Good news: despite 2023 being the hottest year since Homo Erectus, there was a 17% fall in the number of 18 to 34 year olds who call “Climate change” a very serious problem. Even though there were hottest-ever-headlines month after month, the punters lost the faith.
No one is cracking champagne, because 50% of young adults still tell pollsters they think it is a “very serious problem”. But when all is said and done, at least half the generation that was drip-fed the dogma since kindergarten, can not only see through the catastrophism but they are brave enough to tell a pollster that too.
For the most part, after a few hot El Nino years, “climate fear” is back where it was in 2016 or so. Most people still want the government to solve the weather with someone else’s money. But where younger people were once much more enthusiastic about a Big Government fix than older people were, now that gap is almost closed. What was a 21% difference between those age groups is now only 2%. That’s a whopping fall in faith in the government to do something useful, or probably, a recognition that whatever the government does, it will cost too much.
Looks like young adults are learning to be cynical adults faster?
The Monmouth university group polled 804 people in late April:
Climate Change Concerns Dip: Younger adults express less urgency than in prior polls
The percentage of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 who see climate change as a very serious problem has fallen by 17 points in the past three years (50%, down from 67% in 2021), compared with smaller declines among those who are 35 to 54 years old (44%, down from 48%) and those age 55 and older (44%, down from 54%).
But what does “a very serious problem” even mean?
Anyone can say “it’s serious” but only 1 in 6 people can even be bothered pretending to a pollster that climate change influences their vote:
A Monmouth poll released last month found only 15% of voters view climate change as a determinative issue in how they will vote in the 2024 presidential election, ranking far lower than inflation, immigration, and abortion.
People used to lie to pollsters and say they cared and it would affect their vote, but now most don’t even pretend. In 2019 in the UK two-thirds of people agreed climate was the biggest issue facing humankind. The Guardian writers were sure that climate change would determine how most of the voters would vote, but the party promising to give them better weather lost in a landslide.
In 2015, when nearly half of US voters said climate was a “very serious problem”, other surveys showed only 3% ranked climate change as the most important issue.
If a twenty-something really believed the Antarctic ice cap was about to melt, wouldn’t it rate as a voting issue?
So let’s be clear, year after year, we see the same results. The voters don’t want to spend money on climate change and won’t change their vote, but the politicians act as though their career depends upon it, and the public are “demanding action”.
After years of surveys like this, we know the politicians know the voters don’t care, but they go and force climate action on the voters anyway. Who are they really working for? Their donors? The people who give them “jobs” after they leave office, or the people who employ their children now? Or are they working to appease “the media” — cowed into submission because someone might call them a denier if they don’t grovel before the Climate Demi-God?
Last year a survey showed more then half of the US are wondering the same question and agree that the people who really “run” the country are not known to voters.
Fully 92% of Democrat voters says they think climate change is real. (What else could they say, they’d be excommunicated from friends and family if they said anything else.) Only 51% of Republicans tell pollsters they think climate change is real. But imagine how fast that would plummet if skeptical professors were interviewed on TV, and half of Republican politicians spoke for half the Republican voters?
Only a third of voters agree with the UN Experts that climate change is mainly a human driven thing
Despite the UN experts being 97% certain, only one third of voters completely agree with them. That’s really quite astounding.
Public opinion remains mixed on the degree to which human behavior contributes to change in the climate. Just over one-third (34%) say climate change is caused mainly by human activity while 31% say human activity and natural changes in the environment play equal roles. Another 7% put climate change down mainly to natural causes, with the remainder saying climate change is not happening (23%) or are not sure if it is happening (4%). Just over half of Americans (51%) say there is still time to prevent the worst effects of climate change while just 17% say it is too late.
After thirty years of scientific and media purity, only one third think climate change is “mostly human”. Another third think the UN must be exaggerating, and the last third know the UN is wrong.
REFERENCE
The Monmouth University poll, Climate Change Concerns Dip, May 6th, 2024
It’s very encouraging to hear that scepticism is flourishing in the United States.
The current extreme weather situation in America is not unusual and no doubt prompts the recollection of similar past occurrences from way back, well before those areas were heavily populated.
Can we hope that Australia’s leaders will change course and stop the economic and environmental devastation of the long march of the renewables.
330
You pose the question – “Can we hope that Australia’s leaders will change course and stop the economic and environmental devastation of the long march of the renewables.”
Whilst ever Australia’s MORONIC climate policies are dictated by Blackout Bowen the answer is an EMPHATIC NO!!
