Global Excuses: Ship pollution was saving us from global warming, but now we’ve fixed the ships, we’re all going to die

Global shipping pollution.

By Jo Nova

The evil shipping smoke was shielding us from global warming…

You’ll never guess but it’s worse than we thought, and we are more to blame than we thought, kiss my government grant and pray to Gaia.

Wouldn’t you know — shipping smoke was polluting the world, but the smoke also seeded clouds, which cooled the Earth, and undid some of the global warming we caused with CO2. Now that we are finally fixing up the dirty ships, oh no, we’ve accidentally unleashed the global warming which the ship smoke was hiding. So there is about to be another wave of global bad news. And for some reason we didn’t see it coming, even though we’ve known for decades that sulfate aerosols caused cooling (and we had those expert climate models all along, didn’t we?)

Remember all those other times they said disaster would strike, and it didn’t, well, they were right. It would have happened, we just couldn’t see it because of the shipping pollution.

See how perfect this is for The Climate Industrial Complex?

We’ve been accidentally cooling the planet — and it’s about to stop

By Shannon Osaka, Washington Post

Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, shading the planet from the sun’s rays. Since the 1980s, those particles have offset between 40 and 80 percent of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

“We’re starting from an area of deep, deep uncertainty,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and research lead for the payments company Stripe. “It could be a full degree of cooling being masked.”

These moves have saved lives — according to estimates, around 200,000 premature deaths have already been avoided in China, and the new shipping regulations could save around 50,000 lives per year. But they have also boosted global temperatures. Scientists estimate that the changes in aerosols from the new shipping rule alone could contribute between 0.05 and 0.2 degrees Celsius of warming over the next few decades.

Some researchers have suggested that the changes to ocean shipping regulations may have been a big contributor to last year’s record heat

All of which begs the question, if shipping-smoke solves global warming, shouldn’t we just go with it then?

I mean, let the ships rip, and skip the whole hair-shirt sacrifice — we could fly in planes, eat meat, and keep the air con on? But ‘no’ say the puritans, the new shipping regulations might save 50,000 people a year. (And heck, it’s not like we face the sixth mass extinction, boiling oceans, or something truly awful is it? ) So onward we go, renewables to the rescue, living the life of the perfect climate apostles.

The fact that the Ecoworriers won’t even consider this to save the world tells us exactly how afraid they are (not) of the man-made climate catastrophe.

And the other problem is “the numbers” — despite climate experts being 99% certain of what controls our climate, scientists estimate the changes in aerosols could have anything from 0.05°C to “a full degree” (so sayth Zeke Hausfather). So aerosols might explain a lot, or nothing at all, but it’s another excuse to parade a climate scientist on the news, and they can pick whatever flavour of “aerosol” cooling fits the theme of the day. Would you like to hide past model failures or scare the horses? Adjust to fit.

Watch the evil shipping smoke fighting off the Global Warming Monster

We are reminded yet again of the primitive belief that humans are really Gods that control the climate…

Two Monsters of the pagan global warming religion battle it out.

Some version of the shipping story keeps doing the rounds every few months for at least the last year, because it has a strong Climate Bingo score:

  1. It’s worse than we thought. The new bad effect is almost upon us (yet again!)
  2. It’s the perfect excuse to cover the warming that didn’t happen, wasn’t predicted, may not come, or might suddenly appear.
  3. It’s advertising for “Geoengineering Projects” where people throw salt, dust, or particulates in the sky and try to cool the Earth. (See, they say, Geoengineering works, give us your money!)
  4. It fits the religion — mankind controls the climate (not God or the Sun). This feeds a whole new wing of bureaucracy, and briefly distracts people from asking whether recent warming has anything to do with solar activity or space weather.
  5. Ultimately it bestows more power on the high priesthood of lab-coats and climate models — as long as the weather is controlled by man-made things of some sort, the IPCC anointed masters sit at the centre of this Global Warming Control Tower and issue the orders and collect the funds.  They shall have their two-week UN junkets, their Nobel Pizzas, and their moment of fame in the nightly news.

But lift the hood, and this engine is a mass of contradictions. They didn’t see this “shipping” warming coming, and can’t agree on how much warming it does, but they want us to believe their models are accurate. And they don’t think the climate emergency is important enough to let ships keep shipping as they were, just to buy us some time. There are no hard trade-offs in these life and death decisions, only 50 shades of advertising for the renewables industry and the UN.

