Does the planet matter or doesn’t it?
Today the headlines read “As the world sizzles, China says it will deal with climate its own way“, as if it made sense that the planet could be burning up and the largest emitter was clearly steaming ahead anyway. But no one got too upset in the Washington Post, or anywhere else either.
From a carbon-believer’s point of view this should be the main game, the big crisis, the drama to launch a thousand protests and fund-raisers. But there are no encampments outside the Chinese embassies, no one is calling for boycotts on Chinese goods “until they act”, and no people are gluing themselves to wharves to stop “the boats of doom” loading and unloading.
China’s intentions are pretty clear:
China’s output of carbon dioxide is set to reach a new record high in 2023. It grew 4 percent in the first quarter this year alone.
Apparently China is committed to deadlines but not to a path, or a tempo, or a public plan, or any kind of transparency:
China remained “unwaveringly” committed to reaching its peak in carbon emissions before 2030 and becoming carbon neutral by 2060, he told them this week, according to the official People’s Daily on Wednesday.
“But,” Mr. Xi added, “the pathway and means for reaching this goal, and the tempo and intensity, should be and must be determined by ourselves, and never under the sway of others.”
China is effectively saying, it has a secret plan, “Trust us”
If China has any plan at all for “carbon neutrality” it’s to go nuclear as fast as it can. It will likely overtake the US as the largest nuclear power nation in the world before 2030. But if this was the plan, why keep it a secret? Is China afraid the West will realize they should build nuclear plants too, or is it because there is no plan at all? After all, China is still building two new coal plants every week. Who believes they are constructing 100 coal plants a year but are planning for emissions to start falling consistently and meaningfully in less than seven years?
Naturally, it’s Donald Trump’s fault:
John Kerry flew to China to chat and came home with nothing but said the talks were “I think, very productive”. And The Washington Post spent the rest of the article reminding the rest of us how bad climate change will be without a single word in admonition toward the Sino contribution. The New York Times was even worse, making excuses for China and blaming, who else?
Xi Says China Will Act on Climate Goals at Its Own Pace
Lisa Friedman and
…Yet while China has built more wind and solar power than the rest of the world combined, and is on track to double its green energy capacity by 2025, the Chinese government has resisted calls to bolster its climate targets or stop the permitting of new coal-fired power plants.
There is also lingering suspicion in China that the United States could turn its back on its climate promises under a future administration, as it did under President Trump, who pulled the United States out of an international climate agreement and promoted coal growth.
“The Chinese also want to see results from the U.S. to believe it will deliver,” said Deborah Seligsohn, an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University who is based in China.
“It’s very difficult for China to manage that confidence deficit if the most important relationship for China — the U.S.-China relationship — is in free fall,” said Evan S. Medeiros, a former director for China on the National Security Council who now teaches at Georgetown University.
China, the Media, the activists, the UN — none of them act like CO2 matters — every one of them make choices that show CO2 is just the tool to accomplish something else. It’s fame, or sabotage, or power and control, but it isn’t “the climate”.
China and a new record high?
Have you seen this about the apparent fraud of European record temperatures?
https://notrickszone.com/2023/07/19/europes-48c-horror-that-never-was-esa-media-sharply-criticized-for-manipulative-reporting/
Who knows how and where the China temperatures are recorded and he genuine they are?
250
Here’s the forecast for Beijing. It’s far from the 43c plus that is being claimed over this period
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/1816670
You can put in the actual real air temperatures expected for Sardinia, Rome, Greece and all the other 48c places and they are nothing of the sort.
As my link at the top of the page shows, they have used the much hotter land temperatures not the air temperatures
290
Using land temperatures
Back in 1965 when car air conditioning was a distant dream here one bloke put in a requisition for one of those woven seat pads to reduce the temperature of his drivers seat. It was refused.
So he left the car out in the sun with a thermometer on the seat and got a temperature of (IIRC) 155F which he submitted as evidence.
He got the pad.
One of my early lessons in “You never take the first “No” as definitive”.
120
A claimed record high temperature in Sicily today
https://news.italy24.press/local/709334.html
However, the stations were only installed in 2002
10
They are openly, brazenly, lying now, knowing that no one in the Lamestream media will either notice, care or ask tough (or any) questions.
With very few exceptions, today’s “journalists” are shameful, disgusting individuals, greatly contributing to the destruction of a once-great Western Civilisation. In fact, they don’t actually practice journalism, they are paid political propagandists.