He couldn’t argue the toss about CO2 and it’s REAL effect on the earth’s climate with a twelve-year-old let alone someone with the knowledge of Prof Ian Plimer or Prof William Happer or Prof Willie Soon or thousands of other scientists and engineers who don’t rely on government stipend for their income.
The problem for Australia and Australians, unfortunately, is that we have someone with a brain the size of homo naledi (look it up) who is responsible for energy policy and his boss knows even less. This is what I consider to be DANGEROUS in the extreme – our once beautiful, prosperous country will be destroyed the longer he is allowed to wield this power.
Albo wants Australia to become a world leading manufacturer of solar panels FFS – whilst his “energy minister” is busy leading us off the reliable energy cliff to blackouts and loss of wealth.
Only way this can be fixed is for good people to continue to spread the message to everyone they know to STOP voting for the “duopoly” (labor/Libs – with a dash of greens) and vote for true conservatives of whatever ilk.
Cheers,
380
Looked it up – Mr Bowen bears an uncanny resemblance to Mr Naledi.
70
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
40
And the Trudeau clown from Canada is a son of Cuban Castro!
100
Popeye26
Completely agree with your statement of Moronic policies from our Moronic Energy Minister and Co but I feel you’ve unjustly slandered the theoretical intelligence of homo naledi in accusing the species of only have the inferior intellect of “Casanova” Bowen.
80
I think this facial reconstruction of Homo naledi looks a lot more intelligent than our B O Bowen creature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi#/media/File:Homo_naledi_facial_reconstruction.jpg
50
‘Can we hope that Australia’s leaders will change course …’
Only if the leader of the Alliance is Donald Trump, who’ll shock the world when he says CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
101
NZ is changing course quite quickly under the new coalition government.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/05/shane-jones-urges-return-to-coal-amid-gas-shortage-pushes-for-more-fossil-fuel-extraction.html
Next thing you know we’ll be burning NZ coal.
100
Is it possible that the word “coal” triggers the filters?
Surely not.
80
If those voters were shown the real data from Jo’s site every day or from the Co2 Coalition Scientists FACTS data or from many other sites the level would quickly fall way below 30%.
I’d just ask them to also check out Willis Eschenbach’s data or Lomborg’s data or the GWPF’s data or OWI Data etc and I’m sure they would be very surprised and then ask why we’ve WASTED TRILLIONS of $ over the last 34 years on this verifiable NON PROBLEM?
People would surely change their vote or are they really so stupid that they would vote for a repeat serve and the TRILLIONS of $ WASTE and the lies of the last 34 years?
230
It made tens of thousands of people very rich. And that is the whole point of it all.
180
“If those voters were shown the real data ”
Just show them the findings of the IPCC :-
The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:
River floods
Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
Landslides
Drought (all types)
Severe wind storms
Tropical cyclones
Sand and dust storms
Heavy snowfall and ice storms
Hail
Snow avalanche
Coastal flooding
Marine heat waves
Furthermore, the emergence of a climate change signal is not expected under the extreme RCP8.5 scenario by 2100 for any of these phenomena, except heavy precipitation and pluvial floods and that with only medium confidence. Since we know that RCP8.5 is extreme and implausible, that means that there would even less confidence in emergence under a more plausible upper bound, like RCP4.5.
91
That’s al very well farmerbraun, but it would be more helpful to those young ones visiting this site in search of an answer, if you’d mention the date of the IPCC’s conclusion and gave a reference/link for each statement.
They’re used to easy answers. Give it to them.
40
Fair point. You may be right that looking up an IPCC report is beyond them. Like, it’s not on , you know, Tiktok.
Or Twitter.
🙂
20
I bet hardly any of those polled would even know the difference between climate and weather. Lack of good education, the pathetic non questioning media, politicians getting poor advice, and those financially benefiting from the scam, are the problem.
Years to go before this is sorted.
300
At least one Climate Change believer who has commented on this site, has said that “climate is average weather”. The problem is what does average mean?
The example I think of is Townsville rainfall. For 2020, Townsville total annual rainfall was about 1130mm, so average monthly rainfall was about 94mm. Anything different to that would therefore be climate change.
However, for the months Jan to Mar and Dec, the average monthly rainfall is 223mm, and for the period Apr to Nov, the average is about 30mm.
It seems that averages can be manipulated to suit the narrative.
100
Manipulating statistics to support a dubious theory? Shirley that would never happen, given the high ethical standards of our (self-appointed) eggspurts?
100
Don’t call me Shirley.(boom boom)
50
The “climate is average weather” idea is bull schist.
Weather is what you get, often extremes.