 

9.7 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

83 comments to Global Excuses: Ship pollution was saving us from global warming, but now we’ve fixed the ships, we’re all going to die

  • #
    MeAgain

    Ship recycling regulation has been a boon for St Kitts and Nevis. They don’t sign the treaty, they get the contracts to break ships.
    https://www.financeuncovered.org/stories/tax-haven-flags-of-convenience-stkitts-nevis-shipbreaking-toxic-ships-skanreg-chittagong

    Like in Afghanistan, the UK and Australian troops using private US militia for their border defences coz they weren’t signed to the non-land mine treaty.

    All the hot air from politics is the problem I reckon

    170

  • #
    David Maddison

    Particulates from ships would be far less than from natural forest fires and volcanoes.

    I suppose this is all a ploy to shut down global shipping and further decrease the standard of living for non-Elites. Elites will have their imported goods arrive by air freighter or on their own private jets.

    390

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      Neither tenths, nor hundredths of a degree Celsius, conjure an image of “boosted” temps to me… oh wait: Zeke How’s-yer-Father is at it again… just another HPPA critter (Hysterical Puritanical Panic Attack) for vested interests.

      Over here we simply run diesel ships aground – within marine parks. The interislander freight ship, Aratere, lost control of its steering (again) and drifted onto rocks moments after departing Picton last week. No loss of life nor diesel/oil nor freight, yet the CEO of the govt-run department overseeing shipping/rail resigned the same day. Pure coincidence I’m sure.

      PS. Great artwork Jo, perfect for these ****s.

      241

  • #
    David Maddison

    Of course, there are those who want to regress us back 150 years or so to wind powered cargo ships.

    There was a very good reason wind power was abandoned in the first place…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanbird?wprov=sfla1

    310

    • #
      Bruce

      Only 150 years?

      The over-arching death cultists clearly wand most of the population to “disappear”, as per the handiwork of their primary deities; Hitler. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

      This is NOT about “saving the planet”, it is about “stealing” the planet from REAL PEOPLE by the simple expedient of killing billions.

      A Satanic-like blood-sacrifice “club”.

      152

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    When everything affects the climate those who want to control the climate get to control everything. Or so they wish.

    The nightmare for the planet savers is that nature will have its way regardless of their fantasies.

    340

  • #
    Neville

    Yet the Eemian had zero ships or planes or modern industry or etc and the tiny Human population were hunter gatherers and lived brutal short lives and under 30 years.
    But the Eemian 130 K to 115 K years ago was 8 c warmer than today in 2024 and SLs were 6 to 9 metres higher than 2024.
    So how come our last inter-glacial was so much warmer and all caused by “Natural Variation” with zero change caused by wicked Humans?

    290

    • #
      Neville

      Again here’s the link to the 8 c higher temps during the Eemian.
      This is from the Co2 Coalition Scientists facts sheet and quotes a Nature study.

      https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-last-interglacial-was-8c-14f-warmer-than-today/

      170

      • #
        melbourne+resident

        Have a closer look at the graph, they appear to have waved the CO2 concentration through it but ignored ice core data and clearly put CO2 concentrations varying before temperature. that graph is actually propaganda

        30

    • #
      Neville

      Again here’s the quote from Wikipedia about 6 to 9 metre higher SLs during the Eemian interglacial.

      “Sea level”

      “Last Interglacial erosion surface in a fossil coral reef on Great Inagua, The Bahamas. Foreground shows corals truncated by erosion; behind the geologist is a post-erosion coral pillar which grew on the surface after sea level rose again.[26]
      Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today,[27][28] with Greenland contributing 0.6 to 3.5 m (2.0 to 11.5 ft),[29] thermal expansion and mountain glaciers contributing up to 1 m (3.3 ft),[30] and an uncertain contribution from Antarctica.[31] A 2007 study found evidence that the Greenland ice core site Dye 3 was glaciated during the Last Interglacial,[32] which implies that Greenland could have contributed at most 2 m (6.6 ft) to sea level rise.[33][34] Recent research on marine sediment cores offshore of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet suggest that the sheet melted during the Last Interglacial, and that ocean waters rose as fast as 2.5 meters per century.[35] Global mean sea surface temperatures are thought to have been higher than in the Holocene, but not by enough to explain the rise in sea level through thermal expansion alone, and so melting of polar ice caps must also have occurred”.

