Organisers told the Manchester Evening News they felt like hypocrites but had been forced to use the generator because it would have been too expensive to get a solar panel made
That’s exactly what you are- no feeling like it at all!
The protestors actually admitted what they normally refuse to say:
Solar power is more expensive
Solar power (especially in northern England!) is unreliable and requires backup by traditional reliable means.
From The Manchester Evening News:
Climate change protesters admit using a diesel generator to power their stage
Organisers told the Manchester Evening News they felt like hypocrites but had been forced to use the generator because it would have been too expensive to get a solar panel made
A diesel-powered generator is being used to run the music stage at the Extinction Rebellion protests on Deansgate.
Organisers told the Manchester Evening News they felt “like hypocrites” but had been “forced” to use the generator because it would have been too expensive to get a solar panel made.
The protest – which has brought one of Manchester’s busiest shopping streets to a standstill to highlight the threat of climate change – is on its third day.
Graham Buss, 63, said: “We were desperate to get a solar panel specially made for the demonstrations but it would have cost us £8,000.
“That’s money we simply don’t have.
“Even if we’d been able to get a solar panel made, we would have still had to have had a diesel-powered generator as a back up.
“It’s something we really do regret having to use and we feel like hypocrites, but this is the point.
“We’re part of a system that has made it incredibly difficult to use solar panels for these sorts of events and we feel like we’ve been forced to have to use the diesel generator.
The Global Warming scare is 30 years old! Happy birthday AGW. Congratulations to the thousands of people who have made their living from the greatest scam in the history of the world. And here we all are not frying, drowning, dehydrating of being eaten by an uncontrollable population of feral cats.
Global warming was not reversed by the year 2000 – yet we are still here.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 30, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says 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.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.
The ABC was very excited about “religious leaders” meeting to declare they have no faith in coal. As expected it was the usual suspects of the extreme religious left who actually have very little faith in Jesus, together with a rainbow rabbi and a couple of Imams. Hardly representative of anybody really.
There goes my world. Who knew they had faith in coal?
So forget science, climate change is a moral problem. Is climate sensitivity 1 degree or 3? Ask a priest.
A group called Australians Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) has badgered 150 soft targets in the religious world to sign a grandiose letter making coal into the new Lucifer.
The Guardian
In an open letter headed “no faith in coal”, the leaders say the climate crisis is a profoundly moral problem and Australia’s response will be crucial in addressing it.
Signatories to the letter include bishops, rabbis, theologians, the grand mufti of Australia and the heads of the Uniting Church, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, Muslims Australia and the National Council of Churches.
Remember the alarmist maxim: ask a plumber to do the plumbing, a heart expert to do the surgery and when you want to predict the climate, ask an Imam.
Or failing that — ask a school student — which is what the religious leaders have done. Let’s quote their letter:
As you know, thousands of school students have been protesting in our streets about this emergency. They have three demands. We are writing to urge you to agree to them:
Stopping the proposed Adani coal mine
Committing to no new coal or gas projects in Australia
Moving to 100% renewable energy by the year 2030.
Let’s ask innumerate teenage girls to set national energy policy. What could possibly go wrong?
It’s not like they are easily fooled slaves to fashion who make great cheerleaders.
The sound of breaking commandments:
I count five:
Thou shalt have no other Gods (since when was the IPCC sacred?)
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain (don’t use God for Renewable industry advertising)
Honour thy father and mother (not the teenage false saints)
Thou shalt not bear false witness (praise not the scientists who hide declines)
Thou shalt not steal. (see the Australian Renewable Energy Target — solar panels.)
The BishopRabbi economist says automation is bad for jobs
Solar power apparently makes more jobs:
The Adani mine in Central and North Queensland is an excellent example. People there need new, reliable jobs. Yet serious investment in solar would yield far more jobs than the Adani mine would, as it is less automated. And rejecting new coal will also help to protect jobs that depend on the Great Barrier Reef. There are currently 60,000 people whose livelihood depends on the Reef.
Let’s get rid of washing machines too and then women can be full time housewives again. That’ll create lots of jobs.
Solar power makes jobs in the same way that freight by horse and buggy does: a small high-maintenance unit can’t be used in an efficient way with economies of scales. Those economies being what makes trucks cheaper.
So the nice but weak religious leaders have handed their moral power to children and activists. There’s no reason they shouldn’t speak up on climate change, but if they care about their flock, they might want to research the positions they advocate. That means reading the arguments for and against. Instead they blindly follow a group that treats the IPCC as a God — the ARRCC describes its policy as pretty much everything the IPCC ever said.