Climate is best understood by examining the plants native to the area of concern. In the past 2 years I have had a high temp of 116°F and a low of -17°F. An average would be meaningless.
Meanwhile the same Ponderosa Pines that have been there for years are still there. That is, some die, new ones grow. It has been this way for thousands of years.
100
Weather and climate are the same thing viewed in different time frames.
I have been told that in Melbourne you can get four different kinds of weather in a day. I wonder how many in a night?
About those Ponderosa Pines? Are they the Pinus Radiata that are planted extensively here because the endemic species are subject to lots of pests?
About 250 km west of Sydney in Cook Park at Orange, up the top end of Summer Street, there are a number of exotic giants, including some Sequoias. Free standing, they are only about 30 m tall, but are massive. I can’t imagine they would be more than 150 years old, probably more like 100.
I read that there are two experimental plantations in Victoria, established in the 1930s, and have long wanted to see how they grew in a plantation, expecting maybe tall and straight. Well, a daughter took us on a long round trip of about 9,000 km by trains, cars and planes, including those trees in the itinerary. And they did not disappoint! Only about 2 hectares in area, but 60 metres tall with clean trunks. Spectacular! The story was that they didn’t grow fast in the first 15 years, but then took off.
The ground underneath has been cleared of debris, I expect because they are in a bad bushfire area.
I recommend them to anybody as well worth the trip from Melbourne to see them.
They wouldn’t be 100 km from Melbourne, one to the east at Warburton and a smaller one to the west at Beech Forest.
10
” politicians seeking poor advice”
fixed
50
The useful idiots currently campaigning against Israel at Universities don’t know why “I’m just here supporting my friends” and anything else is dis/misinformation or government propaganda.
90
Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption
The Biden administration’s efforts to move forward on clean air policies are hitting snags by way of GOP-led legislation and lawsuits designed to hurt electric vehicle progress.
Republican lawmakers are attempting to overturn the twin pillars of the Biden administration’s climate platform: tax credits for electric vehicles and the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules to curb tailpipe emissions.
The effort involves new bills introduced by members of Congress, as well as lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, all with the goal of rolling back the minimal progress made by the Biden administration to reduce the share of planet-warming carbon emissions produced by the automotive sector.
Last month, 25 Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit intended to overturn the EPA’s recently finalized tailpipe rules aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2032. In a statement, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman accused President Biden of being “willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda.”
Coleman and his Republican peers have help. Last week, Michigan Rep. John James introduced legislation to dismantle those same rules, arguing the standards are “a clear example of EPA overreach as it picks winners and losers by setting emission standards at a level that only electric vehicles can meet.”
The bill is now picking up steam with cosponsors, including Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY), the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, who called the EPA rule “radical.”
The EPA rules require automakers to build less polluting passenger vehicles starting in 2027, but they stop short of completely phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Still, several Democratic-controlled states, like California and Maryland, have pledged to ban the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035.
Another attempt to stifle EV adoption comes from Senator John Barrasso (WY) who introduced legislation last week along with Senator Shelley Moore Capito (WV) to roll back federal tax credits for electric vehicle purchases. Supporters of the so-called “Eliminate Lavish Incentives To Electric (ELITE) Vehicles Act” claim it will keep China from exploiting loopholes in the Treasury Department that could give it access to taxpayer incentives.
The act also looks to defund investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Biden’s infrastructure law commits $7.5 billion in spending to install a national network of EV charging stations. Wyoming state lawmakers have also attempted to ban the sale of EVs in the state by 2035 in response to lobbying by incumbent oil and gas companies.
130
But the latest Chalmers Budget gives EVs another break on Road User Charges. These heavier vehicles do more road damage than ICE BWs
80
That’s why they have to up the terror campaign such as saying the oceans are “boiling” and the Great Barrier Reef is “dying”.
221
Or how the BBC and others changed the colour coding of weather maps to indicate cool to mild temperatures like 13-20C (55-68F) to colours like yellow and red to indicate “extreme heat”.
220
Have a look at the temperature scale at WXMaps
http://wxmaps.org/outlooks.php
Starts going red at 20 C,
Starts going black at 30 C (We’re starting to char)
Ash grey at 38 C (charring over, ashing)
40
Bob Brown was so concerned about the partial wipe out of trees in a tiny area of Tassie, yet we hear nothing from this NIMBY con artist about the extreme environmental wipe out for our land and sea as a result of B O Bowen’s vandalism and fraud on eastern Australia.
According to the Brown donkey his fight for Australia’s environment stops in a tiny corner of Tasmania.
So why does this con artist not worry about the rest of Australia as well?