      110

      • #
        Johnny Rotten

        The White Cliffs of Dover in southern Pomgolia are made of chalk. Chalk is formed by sea shells etc. So the-sea levels were a lot higher a long time ago. So Scientists at the UN. What made the sea levels rise and fall? Please explain without a Model. Empirical evidence only will be accepted. That’s Science yer’ know.

        180

        • #
          Bruce

          Rock-doctors among us will also be aware of the clearly demonstrable “liveliness” of the planet’s crust

          There are coral reefs whose footings are at “impossible depths for the growth of coral; (insufficient light, for starters).. Another classic is the Carara Marble mining in Italy. Altitude several thousand feet above current sea level.

          Marble that is “metamorphosed” by extreme heat and pressure. Marble that started out as limestone, which, in turn, began as coral .. Some serious forces and interesting crustal movement right there.

          A steady-state planet is thinking along the lines of medieval witchcraft. Like a camera, the rocks do not “lie”, but the reality they show requires actual understanding to interpret.

          The sociopaths want the “peasants’ to be “scared and bewildered”, but mostly scared. Such people are much more pliable.

          As Voltaire noted:

          “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

          240

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      The heat of the IPCCC’S sea level fear campaign is somewhat lessened by the facts.
      Our current sea level is not rising and is the lowest it has been for about the last seven thousand years. At the end of the big melt about seven thousand years back there was a bit of an overshoot and oceans were at least 4.2 metres higher than present: from there they stepped down and there were intermediate stages of 2.4 and 1.2 meters before we reached our present wonderful situation.
      I can recall reading that the overshoot was 6 or 7 meters above present, but that material is disparu or no longer available; maybe global warming did it?
      At the time that Jesus was born, for example, the world oceans were 1.2 metres higher than now and show no sign of rising back to that level…

      But, with so many fingers in the pie, we must believe in CAGW and buy expensive, dysfunctional, intermittents from Chynah and watch government induced inflation smash our nation to bits.

      130

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Ostia Antica, to old port of Rome during Roman times, is now well inland and 5m above the current sea level. And that was only 2000 years ago. That sounds like a fairly rapid drop in sea level, but maybe it was always a bit above sea level on the edge of the Tiber. Clearly though, as it is well inland, sea level have dropped since Jesus was a boy.

        80

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Hi Peter, had a look at it on Google Earth and very little of Ostia Antica is now more than 2 metres above current sea level. Most likely back 2,000 years it would have been mostly swamp and a bit sludgey.

          It’s good to have these recorded memories of sea levels to help support the other evidence.

          40

    • #
      Sean

      Aargh. Average lifespan was 30 due to an abysmal and horrific rate of infant mortality; if you survived to adulthood, you could expect to live to about the same age as adults today.

      https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/did-people-in-past-really-only-live-to-be-30.htm

      60

      • #
        Adellad

        So few otherwise smart people understand this basic fact. It’s useful to remind them of the biblical “3 score and 10 years” for expected lifespan.

        60

    • #
      GlenM

      Tell that to Hausfather on a mountain top. Poor science that was entertained by Judith Curry some years back. Really, some people are so subsumed by politics that they will knowingly feed crap into their computer models.
      E

      D

      10

  • #
    Frederick Pegler

    So the solution to gobal warming is simple, and staring us in the face. Burn more coal and oil – cool the planet by upto 1 degree.

    360

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    “a climate scientist and research lead for the payments company Stripe”

    I’m certainly not going to hire a payments processing company for my financial empire that doesn’t have a climate scientist.
    It’s like not having a Priest or a wizard.

    210

    • #
      John Hultquist

      I’m certain there is a reason; I just can’t imagine what it is. Maybe they shut the system down when it rains, or something.

      Zeke Hausfather has been associated with Berkeley Earth (there is a Wiki page). If you search on WUWT, using Zeke’s name there are several posts. BEST is for Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures, a data set often compared with others, such as Spenser/Christy of UAH.

      71

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    I’ve made comments on the Wash Post article in today’s Open Thread here. Should have been in this thread.

    Gist is that the Washington Post article is supporting Ned Nikolov’s IPCC Chapter 7 revelation (see last 2 Open Threads) that there’s been an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) this century that Chap. 7 obscures.

    Conclusion: The article is claiming the increased energy of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) this century to be attributable to greenhouse gas warming.