Thou shalt not question foreign committees
After donating their brains to the IPCC the ARRCC rationalizes why any outcome at all proves they are right:
How the climate is changing
While the numbers above may seem small, their impact is much greater than just a global warming of temperatures by 1-2 degrees. This is firstly because this amount is just an average – the changes in temperature is unevenly distributed across the globe Some places around the world will experience much greater increases than this and some places will actually experience a DECREASE in temperatures.
This phenomenon of cooling and warming at the same time is partly explained by the effect that warming has on ocean temperatures and currents. As the air and land temperatures warm, so too does the average ocean temperature. The increased air and ocean temperatures causes accelerated melting of the ice in the arctic and Antarctic, resulting in an increase of cold water flowing into the oceans. The colder waters interact with the warmer waters to change the patterns of ocean currents, which sees some of this colder water flowing to places that in past have experienced warm ocean currents. As ocean temperatures mediate coastal land temperatures, the colder waters will cause colder temperatures.
So, religious geniuses, tell us what outcome would prove the theory wrong? If temperatures stayed exactly the same? And what does God/Budda/Mohammed say about scientists who are hiding data, declines, history, adjustments and methods?
Changing air and water temperatures also affects the weather. As ocean currents change this affects the air currents that flow above the oceans, changing cloud formation and wind patterns. The overall effect of these changing air currents is that most places around the world will actually experience much less frequent rain fall. However when rain does occur, it will happen with much greater intensity. This leads to a pattern of both droughts and floods. It also means that sometimes actual rainfall seasons will change, with dry weather during traditional wet seasons, and very wet weather during traditional dry seasons. The main effect though is to make the rainfall very unpredictable based on past experiences. Changing rainfall patterns also have an effect on traditional water catchment areas and existing river systems, which can affect previously reliable sources of fresh water.
A third effect of changing water temperatures and currents is an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as tropical storms.
ManbearMonkPriest says skeptics are wrong because of a flawed keyword study of pal reviewed abstracts in a biased-funding safe space for b-grade thinkers. That and because name-calling “denier” sounds so scientific.
Sceptical arguments
The above impacts are not just predictions but things that are being observed right now around the world. However there is still a significant and often vocal body of people who are either sceptical of climate change science or outright deniers.
The prominent people amongst this group are rarely climatologists or even scientists at all – they are generally social scientists such as economists, politicians, people connected with big business or social commentators.
Prominent? Tell that to Professor Richard Lindzen.
While there are a few scientists among this group of people, research by Cook et al in 2013 (“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”) found that 97% of published climatologists believe in the existence of human-induced climate change. That is, 97% of all scientists whose field of expertise is climate, and who have gone through the process of having their research peer-reviewed by other qualified scientists and published in a scholarly journal believe that climate change is happening and that it is directly linked to human activity. There have now been several pieces of research showing that sceptical scientists and think tanks indirectly receive substantial funding from fossil fuel industries.
Yes, and some unnamed research about unnamed people and unlisted sums claims they are paid hacks. These 150 gullible patsies will believe anything. They give religion a bad name.
Unfortunately the science of climate change is most often misrepresented in the media as a ‘debate’ between roughly even numbers of believers and sceptics, giving the impression that the scientific jury is still out. If the portrayal were more accurate, the picture would reflect an almost total consensus on the science, with only the tiniest minority of dissenters.
A few weeks ago when the UN report about biodiversity was released, the media unquestioningly reported that millions of species were going extinct and humans are the problem.
My initial, cynical reaction was, “Gee they have discovered that nobody is listening to the climate change scare any more so they’ve found a new scare.”
It also runs counter to what we are seeing around the world. Every year more and more land is converted to national parks, and for some years now the amount of land being reforested exceeds the area being cleared. Agriculture is becoming more efficient, food is more plentiful, people are moving to cities. Even with a still increasing global population we will have plenty of potential food for decades to come.
In fact, the only bleak spots are those caused by the demands of environmentalists. For example the EU has mandated a certain amount of so-called bio-diesel to be used in vehicles, leading to massive clearing of forests in Indonesia and Malaysia to plant palm trees. The other folly is the requirement to use ethanol in petrol in many developed countries. The main source of this is from corn in North America, leading to an increase in the price of corn, a staple food for millions of poor people, of between 5% and 10%
Anyway the extinction report claims that millions of species are going extinct in our time. Here is the only graph in the Summary for Policy Makers
Scary graph, until you look at the labels on the axes. “Cumulative % of species driven extinct.” It is not clear exactly what that means, but it does seem to be adding all the previous values as you go. That curve can never go down. It’s a bit like the old “hockey stick” of Al Gore fame.