230
Another homo naledi perhaps, although the “naledi” is optional.
80
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
20
Many primitive societies believed that the weather or climate could be fixed by elites, such as the tribal high priest or witchdoctor.
And here we are again.
All that’s needed was paying tribute to the aforementioned, and a magic spell would follow.
In the past it was the sacrifice of an animal, or child, or virgin. Now, it’s hard cash, and trillions of it.
Statistically, the witchdoctor could claim success about 50% of the time, or blame angry gods when floods or drought lingered.
Now they blame the people.
230
At least some of those primitive societies killed the witch doctor if they got the prediction wrong.
230
Sounds like a good time to overhaul my pitchfork.
Auto
20
What are the official natural non-human influenced parameters of ‘climate’, by which we ascertain that it has ‘changed’?
And know when we have stopped it from changing.
I trust someday ‘science’ (with sufficient public expenditure) will be able to determine the parameters of non-human reality so that we can return to it … after more public expenditure … which should have no limit because we are saving the Earth … which was functioning perfectly until we showed up.
However, we must continue the never ending struggle for political change so the we can end Climate Change.
I personally will not feel safe until the glaciers stand still.
And water that is now ice remains ice forever and ever.
80
But it’s ok for water to become ice because ice is non-anthropogenic.
(Except when dropped in a toddy.)
If there’s more ice then we know we’ve stopped Climate Change.
90
if you don’t know the answer to this how can you possibly criticise any climate scientist?
09
Do you realize anthropogenic Climate Change was caused by scientists?
Without their little inventions we would have never started unsequestering carbon.
Science put us into this fix, and now you look to it to get us out?
30
A good place to start is Figure 7.3, AR4:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html
This clearly shows that human CO2 is 3% of the annual flux.
The Greenhouse temperature is 13K of the total global temperature of 287K,or about 0.6C of the GAT of 15C. The other 274K or 14.4C is the effective temperature. H2O has 2.5 times the GH effect of CO2 as Ramanathan & Coakley (1978) have found:
https://scienceofdoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png
That is CO2 is 9% of the GHE of 0.6C. This means that human CO2 contributes 3% of 0.6C or 0.018C. For that 0.018C all of the benefits of fossil fuels and materials, everything civilised in life flows.
People who argue against this are grifters, useful idiots, misanthropes and communists.
50
Gee Aye
Are you just phoning it in now?
20
G’day H,
This may be useful, from Wikepedia:
The link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
A bit more than just average temperature.
Cheers,
Dave B
30
I don’t see anything in there about the cholesterol level of the Climate.
20
So where are these problems the liars and con artists are insisting the OECD countries WASTE hundreds of TRILLIONS $ on by 2030 or 2040 or……?
Look up the data for —–
SLR, no problems, but about the same as the last 300 years.
Polar Bears, 5 times more since 1960. At least.
Coral Islands, no problems, See Kench etc studies for the last 30 years.
Deaths from fires and burns much lower today, see OWI Data. For all other continents and Australia.
Deaths from extreme weather events, lowest in RECORDED HISTORY.
Humans have only FLOURISHED since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Life expectancy increased from 28.5 years in 1770 to 73 years in 2024. Only about 900 million in 1770 and 8,100 million today. THINK and see Macrotrends, OWI Data etc.
Humans have more to eat per capita than at any time in history. Look up UN Data or OWI Data, or Macrotrends etc.
Importantly the previous Eemian Interglacial was much hotter than today ( 2024) and SLs were 6 to 9 METRES higher then and global temperatures were about 8 c higher.
See even Wikipedia and Co2 Coalition Scientist’s FACTS etc.
So what are we supposed to be afraid of and why do they insist we destroy our environments to fix their crazy delusional nightmares?
171
Perhaps in a crowded media market Climate Change just doesn’t interest the younger generation enough? Maybe it’s not woke enough? They’re actually more interested in sports, the opposite sex, having fun and getting high. Now add to that list getting more likes and reposts. Which is basically what the younger generation have always done. Get in on the latest trend and try to be famous doing it. To grab mass attention these days you have to do a Taylor Swift- hell, she must have bought a shipload of carbon credits to compensate for all her concerts! Whoever is running the climate show decided a few years ago their brand needed some ” re- branding”. So similar to all the major world brands ( Coke, Nike, Gillette, L’O Real) the marketing crew got together and constructed a campaign. They already had young Greta, but I’m not sure she had the pull through. She started hanging around with old blokes (Attenborough, Gates, Gutteres etc) and making weird speeches. She may have been better putting on a sequin dress and singing songs complaining about old boyfriends. That new marketing campaign was Net Zero. Sounded so much like Coke Zero, Zero alcohol and was clearly pitched to make all that Climate Science mumbo jumbo less complicated. It probably partially worked because even the dim witted politicians could use the slogan endlessly without having to remember too many talking points. I worked for a large multinational company once. You used your major ad campaign dollars and marketing for those products that were harder to sell. The good products just sold themselves. Climate alarmism is just a bad product. Quick, look over there – Gaza!!!!