431
Newspapers and other media receive press releases and just print them. They rarely have anyone capable of objectively examining the information. The ESA have done a sort of retraction as you can see if you follow the link to the regional item.
However whilst they admit they have used land temperatures they don’t explain how different it is to air temperatures.
I doubt we will see this mentioned elsewhere but sceptical web sites and of course it will just be considered as a conspiracy theory by those greens who monitor them
220
Sicily 48℃ (ground temperature) 32℃ (air temperature where the tourists are).
Apparently one of the “record temperatures” was taken on the ground on the slopes of Mt. Etna – could that have any other source of heat)..
200
..and you can be sure that was not on the North facing slope. !
20
To be fair, and having visited Mt Etna, its slopes cover a vast area and altitudes all the way down to the sea.
60
The ENTIRE “Filth-Column” fourth estate has ALWAYS been like this.
Nasty, little-minded allegedly adult form schoolyard tattle-tales, openly referring to themselves as “opinion shapers”; what is NOT to despise?
They would sell their grandmothers down the river for an exclusive. Their GREATEST psycho-sexual jolly is to hear their own poisonous words / opinions bleated back at them by brain-deadened punters.
If you get my drift.
40
No surprises here, China has been only paying lip service to the west all along. They are building so many coal fired power stations to fuel their expanding power because they know those are the real and reliable ones. Then they make all the solar and wind components and sell it to the naive western nations who are focused on destroying their own economies. The irony of course is that we and others sell the coal to them to keep our economy going.
360
How many people, present company excepted, know that China, BY FAR, is the world’s largest anthropogenic CO2 producer, what the scientifically-illiterate anti-energy lobby calls “carbon” (sic)?
And why should Australia destroy its economy and its once-high standard of living because of it?
Top 10 anthropogenic CO2 emitters
China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2
Reference: https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/ a warmist site but I believe they are correct. Figures for 2019.
210
A young lad at work tried to explain to me that it is only per capital emissions that matter. After I stopped laughing I explained to him that although Carbondale DIOXIDE emissions don’t matter, if you believe they do, then it is total emissions that are the only game in town.
I further explained. It is the total emissions that the believers think are warming the world, so it is beyond ludicrous to care about per capita emissions that add up to 1% of total emissions while ignoring China that generates 40% (made that number up). It is the total increase in emissions that is the supposed cause of the warming and that is all that matters.
He was shocked 😮. And after about 30 seconds thinking, agreed with me. He had thought that before but was convinced he was wrong because his education and news sources keep telling him it was per capita that matter. He is a smart kid and is now going to do a bit of research on his own. Of course I pointed him here to this blog.
421
What a shame, a smart kid off the rails due to state sponsored lies, hopefully you’ve got him thinking for himself now.
240
It’s a tragedy and a crime how they are now propagandising to children in “schools” / indoctrination centres.
Kids suffer, smart kids especially so.
An extremely smart girl, daughter of a friend of mine, once came home from (a top private school in Vicdanistan at that) crying because some visitor from the government had come to school to “teach” about supposed global warming and was told a lie that the world is coming to an end and all the plants and animals would die unless we acted NOW.
270
The Australian warmists use per capita CO2 emissions because it is the only measurement they have with which to argue ‘we must do our bit for the world’ – and destroy our economy! It’s the excuse behind all their pathetic outcries in this country about AGW, GBR, FF mining etc. They can thus avoid the argument that Australia is already effectively a net CO2 sink and instead moralise their claims.
40
Makes you wonder why, if CO2 increases plant growth, they have spray paint trees and rocks green.😁
Everyone should by now know that what China says is typically the opposite of the reality.
No doubt their energy & pollution claims will be “safe & effective”…
60
Fact check – This is not a list of carbon polluters: a, because CO2 is not carbon, but an invisible gas; b, because CO2 is not pollution, but an essential trace gas; c, because carbon per se is not pollution either, it is the basic building block of all life on Earth.
20
What possible difference to the weather could the reduction or even cessation of CO2 emissions from the West make? (Even assuming that the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was correct, which of course it isn’t.)
China has emissions twice as high as the next largest emitter, the US. China’s emissions are rapidly increasing while the US is level or decreasing, as is most of the West.
Who’s benefiting from this?
301
Surely CO2 emissions per capita is a fairer metric. Australia is about 10th.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
849
Why?
Your unproven hypothesis is that anthropogenic CO2 (what warmists usually call “carbon” (sic) but I see you made a special effort to use the correct terminology since I pointed it out) causes catastrophic global warming.
What does it matter who it comes from?
Why are warmists silent about China when it is high and dramatically increasing while the West’ s CO2 emissions are not?
