SkyNewsAustralia
A new documentary produced by the “far green left” has in fact put the
argument forward “that renewable energy is not clean, not green and not
practical,” according to Sky News host Chris Kenny.
Environmental documentary film, ‘The Planet of the Humans,' absolutely
“skewers the renewable energy industry,” Mr Kenny said.
“The film goes on to attack major corporations for their pretense, their
virtue-signalling on renewable energy”.
Mr Kenny said the stance taken in the documentary is “kinda strange”
given the executive producer is Michael Moore, who is a “millionaire,
leftist, academy award winning director”.
Mr Kenny said, “why isn't the ABC talking about this, showing this,
debating this?”
“They usually love Mike Moore's films; they usually love to promote the
political films of the green left”.
“This one goes too far for them of course, it attacks renewables and it
attacks climate alarmists that they regard as secular saints, like Al
Gore”.
He said the new film, “seems to present too many inconvenient truths”
for even the ABC to report on.
Thursday, 23 July 2020
Nobody expected 'very left-wing' Michael Moore to issue a film 'critical of renewables'
SkyNewsAustralia
Michael Moore's new film 'The Planet of the Humans' marks the beginning of a "grand awakening" to the impacts of renewables on the natural environment says Environmental Progress founder Michael Shellenberger. Mr Moore has garnered fame and accolades for his documentaries over the last two decades, and has himself been an activist for broadly left issues including environmental protectionism. In his new film he exposes the renewable energy sector as not being entirely green or clean as well as criticising large corporations for virtue signalling on this issue. Mr Shellenberger said Moore is a "very left-wing person who people did not expect to issue a movie that was so critical of renewables". He told Sky News host Chris Kenny, the problem with renewable energy is its fuel is "very energy dilute, you have to spread a huge amount of energy collectors," be it solar panels or wind turbines, over a huge area, "so the land requirements are absolutely enormous". Many people have politicised the issue of energy and environmentalism, but Mr Shellenberger said the problems with renewables exist "whether you have a capitalist society or a socialist society". "They have to do with the inherent physical nature of renewable energy … the better energy sources have more energy, they're higher energy density that means you use less of the natural environment". "It's impossible to just dismiss the people who are raising these concerns anymore as climate deniers or as right-wingers".
Michael Moore's new film 'The Planet of the Humans' marks the beginning of a "grand awakening" to the impacts of renewables on the natural environment says Environmental Progress founder Michael Shellenberger. Mr Moore has garnered fame and accolades for his documentaries over the last two decades, and has himself been an activist for broadly left issues including environmental protectionism. In his new film he exposes the renewable energy sector as not being entirely green or clean as well as criticising large corporations for virtue signalling on this issue. Mr Shellenberger said Moore is a "very left-wing person who people did not expect to issue a movie that was so critical of renewables". He told Sky News host Chris Kenny, the problem with renewable energy is its fuel is "very energy dilute, you have to spread a huge amount of energy collectors," be it solar panels or wind turbines, over a huge area, "so the land requirements are absolutely enormous". Many people have politicised the issue of energy and environmentalism, but Mr Shellenberger said the problems with renewables exist "whether you have a capitalist society or a socialist society". "They have to do with the inherent physical nature of renewable energy … the better energy sources have more energy, they're higher energy density that means you use less of the natural environment". "It's impossible to just dismiss the people who are raising these concerns anymore as climate deniers or as right-wingers".
