on the climate
    The lemmings who are advocating renewables are leading us to energy unreliability, high cost and inability to sustain our industry and unable to replace themselves when they reach end of life
    I don’t know why we are looking at acquiring nuclear subnarines
    We will have nothing to defend shortly
    Brainless politicians, media and kowtowing to the UN
    As the old song goes “were on the eve of destruction “

    80

    • #
      John Hultquist

      Eve of Destruction (P. F. Sloan, writer; Barry McGuire best known cover) seemed more about threats from others, not foolishly destroying your own society over a non-problem.

      30

  • #
    Raving

    This is how bad it is in the UK. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58641394

    The UK government is giving a grant to provide 3 weeks gas supply to 2 fertilizer plants to keep them in production while co2 prices rise and stabilize

    Watching Johnson sell COP26 to other nations will be as fun as watching Johnson sell cheese to Canada

    40

    • #
      Raving

      Energy prices will be brutal in Europe this winter. They won’t be in a mood for pushing more renewables

      40

      • #
        Ross

        If COVID rebounds, there’s a really cold winter and energy prices go up along with gas shortages- there might be some very ugly scenes in Europe and the UK.

        50

  • #
    CO2isLife

    Bloomberg has an interview with John Kerry where he is asked about China and Uyghurs. It is clear that China uses Climate Change as leverage to get the world to ignore human rights violations. The video clip was covered last night on Laura Ingraham. The world is literally turning a blind eye to a Holocaust to promote a nonsensical agenda of climate change.

    20

  • #
    CHRIS

    John Kerry and Al Gore are kindred spirits. Neither man cares about Uryghurs. Remember, both of these men are failed politicians. Gore sold his stake in a US Cable Network to Al Jazeera (owned by Qatar, an oil-producing nation),and as for Kerry…well, he is beyond redemption. It is so unfortunate that the lie of CAGW is believed by so many ignorant people.

    10