It wouldn’t be that the anti-energy lobbyists are overwhelmingly Chicomm supporters and the self-destruction of the West benefits China, would it?
432
David.
You ask Simon a very reasonable question – i.e. “What does it matter who it comes from?”
I do hope you’re not expecting an answer – you’re only going to hear crickets mate – the question is impossible for anyone of Simon’s “faith” to answer.
Cheers,
251
It is the total increase in emissions that is the cause of climate change, if you believe in it.
Per capita doesn’t matter. The supposed climate change is not worse because 1% of total emissions comes from .000? something of the population, who have a higher per capita CO2 emissions. So reducing per capita emissions from a very small proportion of the world’s population has no effect at all.
If you believe CO2 emissions to be the problem, and it effects the whole world, then it is the responsibility of the largest emitters to reduce their total emissions for the sake of the world. The few emitters that make up the bulk of emissions, can make substantial reductions (which small countries cannot do), which would benefit the whole world. It doesn’t get any fairer than that.
270
So according to Simon our emissions by capita means that our 0.325% (by capita) are dangerous.
I am sure he will then switch to total emissions (about 1%) to justify his Cult mentality.
141
Per capita gives China a free ride and demonises clean countries like Australia and NZ.
240
Which is exactly why they use that metric.
321
Fairer still is to include the historic growth/decline of population.
100
India’s population increased by 800 million between 1960 and today.
120
India’s population increased by almost 800 million since 1960. Are you going to deny their right to industrialize?
Talking per capita emissions is insignificant. Emissions will continue to climb through the roof.
800 million more people in India since 1960.. Think ablut that Simon.
140
What is the carbon footprint of an ore train driver from Hamersley to Port Hedland? Remember not one ounce of that ore is for domestic use. THAT carbon (sic) should be credited to the importing country.
An interesting aside: Data centres use 1 or 2% of electricity generation. Why don’t we shoot big tech and not cattle?
100
Why credit it anywhere? In fact why pretend to monitor it at all? Time to stamp out the scientific nonsense of carbon footprints. It is a propaganda device. They mean CO2 which is not carbon, and is essential, and all round beneficial, to life on Earth. Good point about data centres. They currently use about 3% of global electricity and that is rising fast.
10
Simon >”Surely CO2 emissions per capita is a fairer metric”
Except aggregate emissions are the basis for the IPCC’s emissions scenarios:
Emissions Scenarios — IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf
Page 3:
Aggregated. Nothing about emissions per capita – is the IPCC unfair?
60
IPCC >”Emissions are provided aggregated into four world regions”
Oddly, in that report previous, I cannot find any reference to what the “four world regions” actually are (sigh).
Clearly, in the emissions graph by country, there is really only ONE region that matters – China.
So the IPCC should really just be breaking down emissions scenarios by country:
China
USA
The rest.
That’s it. No other scenarios make any sense.
50
>”Oddly, in that report previous, I cannot find any reference to what the “four world regions” actually are (sigh).”
That was SPM, so now Full Report: Download (47.2 MB) (Sigh!)
S p e c i a l R e p o r t o n E m i s s i o n s S c e n a r i o s
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/emissions_scenarios-1.pdf
Found it !!
Page 30:
So:
OECD90 region [World developed]
R E F region [East European/ex-Soviet developed]
A S I A region [Asia developing]
A L M region [rest of World developing]
Clearly this is absurd on an emissions-by-country basis – only China matters (and USA to a lessor extent):
China
USA
Rest of World
50
If you believe in AGW, total emissions of CO2 mean everything and per capita emissions mean nothing.
Let’s put this in perspective.
The CAGW crowd has declared that 350 ppm is the magical target for atmospheric CO2 content. Current content is 420 ppm.
AU is 1.5% of global emissions. 96% of all emissions are naturally occurring. So the goal seems to be reducing atmospheric CO2 by 70 ppm.
AU is responsible for 0.015 x 0.04 x 0.0070% = 0.00028% of global emissions. That is 0.0000028 or 2.8 parts per billion. Total. That is if AU stops all CO2 emissions of any sort from any process. Not reduces them. Totally stops them.
If you think that destroying the AU economy to effect a theoretically necessary 2.8 ppb emission is rational, then a discussion of sanity is in order. If the AU contribution of 2.8 ppb controls world climate, compare that to China’s contribution of 30% of global CO2 emissions or 2,000% that of AU and justify the basis of your position. It doesn’t matter what AU does in the grand scheme of things, even if you believe that a single parameter out of thousands controls a dynamic system. I find your position unconvincing.