Environmentalist explains why renewable energy can't save the planet
FoxNews
Solar and wind farms require large amounts of land and come at a high economic cost, says Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress president. (Video)
Solar and wind farms require large amounts of land and come at a high economic cost, says Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress president. (Video)
Reformed climate activist condemns ‘terrorising school children’ with false science
SkyNewsAustralia
The life-long environmentalist has given Sky News host Chris Kenny a lengthy interview about his decision to speak out against the alarmist rhetoric which he says is creating anxiety in young people. “I have a 14-year-old daughter and she is fine because I’ve explained the science to her (but) her friends are very alarmed,” he said. “Adolescents these days have a lot to worry about, anxiety and depression are rising among everyone really, certainly adolescents, and I thought it was not right to be terrorising school children and giving them false information.” Shellenberger - who has been invited to be an expert reviewer to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - maintains that climate change is occurring but says it is not a “catastrophic threat”. He says the science has been hijacked by a “handful” of activist scientists who are spreading “science fiction”. “The majority of scientists are not activists, there are actually only a handful of scientists who feel the need to terrify people,” he said. “I don’t think this is really that complicated, we need to lift everybody out of poverty, and we need to do our best to preserve natural places and things have just spiralled out of control. “This climate change thing has just got too crazy.” Shellenberger said he had noticed a “dark tradition” of anti-human rhetoric spilling from climate change activists, including views that humans were a “cancer” or a virus. In the second half of the interview – which will air on Sky News Australia on the Kenny Report at 5pm on Thursday night – Shellenberger also weighs into whether climate change was a significant cause of the Australian bushfires. “Yes there is evidence of that,” he said. “However, It is massively outweighed by two factors; the accumulation of wood fuel in the forests and the development of new houses near forests. “Is there some contributing role of climate change? Yes. Is it very significant? No”.
The life-long environmentalist has given Sky News host Chris Kenny a lengthy interview about his decision to speak out against the alarmist rhetoric which he says is creating anxiety in young people. “I have a 14-year-old daughter and she is fine because I’ve explained the science to her (but) her friends are very alarmed,” he said. “Adolescents these days have a lot to worry about, anxiety and depression are rising among everyone really, certainly adolescents, and I thought it was not right to be terrorising school children and giving them false information.” Shellenberger - who has been invited to be an expert reviewer to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - maintains that climate change is occurring but says it is not a “catastrophic threat”. He says the science has been hijacked by a “handful” of activist scientists who are spreading “science fiction”. “The majority of scientists are not activists, there are actually only a handful of scientists who feel the need to terrify people,” he said. “I don’t think this is really that complicated, we need to lift everybody out of poverty, and we need to do our best to preserve natural places and things have just spiralled out of control. “This climate change thing has just got too crazy.” Shellenberger said he had noticed a “dark tradition” of anti-human rhetoric spilling from climate change activists, including views that humans were a “cancer” or a virus. In the second half of the interview – which will air on Sky News Australia on the Kenny Report at 5pm on Thursday night – Shellenberger also weighs into whether climate change was a significant cause of the Australian bushfires. “Yes there is evidence of that,” he said. “However, It is massively outweighed by two factors; the accumulation of wood fuel in the forests and the development of new houses near forests. “Is there some contributing role of climate change? Yes. Is it very significant? No”.
Monday, 25 May 2020
A global context for megadroughts in monsoon Asia during the past millennium
NALOPKT
This paper appeared in my inbox, for some reason! It is from 2010, but is still highly relevant, since it finds evidence of megadroughts in India, China and Vietnam during the 14th and 15thC, directly linked to the onset of the Little Ice Age. The authors make it clear these megadroughts have no match in the current era:
These megadroughts are consistent with HH Lamb’s findings, that an expanding Arctic squeezes the tropical rain belts more tightly around the equator. In other words, while the tropics get wetter, the monsoon in India and elsewhere does not tend to go as far north.
This paper also provides yet more evidence that the Little Ice Age truly was a global phenomenon
This paper appeared in my inbox, for some reason! It is from 2010, but is still highly relevant, since it finds evidence of megadroughts in India, China and Vietnam during the 14th and 15thC, directly linked to the onset of the Little Ice Age. The authors make it clear these megadroughts have no match in the current era:
These megadroughts are consistent with HH Lamb’s findings, that an expanding Arctic squeezes the tropical rain belts more tightly around the equator. In other words, while the tropics get wetter, the monsoon in India and elsewhere does not tend to go as far north.