70
4 minutes of a Ted Talk, where the question was, ‘do we love our children?’ It looks like climate is just one of many headwinds the younger generations face, way below housing survival, or career prospects. And AI has barely begun. Many needing to grab hold of anything they can squeeze some meaning out of, and climate change is the drug de jour being pushed. Things have to be pretty bad if sex doesn’t exist for the young!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUTyv57Hm9w
80
So here’s the best way to prove that the liars and con merchants are wrong and on their terms.
So co2 levels are far too high and DANGEROUS today and everything was so marvellous when co2 levels were around 280 ppm?
So tell us what the OECD countries can do to lower co2 levels and how long would it take? But you must also use proper data and evidence, like the last 34 years.
We’ve got the data and also the evidence from the OECD and the NON OECD since 1990, so what’s the problem?
Anyone want to tell us how to perform the switch from OECD to NON OECD performance over the next 34 years?
IOW how do you reduce NON OECD co2 emissions by 14 BILLION tons per year and stay there for the next 34 years or 50 years or 100 years?
This should be easy if co2 levels are your number one problem and even an EXISTENTIAL THREAT?
But I’m sure China, India, Africa and the rest of the developing world have a very different agenda and will tell you to bugger off.
60
Just keep showing Bill Gates’ jets and Bezos’ and Zuckerberg’s yachts.
The people who say this is an existential threat are laughing their heads off and calling their
dumb ass Socialists and Communists fellow voters stupid behind their backs.
150
What happened around 2021 to erode trust in ‘the science’?
90
Not sure, but its definitely not the vaccine.
50
ITALY GOES NUCLEAR
It has been a very long time since anyone held up Italy as a model of a well-governed country. Not since Roman times, perhaps. But Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has Italy moving in a good direction. That applies to energy along with many other issues.
Thus:
In a decisive shift from its past policies, Italy, under the leadership of Premier Giorgia Meloni and Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto, is paving the way for the reintroduction of nuclear energy, with a focus on the latest in reactor technology: small, modular, and IV generation reactors. This move is not merely a policy change but a strategic recalibration aimed at bolstering national energy security and aligning Italy with modern, low-carbon energy technologies.
This trend is so obviously a good idea that it is hard to understand why more countries have not adopted it.
Central to Italy’s nuclear strategy is the adoption of small modular reactors (SMRs). Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMRs offer a range of benefits that align well with Italy’s strategic and environmental goals. These reactors are designed to be built faster due to their modular nature, which allows for construction in controlled factory settings and assembly onsite, leading to reduced construction times and potentially lower costs. Additionally, SMRs are considered safer due to their smaller size and innovative safety features, reducing the risk of large-scale nuclear accidents.
Italy shuttered its nuclear power plants in 1990, largely as a result of the Chernobyl disaster.
But now, nuclear is back.
Watch for many countries to follow the lead of Italy and, of course, France, which gets two-thirds of its electricity from nuclear reactors.
80
Australian “Local Manufacturing” Solar Subsidies to Go to China?
Essay by Eric Worrall
“I think you definitely need collaboration [with China]”.
The ‘Future Made in Australia’ plan for solar panels relies on a crucial ingredient: Help from China
Twenty-three years ago, a Chinese-Australian solar scientist moved from Sydney to Wuxi to build China’s solar panel manufacturing industry from scratch, using technology developed in Australian universities.
Shi Zhengrong became the world’s first clean energy billionaire, nicknamed “The Sun King”. China went on to dominate global solar panel manufacturing and, thanks to a mix of innovation and cut-throat competition, made solar the cheapest source of electricity in history.
Australian science graduates filled the top technology roles at the biggest Chinese solar companies. And a solar cell design developed in Australia became the global standard.
Meanwhile, Australia mostly stopped building its own solar panels.
Now, with the federal government preparing to ramp up Australia’s own tiny solar manufacturing industry, Dr Shi sees the story coming full circle.
“It’s an exciting opportunity for Australia,” he said, speaking to the ABC from China.
“I think you definitely need collaboration [with China], but I think Australia is in a better position compared to 20 years ago in China.”