170
The only reason “per capita” emissions matter to deluded fools is when your goal is not environmental, but is in fact to cause economic ruin in countries that have more or less been successful in attempts to improve the standard of living for citizens
60
Todays SMH has it a number on the future..
The Albanese government’s goal is to generate 82 per cent of electricity through renewable energy by 2030. GenCost forecast that up to 90 per cent renewables, including transmission lines and back-up battery or gas power, would cost between $70 to $100 dollars a megawatt hour in 2030.
It also found there was no prospect of the emerging small modular reactor technology being deployed in Australia before 2030, but once up and running it would be far more expensive, costing between $200 and $350 a megawatt hour.
I think they have mixed Mw up with Kw
180
Those numbers make no sense.
Obviously the government (politicians) are lying, because, surely, they can’t be that ignorant and stupid.
Certainly the people that tell politicians what to do and think (not the voters!) are not stupid.
They have very specific objectives for harvesting subsidies from solar and wind subsidy farms. Plus higher up from them, instructions for the destruction of the West to the benefit of China.
230
For SA to have a secure supply of backup of renewables by batteries for the not unlikely 72 hours, I calculate it would cost $115,200,000,000.
For Australia about $192 trillion.
Since there will be likely cost rises with such an enormous increase in demand for lithium etc. I think the only reply would be “tell them, they’re dreaming”.
180
Graeme no 3 I’d like to see any link you have for calculating the trillions of $ cost?
I don’t doubt it would be an incredible number of trillions $, but have you found a credible source?
40
They’re definitely lying. It’s like COVID. The government, if they were stupid, would occasionally get something correct by just dumb luck. But, they appeared to get everything wrong from the get go. Hence, assume it’s all a lie. I know that sounds like the ultimate in conspiracy theory type talk but its the only scenario that makes sense.
141
NEVER ascribe to “government stupidity”, that which is CLEARLY government MALICE.
See also: “Pubic serpents”.
10
You’re new at this, aren’t you. 😆😆
70
Don’t expect the SMH to figure out if/when there is a magnitude error like you’re suspecting. They will go with the numbers that makes the alarmist story look the best for Simon, Malcolm and co.
80
Eat meat while you still can. Look what Australia has signed up to:
https://slaynews.com/news/13-nations-agree-crack-down-farming-fight-global-warming/
180
I won’t be eating insects.
Incidentally, Australia being one of the, if not the most fanatical follower of the anthropogenic global warming fraud is already feeding insects to kids in 1000 Aussie “schools” (indoctrination centres).
Australia, a true pioneer in woke insanity.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/09/1000-australian-schools-are-fed-insects/
230
You vill eat ze insects, as ze beef and ze chicken vill not exist. Vot vill you do zen?
60
How do you cook scrub turkeys? I have a dozen in my back yard, but they won’t last long, I’m afraid.
40
Stew them in a pressure cooker together with a few sticks from a old gum tree, for about an hour.
Remove from the heat and allow it to “rest” for 30 mins…
Then throw away the bird, and chew on the sticks with a red sauce dip !
Yummmmm !
30
Think of the wild life Second Coming. Once again the law of unintended consequences will prevail. No meat you say, oh well that lovely dickie bird or skippy might have to carry the load. All for a good cause though.
50
OTOH, farmers may have more incentive to produce things other than meat. I found out last week that sheep prices have also dropped almost 50%.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/struggling-cattle-market-producers-brace-tough-times/102615694
20
Burkina Faso at the forefront of struggle against the climate hobgoblin.
Good luck with that.
30
What a bunch of losers we joined with. I don’t see Holland on the list and yet they were Gung Ho on stopping farmers from farming. These people are not just mad but extremely dangerous. Christ may have said “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do” but in this case they know exactly what they are doing. They must be stopped and in Australia that means getting rid of Bowen and the ALP government. Fortunately it is unraveling as we speak. Dutton gave a great speech of his view of SMRs to the IPA which gives me some degree of confidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBKRIbgCQ8
210
Dutton also supports unreliables.
And nuclear is wonderful but so is coal.
Dutton only supports nuclear because it lacks CO2 emissions. He is still a true believer in the anthropogenic global warming fraud.
Sometimes a coal power station will be more cost effective than nuclear. It all depends on the situation.
An SMR would be wonderful for serving an Outback town. In cases where you have a coal power station built on top of a coal mine such as Hazelwood was before it was maliciously destroyed by the Andrews regime, it would be difficult to beat that.