    The theoretical warming from CO2 this century is only 0.7 W.m2 but the increased ASR flux implied by CERES RSR observations at TOA is about 1.7 W.m2. Here’s the CERES RSR graph:

    TOA SW Flux – CERES [Reflected – RSR]
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQnqbX5XwAAVk3B?format=jpg&name=900×900

    The Nikolov issue was introduced by Bronco in Monday Open Thread. I carried it on in Wednesday Open Thread.

    It’s becoming obvious that there’s been a warming miss-attribution to CO2 this century.

    100

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >It’s becoming obvious that there’s been a warming miss-attribution to CO2 this century.

      Isolation of natural variation for attribution consideration has only just begun post 2015 for the period 2016 – 2024 but here’s Gavin Schmidt post re 2023:

      New journal: Nature 2023?
      30 May 2024 by Gavin Schmidt
      https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/05/new-journal-nature-2023/

      There were a number of media reports today related to Yuan et al. (2024), for instance, New Scientist, The Guardian etc. However, this is really just the beginning of what is likely to be a bit of a cottage industry in the next few months relating to possible causes/influences on the extreme temperatures seen in 2023. So to help people keep track, we’ll maintain a list here to focus discussions. Additionally, we’ll extract out the key results (such as the reported radiative forcing) as a guide to how this will all eventually get reconciled.

      We’ll split the papers up by process/topic, or if the paper is general or integrative. Let us know in the comments if there are relevant papers we’ve missed. [Update: it should go without saying that we are not discussing the reason why recent years have been so much warmer than the pre-industrial, that is well known and should be uncontroversial (ha!), rather we are focused on the specifics of what happened in 2023 compared to other recent years].

      “we are not discussing the reason why recent years have been so much warmer than the pre-industrial, that is well known and should be uncontroversial (ha!)”

      So apparently the cause of “recent warming” is a foregone conclusion – Okay, got that.

      Topics next.

      60

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Topics are:

        General

        Impacts of Hunga-Tonga Hunga Ha’apai (HTHH)

        Impacts of IMO2020 (Marine shipping emission changes)

        Impacts of other aerosols

        Impacts of the solar cycle

        Impacts of ENSO variability

        Other sources of Internal variability

        Conspicuously absent: Impacts of increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR) this century.

        And the big problem for AGW:

        0.7 W.m2 theoretical CO2 forcing this century
        1.7 W.m-2 observed ASR increase this century

        50

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >the article is claiming the increased energy of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) this century to be attributable to greenhouse gas warming

      On reflection and rereading the article there’s no such claim – even implicitly.

      What they (Hausfather, Osaka) are doing – the spin – is dragging solar warming into “climate targets”.

      Except solar warming should be removed from temperature datasets before talking about GHG-based “climate targets”.

      As should volcanics (Hunga Tonga) and El Ninos (esp. super).

      50

  • #
    Lindsay Moore

    At last all is explained.
    Aerosols increase cloud formation
    Therefore reduced aerosols decrease cloud formation
    Reduced aerosols post 1980 (Clean air act) reduced cloud formation (supported by NASA DATA!)
    This reduced reduction in cloud cover and thus albedo would result in increased insolation and WARMING
    Thus a significant part ,if not all warming post 1980 is thus NATURAL
    This also explains drop in temperatures post war as aerosols increased.
    THIS EFFECT is by its nature self limiting.
    Quite simple really.

    140

    • #
      Ross

      Yes, I followed Ned Nikolov on Twitter/X when I first joined years ago. Apart from all his credible debunking of the “Greenhouse effect” etc, I can remember he posted links to satellite studies showing a clear relationship between the 1980-2000 warming period and reduced earth cloudiness. It’s that short period of coincidental CO2 rise and earth warming that has led to all the climate science alarmism that began in the 1990’s. Then after that it progressed to politics and any hope of rational debate about the subject disappeared.

      160

    • #
      Johnny Rotten

      Global warming is obviously down to under arm spraying.

      50

  • #
    Ronin

    You have to laugh, it looks like the pillocks are going to warm the planet by cleaning up emissions.