The public reaction in the weeks since has been mixed. Many energy experts welcomed the plan as a way to ensure supply of a critical energy resource (solar will soon generate most of Australia’s electricity) and carve out a slice of a growing global industry.
What did we do wrong, to be cursed with such a parade of economically incompetent politicians?
The government’s own productivity commission is warning it’s a bad idea, but politicians would rather listen to an Australian trained Chinese scientist who has already made billions of dollars off Australia’s economic incompetence, and stands to make billions more if this plan goes ahead.
50
So much for going green! Fuel for SNP’s ‘eco-ferries’ has to be transported 8000 miles
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Doug Brodie
You just could not make this up!
90
But the UK has gas.
We could frack for it.
But – alas – the political classes seem to be as energy-illiterate as they are energy-innumerate when it comes to Wind, Solar and batteries.
AKA – Bat busters; Slaver Panels; and Hopium tri-unobtanium.
I weep for my country [even the Scottish bit that went down this daft road].
Auto
10
If voters’ opinions mattered to our leaders even a little, stories like this would brighten my day because it would normally mean positive changes will result. The fact is though that, as the truth about AGW and our suicidal energy policies is slowly exposed, they just seem to blow MORE of our money on it and enact ever more draconian laws forcing those policies on us. What it will take to reverse – or even slow down – this madness baffles me, because western democracy is broken.
70
‘ … because western democracy is broken.’
They are going through a bad patch, but should return with renewed vigour after AGW theory is dead and buried.
31
I’m afraid I believe western democracy will be dead and buried before AGW. It isn’t just climate change that’s wrecking the joint. Our economies are soon going to cease functioning in any recognisable way and social harmony is being destroyed by the various ‘internal divisions’ being created by movements such as BLM, trans rights, gender-based violence, anti-Israel protestors, white privilege, misinformation/disinformation/free speech, unconstrained abortion rights, misogyny/male privilege, gay rights, open borders, etc, etc, etc, etc.
It’s hard to see how modern ‘civilisation’ can survive so many simultaneous attacks.
50
So ask the obvious questions and all you get is very loud crickets.
Here’s another problem so many don’t seem to even think about or understand and that’s population increase by 2050 or 2100 or…..
World population by 2050 is expected to be about 9.7 billion and 10.3 billion by 2100. These are UN data as used by Macrotrends, OWI Data etc. So here’s the very obvious question to ask.
How many more 1000s of TRILLIONS of $ ( see latest data from Lomborg’s team) should we WASTE for the next 76 years and flush it straight down the drain for a GUARANTEED ZERO change to our climate?
Any of our blog donkeys have any ideas?
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/world/population
40
They have a plan to reduce population. The plan is called called ‘excess mortality’ and is administered via a syringe.
80
Opinion polls like this really tell you how much effort the Lords of Woke/Big Green have been/are putting into the focal meme over the last few months.
The validity of the message is unimportant because the sheeple are easily influenced. However, the effect typically slowly decays away.
So the lesson is that those who potentially benefit do not see major pump priming to be necessary right now..,which presumably means that there are no particular golden public teats on the immediate horizon.
60
Screams Before Silence
A must-watch documentary. ScreamsBeforeSilence sheds light on the unspeakable s@xual violence committed on October 7. As heartbreaking as these stories in the documentary are, we cannot afford to look away.
60
Apologies wrong thread
30
What I’d really like to know is where the real money pot is. Here’s a guess.
“Scientists” lie their heads off for, I guess, todays grants and such. This isn’t big money. This is wages money. Have they not the brains to realise that their lying will be detrimental to them in the future?
Media lie their heads off too. Same money trail.
Then we get to the Al Gores, the John Kerrys, the Malcolm Turnbulls, and others. They too know that this will all come crashing down, but the amount of money these bastards are stealing off the public will tide them over nicely, when they hide in their gated community from the mobs with pitchforks. They’re scamming big money. Kerry is collectig a large salary, lots and lots of perks (like hiring his wife’s plane) and will be in on the insider stock trading rort enjoyed by Pelosi and friends.
Ditto, I’d say for the heads of the IPCC. They are quietly getting their share from the above three and others.
When these people start abandoning ship, like leaving the jobs to “have more time with their grandchildren” will be the final proof.
Perhaps the start is the Black Rock CEO. He’s getting out from under right now.
50
No, I don’t think any of them look for a big pot of money, they are generally just looking for an area of research that they can focus on, and hopefully make construct a career around. I’ve seen it happen in other fields, and there’s no doubt that a couple of timely papers based around the latest exciting theory can pave the way.