Plus Dutton’s party is dominated by warmists, some of them more extreme than even Labor. And Dutton l acks leadership skills
At best, I see Liberals as only slightly less appallingly bad than Labor.
Liberals are not the answer. They are merely one faction of the Lib/Lab/Green Uniparty.
For those interested I wrote an article on Small Nuclear Reactors in Silicon Chip magazine, June 2016.
https://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2016/June/Small+Nuclear+Reactors%3A+Reliable+Power+At+Low+Risk
260
Which are just a couple of reasons why I can’t return to the Libs.
We currently have the dumbest politicians infesting the halls of Canberra and the most gullible and compliant meejia.
The next couple of years are going to be interesting. What with a possible recession, guaranteed increases in electricity costs, I wonder when Joe Public says enough is enough.
120
Dutton, only words. We did not get here from two years of labour, its taken decades of Lib/Nats. By stating anything about Nuclear/SMR’s you are admitting CO2 is a threat, there is no middle ground with these people. There is nobody opposing anything, there is no opposition party.
190
If you are worried about C02 then its the Northern hemisphere nations who should be more active in “carbon” abatement.
I guess a lot of you saw the photo of two smiling female rangers standing next to the (sensor) thermometer in a US state reserve showing a temp of 56 F ?
I asked a friend could they see a problem with it. She couldn’t. I had to point out that firstly they were influencing the reading by standing so close and secondly the equipment was situated on a concrete platform about 10sqm in area.
The reply from her was “oh I suppose it may be a problem”.
160
>”influencing the reading by standing so close”
Before AWS that was a big problem in Antarctica. In extreme cold just introducing any heat in the vicinity, like body heat, was enough to influence readings.
I read something years ago about taking the reading with binoculars but don’t know if that was the technique. Anyone here taken readings in extreme cold?
30
Explain why meteorological readings are supposed to be taken in a neutral environment? Describe a Stevenson Screen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screen
20
In the chart, there is a green line for the United States.
The label for that is “Pathway to Doom.”
Jo must have nodded off, forgetting to apply that. 😉
90
Total Human emissions in 2021 are summed up by adding OECD= 11.7 bn Ts and NON OECD= 24.4 bn Ts and in 2021 that adds up to 36.10 billion tonnes , but missing air travel and shipping. perhaps 2 bn Ts.
In 1988 ( Hansen’s DC speech) the OECD emitted 11.54 bn Ts and the NON OECD emitted 10 bn Ts.
So the NON OECD emitted 24.24 bn Ts of the extra co2 and the OECD just 0.16 bn Ts extra.
And India, China, Asia and Africa etc ( NON OECD) will emit many more billions of tonnes of co2 until 2060 or 2070. That’s the END of their stupid ARGUMENT.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
60
When Barack Obama announced years ago that an agreement on CO2 emissions had been reached which included China all the media (again) thought he was the great messiah. Except when you checked the detail and China had no plans to abate CO2 emissions until after 2030. Complete copout. Chinese negotiators just laughing behind their hands. Our own Kevin Rudd calling them little ratf***ers. The Chinese and the Russians would appear to have sensible scientists when it comes to climate change. They know atmospheric CO2 is largely inconsequential when it comes to effects on climate. They understand more practically how climate change is now all politics and not science, that it’s largely a western disease.
190
That’s very close to my memory, except that I thought they said they were going to continue on their then current course until 2030, when they’d decide what to do next.
At the time I think they were commissioning just one new coal-fired power plant per week.
30
A warming climate is a beneficial climate and increasing CO2 is benefitting all vegetation.
Someone please prove me wrong.
111
You are correct, but we have a problem in getting the message across.
The Northern Hemisphere is sweltering under heat domes, which also cause marine heatwaves, is it feasible to suggest CO2 is the cause.
43
*feasible means ‘capable of being done’.
It does not mean *plausible.
40
Thanks.
30
Sorry the NON OECD emitted 14.34 bn Ts extra co2 since 1988 and OECD 0.16 bn Ts extra and the total was 14.5 extra bn Ts since 1988 according to OWI Data.
20
One leg of the CO2 emissions count is the contribution from the rural component of countries like China, India, Africa where people must burn whatever’s at hand to live.
Many countries besides those three have large rural populations which do not access electricity. Besides their CO2 not being counted there’s the very real pollution created when cow dung and wood from trees is burnt without the type of recovery of pollutants that’s mostly routine now in coal fired generators.
Not that CO2 matters, but this is an important point that’s hidden for some reason.