    120

  • #
    Neville

    Again Andrew Bolt and Hydrographic Surveyor Daniel Fitzhenry check the SLs at Fort Denison NSW since 1914.
    Obviously much more accurate than satellite data for our Aussie east coast.
    This only takes about 5 minutes of your time. So where’s their so called dangerous SLR? Or Climate crisis or emergency? Or silly Biden’s Existential threat?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mjOmsqIibk

    120

    • #
      Graeme#4

      The tide mark cut into the rock at Point Puer on Isle of the Dead at Port Arthur is also a stark reminder that sea level hasn’t changed much in over a hundred years.

      70

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Zeke Hausfather:

    “It could be a full degree of cooling being masked.”

    UN IPCC via Wash Post:

    “[IPCC]…estimates that aerosols are masking about 0.5C of global warming

    Shannon Osaka, Wash Post:

    “If aerosols have been masking cooling much more than expected…”

    Aerosols mask solar radiation i.e. planetary warming. If aerosols are removed from the atmosphere then solar warming ensues. And CERES observations reveal more solar radiation is being absorbed this century than has been reported.

    GHGs have absolutely nothing to do with that.

    Hausfather and Osaka are confusing the issue by using the term “masking cooling”.

    50

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >GHGs have absolutely nothing to do with that [solar warming]

      But the natural solar warming is then dragged into the GHG-framed “climate targets” by Osaka:

      …the world could be poised to blow past its climate targets without realizing it.

      This is scurrilous reporting. Before any GHG attribution, model-obs comparisons, statements like Osaka’s, there has to be a whole lot of work:

      1) Remove all natural variation from temperature datasets, meaning:

      2) Remove all natural solar warming from temperature datasets;

      3) Remove all natural volcanic effects from temperature datasets (e.g. Pinatubo cooling, Hunga Tonga warming – Pinatubo was resolved last century, Hunga Tonga hasn’t this century and it is top of an El Nino); and,

      4) Remove all ENSO activity from temperature datasets e.g. super El Ninos.

      Climate scientists were on top of that to a degree (deficient and simplistic but at least an attempt) up until about 2015. Then everything went wild and now they are nowhere near on top of it.

      60

  • #
    Neville

    Again a Dutch study has found that global coastal land has increased over the last few decades. Here’s a link to the Dutch study and a quote.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/

    “Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas”.

    “Nature Climate Change”

    “173,000 km2 – 115,000km2 = 58,000 km2

    33,700 km2 – 20,135 km2 = 13,565 km2”

    “If sea level is rising, how did Earth gain 58,000 km2 of net land surface area, including 13,565 km2 of net coastal land surface area? I’m sure that there is an obvious logical answer. The Cretaceous sea level was about 50 m higher than today and land comprised only 23-26% of Earth’s surface area (vs 29% today).”

    50

  • #
    CO2 Lover

    … Da ra da am de ra am de
    Ba ra ba am dee da am doo
    Ba ra am de ba ra am de
    Da ra doo dee

    … It ain’t necessarily so
    It ain’t necessarily so
    The things that you’re liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain’t necessarily so

    The Climate Cultists have their own Bible published by the corrupt socialist United Nations.

    Never trust Nobody

    61

  • #
    Neville

    Again even their ABC has caught up to Andrew Bolt’s challenge and told us the truth about coral islands growth over the last 60 years.
    In fact 87% of coral islands have become larger or remained stable.
    See Dr Kench’s studies over many decades.

    https://www.abc.net.au/pacific/programs/pacificbeat/pacific-islands-getting-bigger-despite-sea-level-rise/13035520

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      People have only lived on coral islands perhaps 700 years. For example New Zealanders can remember the name of the boat on which they arrived. And language is common. So most, perhaps all settlement was very recent. And they brought their own plants because these islands were bare. Water is the biggest single problem. Of course no animals too.

      Europeans arrived only a few hundred years later.

      Coral islands are 3,500metres tall of solid coral unless the mountain is still there. Amazingly the mountain disappears and coral keeps seeking water level.
      Darwin worked this out as obvious. And they are always at sea level because that is where coral grows, only just below sea level. Midday Bleaching is a real risk though. The sand comes from the coral itself, often courtesy of the Crown of Thorns starfish. This miraculous self sustaining and height adjusting ecosystem existed long before anyone knew it was there and now it is at risk from sea level rise? Obvious rubbish. It just gets taller as it has done with the 150 metre rise in the last 11,000 years after the last ice age.

      None of this is new. What it shows is that truth gets buried by the scam which is Climate Change. And then later quietly admitted while they think of a new scare. If sea levels rise, just as when mountains fall, the coral keeps its own level.