This paper also provides yet more evidence that the Little Ice Age truly was a global phenomenon
Wednesday, 11 March 2020
BUSTED: State climate lawsuits are all about ignoring legislature to get cash stream
WUWT
Transparency Group Provides Federal Court of Appeals with Records Proving State “Climate” Lawsuit is to Obtain “Sustainable Funding Stream”, After Failing to Convince Legislature to Fund its Priorities
Transparency Group Provides Federal Court of Appeals with Records Proving State “Climate” Lawsuit is to Obtain “Sustainable Funding Stream”, After Failing to Convince Legislature to Fund its Priorities
Prince Harry reveals his agony about Megxit in phone call with a FAKE Greta Thunberg
Daily Mail
- Prince Harry spoke with a pair of Russian YouTube stars from his Canada home
- He was convinced he was speaking to Greta Thunberg and her father Svante
- Instead he was talking to Russians Alexei Stolyarov and Vladimir Kuznetsov
- The pair had previously pranked Elton John and Democrat Bernie Sanders
- Prince Harry told them life was 'much better' since he and Meghan left the royals
- He added that he was 'more normal than my family would like to believe' and had chosen to withdraw to 'protect my son'
- He also hit out world leaders over climate change and at the tabloid press
Tuesday, 10 March 2020
Sad Climate Scientists: “I see a group of people sitting in a boat … floating right into a … waterfall”
WUWT
These poor climate scientists are sacrificing everything in their passion to save the world, but nobody cares. ....
Gee, if only the climate scientists had tried a little harder, we might have listened to them.
Having said that, if you suspend disbelief and just look at the words, some of the descriptive imagery is actually pretty good. Obviously “floating into a waterfall” should have been “floating towards a waterfall”, so they need a bit of help with their writing technique, but when I closed my eyes I could really see that boat, kind of like one of the depressing scenes from the apocalyptic nuclear war story “On the beach”.
When the climate bubble finally collapses, with a bit of training some of the most emotionally expressive climate scientists might be able to make a decent living writing fiction."
These poor climate scientists are sacrificing everything in their passion to save the world, but nobody cares. ....
Gee, if only the climate scientists had tried a little harder, we might have listened to them.
Having said that, if you suspend disbelief and just look at the words, some of the descriptive imagery is actually pretty good. Obviously “floating into a waterfall” should have been “floating towards a waterfall”, so they need a bit of help with their writing technique, but when I closed my eyes I could really see that boat, kind of like one of the depressing scenes from the apocalyptic nuclear war story “On the beach”.
When the climate bubble finally collapses, with a bit of training some of the most emotionally expressive climate scientists might be able to make a decent living writing fiction."
CSIRO forgets to mention: No study explicitly shows climate change caused bushfires
JoNova(Australia)
Who needs studies? CSIRO doesn’t need any evidence to tell Australians how things work
Senator Matt Canavan asks Dr Peter Mayfield of CSIRO why an explainer document they put out about the bushfires didn’t include a sentence he found in another CSIRO study.
Who needs studies? CSIRO doesn’t need any evidence to tell Australians how things work
Senator Matt Canavan asks Dr Peter Mayfield of CSIRO why an explainer document they put out about the bushfires didn’t include a sentence he found in another CSIRO study.
“No studies explicitly attributing the Australian increase in fire weather to climate change have been performed at this time.”
A record breaking ten long seconds of silence in Senate estimates this week.........." (Video)
Wikipedia deletes The List of Scientists who are Skeptics of the sacred (fake) “Consensus”
JoNova(Australia)
.....
Time to share far and wide. If Wikipedia is serious they have to kick out the editors with political or religious bias.
Dr Roger Higgs, by the way has published: 29 bullet points prove global warming by the sun, not CO2: by a GEOLOGIST for a change
The evidence is overwhelming but the names of 85 unconvinced experts threatens the Earth. Shield your eyes, sinner, lest ye faith be tested!
The Religion of Carbonoid-Weather-Control is so fragile, and Wikipedia so captured by philosophical fruit flies, that 35 editors voted down 19 other editors and now The List does not exist. Thus do 35 editors keep safe the minds of Wikipedia babes who might get confused when they see Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencers names and mistake them for actual climate scientists… oh......
Dr Roger Higgs notes:
By the way, note three BBC-style
disingenuous omissions in the title alone: “List of scientists who
disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming”:
(1) these are not just any scientists, but well-known and, in many cases, distinguished scientists (Happer, Soon, Lindzen, etc, etc; see below), in diverse fields of science;
(2) they disagree with the consensus on man-made global warming (no educated person denies global warming; Earth has always alternately warmed and cooled);
(3) the consensus is only among climate scientists (whose salaries, research grants, and reputations depend on public belief in man-made warming).