50
It’s weird how individual countries believe the CO2 emissions they are ‘responsible’ for stop at the border. Australia, the US, the UK, etc., all believe in economically crushing their own people in pursuit of lowering ‘their’ emissions.
Isn’t this CO2 stuff supposed to be a global threat, not a local one?
60
The whole notion of “per capita emissions” lie and subsequent guilt is to make it personal. “Crushing their own people” is the real end goal.
40
A basic question that never seems to be asked, when new record temperatures are claimed is: “If CO2 caused this new record, which is marginally higher than …. whenever, what was the cause of the previous record?”
IE 50.5C is 1% higher than 50C. Co2 has gone up 25%, temperatures have gone up 1%. We probably we need those special graphs to see the correlation!
I guess this is not about average temperature, but an average temp for the whole world is pretty much a clusterfiasco.
50
The calculation of volume expansion of gases due to temperature is based on Kelvin temperatures. So 50.0 degC to 50.5 deg C is not 1% but rather (50+273.15) -> (50.5+273.15) or a 0.15% increase.
20
Lomborg tries to unravel the Kerry donkey’s doublethink and estimates we’ll have to use less energy than Albanians use today and WASTE endless TRILLIONs of $ for ZERO impact.
I can’t see the NON OECD countries agreeing to any of this BS doublespeak by 2040 or 2060 and the voters will hopefully punish their clueless pollies until some sanity prevails.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-enough-with-the-net-zero-doublethink
30
Yes, China never had intentions to reduce emissions and now they are expanding BRICS to create a whole new alliance of developing countries that will produce and use FF on a scale that far exceeds anything we’ve seen in human history. Meanwhile, the west continues to commit suicide and drive away it’s developing allies, such as Brazil and India with absurd RE and emissions targets, which are unaffordable and anti-development and these countries are now aligning with Russia and China to secure useable energy resources and future trade partnerships. Meanwhile, the west is now becoming hooked on expensive RE from China, enslaving itself to useless and expensive imported energy and handing global power and control to China. You really couldn’t make this stuff up in your wildest fiction novel.
No prize for guessing how this ends. At some point in the not too distant future, China will have oil and gas rigs right across this nation, including on top of the barrier reef, sucking out energy to maintain it’s sovereignty over planet earth and there won’t be any protesters in sight or indigenous activists.
40
There’s little more sinister than it,
By those who conspired to plan it,
The Agenda 30 goal,
Seeking global control,
Masquerading as saving the planet.
110
Thats because it is not about climate, it is just anti western – or anti white to be less general. It is anti wealth, equity, marxist thought processes. This is not opinion, it is proven, quantified, by the ignoring of China.
Unfortunately it is endemic to the western mind, our grand Achilles heel. An inherent feeling of justice and morality, that when used correctly took the west and the British to the top of the world, created the new world, and yet tragically, when misplaced, turns to self-loathing, and self-sabotage.
40
Laissez faire capitalism prevailed, so the European powers plundered everything they could get their hands on. Slavery had always been around, however by the 18th century it was highly organised and profitable.
China was also exploring at the time, but the emperor decided against exploiting these assets. It would have been a different world if he had persevered.
40
On the Our World in Data graph NZ is effectively flatlining.
Meanwhile:
Towards a productive, sustainable and inclusive economy: Aotearoa New Zealand’s first emissions reduction plan
https://environment.govt.nz/publications/aotearoa-new-zealands-first-emissions-reduction-plan/
NZ’s efforts will contribute nothing – we’re already flatlining. And that’s leaving aside the context of China’s emissions.
And that’s if the theory is valid – what if it isn’t?
60
On this related topic, it’s also interesting to note the emergence of “Just Stop Oil”. The groups wants us the stop using oil immediately and yet we have no replacement fuel. In Australia, if we stopped oil tomorrow, about 80% of the population would die within 6-12 months. Almost all of these 20 million deaths would be from people living in cities and large towns, who rely on oil to produce, transport, package and store food. The only survivors would be people living on the land who would be reduced to using pre-industrial farming methods. If any of these stop-oil protesters read this comment, I would be curious to understand the logic behind this suicide call. Wouldn’t it be better to just top yourself and leave the rest of society to get on with their lives ?
90
Australia’s emergency fuel storage down to only 58 days as Labor looks at increasing reserves
The defence minister, Richard Marles, says he is considering increasing Australia’s onshore fuel storage as new figures show the nation has just 58 days’ of emergency fuel in storage, less than two-thirds of the international standard of 90 days.