      In fact Climate Change is such a massive industry that it will be hard to unwind. I would guess at millions of ‘climate scientists’ and hundreds of millions of Climate employees. All making a living from something which isn’t true. Like all religions.

      111

  • #
    KP

    Pfft! laughable clowns! Every container ship out there with its 20,000 containers was loaded via 20,000 trucks spewing diesel particulates and sulphur…. and will be unloaded by another 20,000 trucks at the other end. Largest job category in the USA? ..and most other countries I expect, is “truck driver” (except in Washington DC where it is lawyer!)

    Once again, they can talk all they like and make the West a poorer place, but until Asia gets on board with all these hopeless, expensive regulations, nothing will change.

    120

  • #
    Ross

    Oh no – Shiptrails!!! For the last 6 months all I have heard about is Chemtrails and its effect on the weather in Europe, UK and some parts of the USA. Still not sure if it’s credible or not, but there would appear to be lots of visual evidence of skies looking like giant noughts and crosses which hang around for extended periods. Whereas theoretically contrails (condensation) should dissipate quickly. So anyone talking about Chemtrails was labelled a cooker, conspiracy theorist or a loon. But seriously, Shiptrails sounds really looney. How could the particulates from shipping be any more significant than any other major source, particularly natural ones like volcanoes and forest fires. I must admit I’ve never heard this theory before probably because I don’t read the Washington Post (or the Australian ABC, Guardian, Melbourne Age or Sydney Morning Herald). In fact, I don’t consume much MSM at all these days which makes life simple. Someone commented during COVID bollocks that the Amish in Pennsylvania, US didn’t appear adversely affected. Someone replied ” Yep, they don’t watch TV”.

    100

  • #
    TdeF

    Once again pollution is everywhere and it is balancing and preventing tipping points from tipping.

    I detect thrashing, searching desperately for a reason the world has not gone up in a ball of flame.

    After 36 years of Climate Emergency, people are starting to wander off, lost interest. They need more.

    I know, paint Stonehenge orange for the summer solstice.

    Destroy something people care about, because you are upset.

    Woe is us. Sacrifice the children to the Climate Gods.

    And pay a lot more taxes. And ban everything you can. Or just force people to pay more for stuff and keep the money to
    pay climate scientists to tell you what to do.

    Is it any different to Hamas skimming billions from a manufactured disaster and the three leaders parked in Qatar, each worth at least $2.5Billion?
    The fortunes donated to Gaza have been used to buy weapons to create more misery and get more aid. And make the leaders incredibly rich.
    They needed to keep the money flowing. It was obviously all calculated. Israel had no choice. And it’s working beautifully.

    But this $1.8Trillion Climate Scam makes all other scams seem trivial.

    This is all quite calculated by the UN and China. Climate is making many people very rich.

    And billionaire Al Gore will go down in history as the inventor. I cannot believe he still has any credibility. Like the Beatles Swami in his Rolls Royce while
    his followers were in sackcloth and ashes.

    It is also amazing that Grumpy Greta has switched to the Gaza scam. It’s a living.

    With all the billions given to Gaza it should be Monaco by now. And $1.5Trillion a year would have built a thousand nuclear plants.

    130

    • #
      TdeF

      And in both scams the UN has been up to their necks in it. 500 resolutions against Israel, a country legally established by the UN itself.
      Demanding their $100 Bn a year in Climate payments. We need UNEXIT.

      As for our Australian governments, both Liberal and Labor, the money they have stolen in Green certificates would have built many nuclear plants or even HELE coal plants and HVDC power lines. We could have had a 75% to 100% reduction in power generated CO2 for less.

      The real problem though is the press who support all these scams. I believe the main perpetrators are the BBC/CBC/ABC. Unlimited power and mandated income, they blackmail politicians with electoral power and media reach which is illegal for privately owned media. If any govenment want to eliminate misinformation, they would do well to fire the public service media, a contradiction in terms.

      120

    • #
      Dave in the States

      I’m trying to learn how BHO became a billionaire.

      30

  • #
    John Connor II

    Oh no! GA will not be happy, but maybe understand…

    60

  • #
    Alan B

    Who would have suspected that Pollution, Smog and Particulate matter in the air we breathe would be the lifesaver we need to save us from Global Warming.
    Obviously, we need to take all the scrubbers off those fossil-fueled smokestacks and burn fuels with the highest Sulphur content.
    Smog saves lives!
    So ridiculous, sort of like choosing CO2, the molecule required for all life on earth, as the demon which will kill us all.