No doubt there was a wave of environmentally focussed researchers working their way through the system, and I’d be certain that generates its own wave of ‘science’.
20
” ‘Scientists’ lie their heads off for, I guess, todays grants and such. This isn’t big money. This is wages money. Have they not the brains to realise that their lying will be detrimental to them in the future?”
Money (i.e. funding) is merely a necessary evil for most scientists. A bigger driver of unprofessional behaviour in science is prestige and reputation, plus a narcissistic need for recognition. I saw an awful lot of this in both university and government research. It’s what drives many of them to fake research results, sabotage other’s work, engage in mutual back-scratching via peer review, plagiarise another’s work and even outright steal another researcher’s discoveries (especially senior researchers pinching the awards due to a junior subordinate).
They are not all like this by any means but because this kind of thing is almost a requirement for advancement within the science community, it’s way more common than most people realise.
70
Scepticism? I was a sceptic for about a day. You can measure how much fossil fuel CO2 is in the air because its not radioactive. And someone did it in 1958. 2.03%. So I changed from sceptic to wondering how long they could get away with it?
80
And the absolute proof has never been contradicted. Avoided certainly. It’s amazing how no one wants to discuss radio(active) carbon dating.
The best argument I have seen is from ice core CO2 measurements which claim the recent (250 year) 50% increase CO2 is unprecedented and by implication must be related. In fact that’s such a good coincidence that it must be the measurement technology itself and it is the problem.
Metamorphic ice takes hundreds of years to form from snow with weight compression while the snow becomes firn and then solid ice, exposed most to the seasons and CO2 migrates and leaves, reducing time resolution to no better than 1,000 years and obliterativng small bumps like this. Then of course the firn measurements are connected it to laboratory CO2 measurements. All quite unacceptable scientifically. So an Ice Hockey stick.
But even if it was correct that the recent small CO2 increase is unprecedented, it would only be an argument of coincidence, not a proof by direct measurement.
70
A recent story tries to conflate C13 with C14. It’s a completely different measurement but it turns out that it confirms the C14 measurements. Except that the people making the argument do not know what they are doing and argue that C13 is also diluted and thus it must be fossil fuel. In fact the tiny dilution cannot be fossil fuel and must be from slightly old ocean CO2, destroying the argument.
70
Could SLs have been much higher during the Eemian inter glacial about 90,000 years ago?
The latest studies from the Nth African coastline show sea levels were about 20 metres higher then ( about 65.6 feet) than they are today.
But today other recent studies have shown coastal land has started to increase around the world. See the Dutch studies and Mao et al 2021 study and map of the world showing recent changes to coastal land.
And co2 levels 90,000 years ago where about 280 ppm. Just more problems for our leftie extremists, liars and BS merchants to start to THINK about.
But is THINKING too difficult for them, when they really want to undermine the OECD countries and end our freedoms and free enterprise?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/06/newly-discovered-90000-year-old-human-footprints-reveal-how-much-higher-sea-levels-used-to-be/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/06/newly-discovered-90000-year-old-human-footprints-reveal-how-much-higher-sea-levels-used-to-be/
30
Sorry for the double link to the story. GRRRRR.
10
When this is over and historians are trying to piece together how anyone ever believed this nonsense, the bit that is always missing is how many people made money out of this.
The first Protestant Martin Luther saw it all first hand. Selling indulgences to the poor, the same fires of hell. Only to see the people in Rome who created the indulgences partying on the huge income. Very much the UN/EU/Democrats.
Al Gore knew scares worked and created it in 1988 when he first ran for US President and his partner in crime was the UN. Nothing was more attractive than a potential US President funding UN control over the weather. It’s a dictator’s dream. And billionaire Al Gore knows all about it.
It’s always a puzzle when US Presidents like Joe Biden get to be so rich on a backbencher’s $140K a year. Man made CO2 driven Global Warming has made many people rich.
But all frauds have to come to an end and Australian politicans Albanese and Bowen are the mugs left holding the bag. History will not be kind to them. Homo Fatuus.
100
BO has also reached billionaire status earlier this year.
10
And all the corollaries of Climate Change. Storms, droughts, floods, species extinction, sea levels, ice cover, humidity, rainfall, natural selection, food, migration, wars. All connected allegedly to CO2. But not to fossil fuel because there is none in the air.
It is a dream scam, to control the weather. The power of Jupiter/Zeus or Neptune/Poseidon all resident in humans, the infinitely wise retired politicians of the UN. Fossil fuels have lifted the whole planet out of poverty, short brutal lives. Whoever controls the fossil fuels controls the world. Hitler thought so.