Marles was responding to research commissioned by the department of defence and released on Tuesday morning that warned 90% of Australia’s fuel imports would be at risk amid conflict in the South China Sea.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/23/australias-emergency-fuel-storage-down-to-only-58-days-as-labor-looks-at-increasing-reserves
The alarmists will have to use their solar bicycles made from wood to go to protests.😆
Forget 2030 and 2032. The REAL problems are W-A-Y closer than that, starting now.
80
Vegetarianism is a good common example of elementary self-loathing and sabotage. You find your position in the life cycle amoral, and so chose to sacrifice to achieve morality. Only the advanced mind can do this to you. You’ll never see a cat’s mind chose vegetarianism.
As it says in the Bible, when God said to the monkey, I’ll grant you one wish, and the monkey asked for intelligence, and God warned, are you sure? The monkey achieved great things, great concepts of arts, science, ended illness, built great civilizations and brought great joy. Then hung himself one day in the garage.
90
IMO it depends on why you become a veggie (BTW I’m not). If you do it because of animal welfare then surely that’s a sign that we/some have evolved to the point where they are able to stop acting like a lemming and put the welfare of others before their own base values. You’ll find Hinduism and Buddhism, amongst others, practice vegetarianism out of love and respect NOT self loathing.
Obviously, those who are Veggie because of fashion, weight loss, etc. are just plain mentally subnormal with Vegetarianism acting as a symptom of their madness.
30
China, world’s largest carbon emitter, seeing lowest climate deaths in 120 years
Deaths from climate disasters continue to drop despite claims that an impending “climate crisis” is threatening human existence.
Last week, European officials signed a joint declaration designating July 15th as Annual EU Day for the Victims of the Global Climate Crisis. The declaration was signed by European Green Deal Executive Vice President Frans Timmermans, Spain Deputy Prime Minister Teresa Ribera and European Parliament Vice President Marc Angel.
But publicly available data between 1900 and 2022 show that global deaths from natural disasters are at record lows. These disasters include fog, drought, extreme weather, earthquakes, mass movements, extreme temperatures and glacial lake outbursts. Even China, considered the world’s largest climate offender, is seeing some of its lowest deaths from natural disasters in over a century.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/decadal-average-death-rates-from-natural-disasters
The worst was 1920-1930, droughts followed by floods, all before the post WW2 industrial revolution…
50
Oh good.
It’s essential that all supposed victims of trendy causes have to have their own special victim’s day.
50
Via “RafeMail”
“https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-debunking-of-solar-and?utm_source=substack&publication_id=513601&post_id=135211229&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexepstein/p/the-ultimate-debunking-of-solar-and?r=kv2hf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
40
Here’s the actual numbers killed every year around the world since 1900.
In the 1920s millions of people were killed from extreme weather events PLUS EARTHQUAKES and VOLOCANOs etc.
But very few people are killed today from these extreme events. YET just 2 billion people in 1927 and 8 + billion today. THINK and WAKE UP.
And few people killed since 2008, just check out the last 14 years of the graph numbers.
That’s why Goklany,Lomborg, Christy, Eschenbach etc can claim that the deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by over 95% in 2022.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/natural-disasters?facet=none&country=~OWID_WRL&hideControls=true&Disaster+Type=All+disasters&Impact=Deaths&Timespan=Annual&Per+capita=false
40
BTW deaths for every year of the graph numbers can be shown since 1900.
Just hold the mouse pointer on the year to find the exact numbers.
30
I avoid Chinese made goods as much as possible. I encourage others to consider doing the same. It will never be 0%, but nothing is.
This has nothing to do with emissions. Actually the only good thing to come out of modern China is the plant food.
91
And ditto from me as well K G. I had to replace my ancient mobile phone and settled for a cheaper Samsung model made in Vietnam.
50
Dr Roy Spencer shows 50 years of their so called warming MODELs in the US Corn belt compared to the REAL TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONs.( blue)
But who cares because the liars and con merchants just love their BS fantasies and FAIRY TALEs?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Corn-belt-JJA-Tas-obs-vs-CMIP6.jpg
100
The dirty little secret is that it’s not about saving the planet. It’s about changing people’s lifestyles.
As for China, they gladly pay lip service to “emissions” as long their enemies keep cutting their own throats.
As for us, we need to stop complaining about China not caring about the environment because that only goes along with the notion that co2 emissions by anybody matters to the environment in the first place.
70
So why is GLOBAL SLR data not alarmist at all?