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      CO2 is also the molecule from which all life on earth is made. All life is a carbon lifeform, which is why we burn like wood. Even a carrot shares 60% of our DNA. We are all solar powered ICUs. Breathing in Oxygen, combining it with hydrated carbon dioxide (carbohydrate) and breathing out CO2.

      The idea that CO2 at any time is pollution is breathtaking.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        And the idea that humans control CO2 in the air is megalomania. Like ants controlling the golf course.

        150

        • #
          TdeF

          We had this with Carbon TetraFlouride and the Ozone hole over Antarctica, not the Arctic.

          Fewer than 2% live in the bottom 75% of the Southern Hemisphere, so you would think that if the Ozone Hole was caused by human activity, it should be over the Arctic. It isn’t. There are plenty of other reasons the huge Ozone hole is over the South Pole.

          But people are prepared to believe it if a scientist says it. And governments race to tax everything. But it’s not true. And the taxes mean it is cheaper to buy a new Chinese airconditioner with cheap gas than to regas the old one. Strange about that.

          Also with the lower efficiency new gases, a huge increase in power for required to the same job, which is fine if you are not a conservationist and energy is plentiful and free. It shows how fake science and credulity feed into greed and politics.

          130

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Scientists Admit Substantial Errors Calculating Cloud Effects On Climate Inevitable
    by Kenneth Richard

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/scientists-admit-substantial-errors-calculating-cloud-effects-on-climate-inevitable/

    Modeling the main factors driving climate is riddled with and precluded by observational error. Some scientists now acknowledge this. [emphasis, links added]

    Clouds are a main factor – even the “most important factor” – controlling changes in the Earth’s radiation budget, or climate (Sfîcă et al., 2021, Lenaerts et al., 2020).

    However, scientists acknowledge in a new study (Ademakinwa et al., 2024) that substantial errors in calculating cloud effects on climate are inevitable because three-dimensional (3D, vertical, and horizontal) cloud effects are reality, and current calculations only consider one-dimensional cloud properties (1D, vertical).

    “Failed retrievals” in radiative property simulations of cloud effects occur over 40% of the time. This leads to biases, and errors amounting to ±36 W/m².

    Considering this error margin of 72 W/m² is 360 times larger than the total forcing from CO2 over 10 years (0.2 W/m²) for an imaginary clear-sky-only (cloudless) Earth (Feldman et al., 2015), it is not possible to detect the real-world effect of CO2 forcing in any radiative transfer calculation.

    I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
    From up and down, and still somehow
    It’s cloud illusions I recall
    I really don’t know clouds at all

    – Joni Mitchell

    70

  • #
    aspnaz

    said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and research lead for the payments company Stripe.

    Stripe, a company I just looked up, is some third rate IT company offering payment services. It has obviously hired this guy, and commented on an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with their payment systems, to help them leach off the climate scam hysteria. I wonder what grant they are fishing for, maybe a few tens of millions to study payments using windmill power, or some such nonsense. Looks like everybody wants a seat on the gravy train.

    70

    • #
      Gerry, England

      Is there where ESG is leading? Every company must have its own climate scientist? But why? The ‘science’ is settled.

      30

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s the OWI Data graphs for child deaths before the age of 5, from 1990 to 2021.
    I’ve selected all the countries by income. IOW the poorest to the wealthiest countries and there has certainly been a big improvement since 1990.
    I’ve also added the world as well.
    But can anyone notice Biden’s existential threat in these trends over the last 31 years?

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?country=High-income+countries~Least+developed+countries+%28SDG%29~Low-income+countries~Lower-middle-income+countries~Upper-middle-income+countries~OWID_WRL

    30

    • #
      Neville

      Another key ingredient to understand that big fall in child deaths before the age of 5 is that over 80% of our global energy was generated from fossil fuels since 1990.
      So why would we want to destroy our environments and change to toxic super expensive W & S?