But now the UN controls the weather. And the oceans are ‘boiling’.
I still think President Gutteres just confused recent dramatic news of a record 100F in Florida in shallow summer water with 100C. But he cannot afford to back down publicly, so ‘boiling oceans’ it is officially. And it is amazing that no one is falling off their chairs laughing?
101
Well, I must say the curves on those opinion charts are very encouraging!
It appears that we may have passed peak stupidity.
50
A poll conducted in Australia last year, something happened around 2012.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/climate-change/
20
So 56% believe that “Global Warming is a serious and pressing problem”
Rubbish. I have a real problem believing that.
It sounds like most Australians would vote YES to change the Constitution. How wrong was that?
“The Lowy Institute acknowledges the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, the traditional custodians of the land on which the Institute stands, and pays respects …”
I think we need the Gadigal people to use their ancient wisdom to change the world’s temperature. As I remember their solution to everything was setting fire to the place.
30
The Lowy Institute on the recent Referendum
“A “No” vote from Australia would call into question the authenticity of its words and actions abroad at a time when authoritarian regimes present themselves as the vanguard of a shift away from “liberal internationalism”. It would not be the first instance of a Western nation turning its back on values presented to be universal.”
In other words, a NO vote would make Australia a pariah in the world of liberal internationalism, which the Lowy Institute supports. And presumably “man made Global Warming” is also a foundation of “Liberal Internationism”
20
And as a promoter of “Liberal Internationalism” caught sitting on the pointy fence with HAMAS
“The Israel-Hamas conflict reverberates globally more than any comparable conflict, largely because both the Israelis and Palestinians have powerful and polarising narratives of righteous victimhood. Reconciling those narratives is almost certainly impossible.”
Pompous verbage. Everything is equivocated from a great distance.
20
Its the power of propaganda.
‘The year 2012 was the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 36th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average.’
10
So the pause is over. As if it never existed. I have a suspicion though that this is a world wide effort to push up the numbers to keep the scam going. And the huge temperature increase of 0.57C is the result of a lot of hard work by many people. Including our own BOM and CSIRO as Australian numbers by necessity are overrepresented in the Global Average.
I just wonder though how much is a conflict between fudged land numbers, heat island effect and satellite measurements. And does anyone really care as long as they all have their jobs.
The forces trying to keep Global Warming going are immense.
30
This is a more accurate poll from late last year.
‘The second in an annual five-year survey series has highlighted the difference between the Australian public and scientists of the urgency of climate action.
‘Repeated and increasingly frustrated calls from Australian climate experts are failing to activate the Australian population with the urgency communicated by scientists in Australia and globally.
‘While most Australians accepted climate change was happening, only a minority thought it was an extremely serious problem.’ (Griffith University)
20
And where no one shills for the gas/coal/oil companies, every single “Climate Scientist” shills for their full times jobs. And there are tens of thousands of them in Australia.
30
What climate change?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2024_v6_20x9-scaled.jpg
40
Looks like El Nino to me. The major ocean cycle which none of the models can predict. Warmer ocean surface means warmer air, nothing more. And nothing to do with CO2 which did not suddenly go up in 2021.
30
It’s not about whether temperatures go up or down. It’s about a very specific allegation that a man made increase in CO2 and CO2 alone is driving a steady and dangerous increase in temperature.
And this does require a connection between CO2 and temperature which is better than both go up randomly.
The proposition is
1. that fossil fuel CO2 is dramatically increase total CO2. By 50% over at least 100 years.
2. that this increase alone is increasing world temperatures
3. that this increase is itself deadly.
and what we are seeing is very wobbly stuff with no obvious connection to total CO2 let alone man made CO2 emission which is exploding exponentially.
If this was a proof of concept, it would fail at every step. But the connection with El Nino is clear enough. And as said, that is not predictable and nothing to do with CO2.
40
More importantly, CO2 did not go down in 2021 or 2020. The normal fluctuations with the seasons and the slight increase in overall amount as measured at the Hawaii volcano continued as it has been.
10
FWIW
“Covid vaccine may have killed hundreds of thousands in the US alone”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/covid-vaccine-may-have-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-in-the-us-alone/
40
Of course. No one expected any less. How could anyone create a vaccine which solved the problem and has zero side effects? So it’s all about the greater good, except that’s not clear either. How many people who had no need of the vaccine were forced to take it, the young, the fit, the vulnerable? And how many of those died for nothing?
30
Come come! Right is not enough! Surely the IPCC are extreme right national socialists!
00