Dr Roger Higgs, by the way has published: 29 bullet points prove global warming by the sun, not CO2: by a GEOLOGIST for a change
Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History
Breitbart
Stalin — who set the template for airbrushing inconvenient people out of history — would no doubt have heartily approved of this wanton act of censorship.
But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.
In fact many tens of thousands of scientists are sceptical of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, including some of the most eminent experts in the field, among them physicists Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Will Happer of Princeton.
But the kind of intolerant leftists who tend to edit Wikipedia pages don’t want you to know this."
Stalin — who set the template for airbrushing inconvenient people out of history — would no doubt have heartily approved of this wanton act of censorship.
But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.
“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”What this Wikipedia editor is saying, in other words, is that if you’re a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming then that automatically makes you not a scientist.
In fact many tens of thousands of scientists are sceptical of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, including some of the most eminent experts in the field, among them physicists Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Will Happer of Princeton.
But the kind of intolerant leftists who tend to edit Wikipedia pages don’t want you to know this."
Tuesday, 3 March 2020
Climate “crisis” to eradicate world’s beaches by 2100
WUWT
According the the alarmists, sea level rise will make storm surges worse, somehow endangering beaches more than nature already endangers them. What effect has all of this sea level rise had on a 10′ storm surge? Just above the Dean Wormer line (zero-point-zero). ....The construction of topographic profiles was literally the first thing I was taught as a freshman geology student back in 1976. How in the hell could ostensibly professional engineers and scientists write crap like this: “World’s beaches disappearing due to climate crisis”… Well, they didn’t. The idiot Grauniad journalist wrote it. The actual paper isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be…However, the paper has one YUGE problem with it…"
According the the alarmists, sea level rise will make storm surges worse, somehow endangering beaches more than nature already endangers them. What effect has all of this sea level rise had on a 10′ storm surge? Just above the Dean Wormer line (zero-point-zero). ....The construction of topographic profiles was literally the first thing I was taught as a freshman geology student back in 1976. How in the hell could ostensibly professional engineers and scientists write crap like this: “World’s beaches disappearing due to climate crisis”… Well, they didn’t. The idiot Grauniad journalist wrote it. The actual paper isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be…However, the paper has one YUGE problem with it…"
Maldives Opening Four New Airports
Guido fawkes
While London yet again delays a decision on building a single runway due to environmentalist court action, the Maldives are pressing ahead with plans to open four new airports this year. Yes, despite the UN environment official’s warning that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000”, the Maldives are still here…
While London yet again delays a decision on building a single runway due to environmentalist court action, the Maldives are pressing ahead with plans to open four new airports this year. Yes, despite the UN environment official’s warning that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000”, the Maldives are still here…
Monday, 24 February 2020
WaPo showcases the “Anti-Greta” Thunberg
Carbon Policies Are ‘Futile Gesture Politics’
GWPF
Dr Ruth Lea, who has wide-ranging experience of working in the civil service, the financial sector and policy institutions, says that while politicians celebrate their increasingly ambitious decarbonisation targets, most of the world is ignoring them:
“The UK now represents just 1% of global emissions, so any reduction we make will not even be noticed. And it will be offset many times over by increases in the developing world, which continues to burn cheap coal and gas as fast as it can.”
And Lea warns that politicians’ determination to be seen to ‘do something’ about climate change carries major political risks:
“The decarbonisation programme that we are embarking on will be extraordinarily expensive and will hit businesses and consumers harder every year. That can’t carry on for ever, and eventually a major political price will be paid.”
Economist says unilateral decarbonisation carries major economic and political risks
A prominent economist says that Britain’s climate and energy policies are ‘futile gesture politics’, and will fail to bring about any change to the climate.Dr Ruth Lea, who has wide-ranging experience of working in the civil service, the financial sector and policy institutions, says that while politicians celebrate their increasingly ambitious decarbonisation targets, most of the world is ignoring them:
“The UK now represents just 1% of global emissions, so any reduction we make will not even be noticed. And it will be offset many times over by increases in the developing world, which continues to burn cheap coal and gas as fast as it can.”
And Lea warns that politicians’ determination to be seen to ‘do something’ about climate change carries major political risks:
“The decarbonisation programme that we are embarking on will be extraordinarily expensive and will hit businesses and consumers harder every year. That can’t carry on for ever, and eventually a major political price will be paid.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)