      50

  • #
    HB

    Simple
    Put the crap back in the fuel

    70

  • #
    Simon

    It took many years to make low sulphur bunker fuel mandatory. Shipping is the most efficient way of moving stuff around, that will not change.
    There is so much misunderstanding in the commentary above. This recent paper summarises the state of play: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-tracking-the-unprecedented-impact-of-humans-on-the-climate/

    19

    • #

      And isn’t it great that we are finally getting rid of real pollutants instead of obsessing over aerial fertilizer?

      But the witchdoctors are milking this to cover for their ineptitude, failed models and fake prophesies.

      And I have so much misunderstanding apparently, that you can explain exactly nothing I got wrong.

      A group of parasitic professors paid by the public to deceive them, write 1,000 words to help you “think” up a reason and yet you don’t even read what they write and explain my “misunderstandings”? You are just here to drop in a lazy slur…

      170

      • #
        Simon

        Calling academics parasitic is completely unfair and betrays your internal biases. Most would earn far more in the private sector but are motivated instead by teaching and the search for knowledge. Humans will keep making dumb choices unless their decision making is informed by sound science.

        16

        • #

          It betrays nothing except that you don’t read this blog.

          Academics get millions of dollars from taxpayers to tell them the truth, instead they publish drivel, ignore data that suggests Big Government programs are a profligate waste based on bad climate models and witchcraft. They steal from plumbers and bricklayers and nurses and teachers while they line their own pockets. They lie about what science is, pretending that peer review is rigorous and essential when science is about observations not opinion polls. They cowardly say nothing when colleagues are sacked like Peter Ridd.

          Prove me wrong. When did any academic speak up about corruption at universities?

          40

        • #
          Gee Aye

          No Simon, if you work for money for a job people want done, you are a parasite.

          14

          • #
            Lance

            No, GA/Simon, if you work for money for a job people want done, then fabricate deceptions to satisfy a self serving bias, ignore reality/history/maths in favour of ideology, then you qualify for the position of Faith Based Traitor to Science, and Liar, Thief, Propagandist, and Parasite.

            Fixed it for you. No charge.

            Keep on digging, GA. Surprise us all and deliver a fact, not an opinion or belief, something reality based, useful, relevant, economically defensible, intellectually honest. Still waiting.

            40

        • #
          Lance

          So the Academic Saints chose to live a poorer life in Academia than to work in the private sector and that makes them ethically, morally, and factually, superior to others, according to you. “Those who Can, Do. Those who Can’t, Teach”.

          In the private sector, results matter. In the Academic sector, politics/seniority/tenure/etc, matter.

          Academics bear no cost for being factually and practically wrong, if they are tenured. In the Real World, they’d get fired for incompetence.

          Cry me a river. Honest Academia was corrupted by politics decades ago. Prove me wrong.

          40

    • #
      MeAgain

      That so much human activity should be influenced by a handful of indicators…

      Simon, you are socially-conditioned to have different values. (Imagine, only 100 years ago, if someone had have titled a paper like this, the editors would have corrected the title to ‘the unprecedented impact of the climate on humans’ (and then been very puzzled by its contents)

      50

  • #
    TdeF

    When has human intervention in ecology actually worked? Australia has an appalling track record. Foxs, cats, camels, goats, prickly pear, cane toads, calicivirus. The story is always one of unintended consequences.

    How much better off would we all be if Al Gore had not discovered 36 years ago that we were all going to die very soon if he wasn’t elected President of the US?

    We would be so much better off with fabulous, steady, adequate and cheap clean coal power. Before we were told carbon dioxide was a far worse pollutant than nuclear emissions. And that cars, sheep, ships and jet planes were the work of Satan.

    Now after 30 trillion dollars of achieving nothing, we are all waiting for the lights to go out.

    160

  • #
    RoHa

    I told you we were doomed.

    70

  • #
    Empirical Evidence

    Any further information on the veracity of aerosols sprayed from commercial aircraft aiming to cool by global dimming eg the movie/documentary “The Dimming”?

    30

  • #
    Ruairi

    Global worriers will need to stop whining,
    And on shipping emissions opining,
    A planet-saving tool,
    Keeping temperatures cool,
    Seeding clouds with a silver lining.

    40

  • #
    Robert Ernest

    Isn’t it “raises the question” not “begs the question?”

    50

  • #
    old cocky

    despite climate experts being 99% certain of what controls our climate,

    Shouldn’t that be 97%?

    30

  • #
  • #

    […] Global Excuses: Ship pollution was saving us from global warming, but now we’ve fixed the ship… […]

    00

  • #