Here Noaa states that tide gauge Global SLR is about 1.7mm to 1.8 mm a year or the same as Dr Humlum’s 1mm to 2mm a year he prepares for the UK’s GWPF.
That’s about 6 inches to 7 inches per century and probably less than the last 100 years, or since 1923.
SO WHERE”S their GLOBAL WARMING? And Daniel Fitzhenry also doubts their scary SLR by 2123. See the Andrew Bolt interview I’ve linked to recently.
Here’s a short statement from NOAA and the link.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregionalcomparison.html
“Global Regional Trends Comparison (4 Main Regions, various subregions)”
“The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative sea level trends. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs give an indication of the differing rates of vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. The calculated trends for all CO-OPS stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century A complete table of non-CO-OPS station trends are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century”.
10
AGAIN here’s Andrew Bolt’s interview with Daniel Fitzhenry, covering BOM’s SLR at Fort Denison NSW since 1914.
So where’s their DANGEROUS SLR or DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING for over 100 years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mjOmsqIibk
40
Not: Does the planet matter? But: does it matter?
Answer: no, it doesn’t. Humanity will be hard pressed to crank the CO2 content beyond 500 or 600 ppm anyway, but even if it would go much higher than that, like 1500 as in the Mesozoicum, then the surface temperature response would still be less than 2C.
70
So China is acting sensibly, ignoring the climate noise, and protecting its economy. Meanwhile the west commits economic suicide. I applaud the Chinese government, if only our governments had some backbone and intelligence and acted similarly.
The Planet will be fine and the world is not going to end in the next 10,20, .. , ~7Bn years. We should all aim to reduce pollution, live ‘greener’ lives and have a lighter touch, but the human race certainly won’t survive if it insists on cutting its own throat.
20
Pollution et pollution
jeudi 13 novembre 2014
– voir graph sur site –
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.fr/2014/11/historic-hype-over-global-warming.html
Pareillement qu’il est facile d’accuser une famille nombreuse de plus consommer qu’un célibataire et donc de taxer le grand nombre de tous les maux de la Terre, dernièrement un économiste a publié un graphique sur les pays les plus gros consommateurs de pétrole (donc: pollueurs). Graphique qui montrait la Chine, les USA, l’Inde et la Russie les quatre premiers d’une liste de 19 pays sélectionnés comme étant les plus pollueurs.
Oui mais, de la même façon que l’on peut citer Monaco et Macao comme étant les pays les plus peuplés de la Terre (au km²), je répondrais pour les pollueurs que c’est en fait le contraire !
Compte tenu du nombre d’habitants et de la quantité de pétrole consommée, l’Arabie Saoudite arrive largement en tête des pays les plus pollueurs de la Terre ! Cela vous étonne ? C’est bien d’ailleurs la première fois que vous lisez un tel article face au bassinnage médiatique quotidien que c’est La Chine qui est le plus gros pollueur monstrueux de la Terre !
1 — Arabie Saoudite
2 — Australie
3 — Canada
4 — USA
5 — Corée du Sud
6 — Russie
7 — Allemagne
8 — Afrique du Sud
9 — Japon
10 – Italie
11 – Royaume-Uni
12 – Chine
13 – Turquie
14 – Argentine
15 – Mexique
16 – Inde
17 – Indonésie
18 – France
19 – Brésil
Car, c’est bien au nombre d’habitants qu’il faut regarder (et non à la superficie d’un pays). L’Alaska avec ses 731.000 hab. et 1.717.854 km² consomme plus d’énergie par le fait qu’il y fait froid et que la lumière est manquante dans l’hiver long. Pareillement que le sont d’autres en Europe du Nord (Norvège, Suède, Danemark, Finlande, Islande, etc) mais qui ne sont listés dans les 19 choisis, la consommation de pétrole par habitant doit être plus élevée qu’en Afrique, car je ne pense pas qu’ils aient choisi de brûler du bois des forêts où les arbres poussent lentement, ni qu’ils se contentent de se chauffer avec des arêtes de poissons !
https://huemaurice5.blogspot.com/2014/11/pollution-et-pollution.html
10
I posted this article in my local Nextdoor website, a liberal haven near Seattle. The response has been incredible! Both sides have chimed in, over 1,700 views.
I’m going to post an article on sea level rise next, should be glorious!
10
“China is building 130 coal-fired power stations. Right now. They’re building the world’s biggest refinery. Right now.”
– Global asset manager Chris Macintosh, 06/28/2021
10
[…] And Kerry burned how much high-octane fuel to get this nothing chow mein? As Jo Nova complained: […]
10