Here is the actual number of extinctions per decade recorded by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
So, it’s not quite zero, but we are heading in the right direction- the opposite direction to the one the UN would have us believe.
Oh look that decline is happening right through the period of time when so-called human caused global warming is happening.
These graphs are from a much more detailed article by Gregory Wrightson which I encourage you to read.
The so-called “Mass Extinction” is, sadly, another example of science being politicised and twisted to cause alarm.
Chocolate is produced from the beans that grow on cocoa trees. These plants can only grow in a fairly narrow range of conditions, which makes them vulnerable to changes in the environment.
Unfortunately, climate change is threatening some of these key growing regions. According to the IPCC, rising temperatures and a relative reduction in rainfall could make areas like West Africa less suitable for cocoa production in the future. Changes to the climate are also pushing cocoa-growing regions to higher altitudes in some parts of the world, which can make some crops unsustainable.
We can see just how hard cocoa crops have been hit by record heat and 500 billion tons of carbon.
Bjørn Lomborg writes on Facebook about some new and surprising data that turn climate alarmist claims upside down.
Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters.
This is clearly opposite of what you normally hear, but that is because we’re often just being told of one disaster after another – telling us how *many* events are happening. The number of reported events is increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, lower thresholds and better accessibility (the CNN effect). For instance, for Denmark, the database only shows events starting from 1976.
Instead, look at the number of dead per year, which is much harder to fudge. Given that these numbers fluctuate enormously from year to year (especially in the past, with huge droughts and floods in China), they are here presented as averages of each decade (1920-29, 1930-39 etc, with last decade as 2010-18). The data is from the most respected global database, the International Disaster Database. There is some uncertainty about complete reporting from early decades, which is why this graph starts in 1920, and if anything this uncertainty means the graph *underestimates* the reduction in deaths.
Notice, this does *not* mean that there is no global warming or that possibly a climate signal could eventually lead to further deaths. Instead, it shows that our increased wealth and adaptive capacity has vastly outdone any negative impact from climate when it comes to human climate vulnerability.
Notice that the reduction in absolute deaths has happened while the global population has increased four-fold. The individual risk of dying from climate-related disasters has declined by 98.9%. Last year, fewer people died in climate disasters than at any point in the last three decades (1986 was a similarly fortunate year).
Somewhat surprisingly, while climate-related deaths have been declining strongly for 70 years, non-climate deaths have not seen a similar decline, and should probably get more of our attention.
If we look at the death risk for an individual, seen below, the risk reduction is even bigger – dropped almost 99% since the 1920s.
When the earth failed to burst into flames, or even to heat at the rates the computers predicted, the activists pointed to what they called extreme weather events such as tornadoes and cyclones. They were supposed to increase in number and intensity.
The reality? Not so much. In fact the long term trend is actually the reverse of that, at least in Australia and the U.S.
In the whirlwind that is 2018, there has been a notable lack of high-end twisters.
We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States. Violent tornadoes are the strongest on a 0 to 5 scale, or those ranked EF4 or EF5.
It was a quiet year for tornadoes overall, with below normal numbers most months. Unless you’re a storm chaser, this is not bad news. The low tornado count is undoubtedly a big part of the reason the 10 tornado deaths in 2018 is also vying to be a record low.
While we still have several days to go in 2018, and some severe weather is likely across the South to close it out, odds favor the country making it the rest of the way without a violent tornado.
If and when that happens, it will be the first time since the modern record began in 1950.
2005 came close to reaching this mark. That year, the first violent tornado didn’t occur until Nov. 15, much later than typical for the first of the year, which tends to come in early spring.
This year’s goose-egg may seem to fit a recent pattern.
In simple terms, there have been down-trends in violent tornado numbers both across the entire modern period, and when looking at just the period since Doppler radar was fully implemented across the country in the mid-1990s. A 15-year average as high as 13.7 in the mid-1970s will drop to 5.9 next year.
Expanding to include all “intense” tornadoes, or those F/EF3+, this year’s 12 is also poised to set a record for the least.
Right now, the mark there is held by 1987 when there were 15 F3+ tornadoes. As with violent tornadoes, this grouping is also exhibiting both a short and long-term decrease in annual numbers, likely for similar reasons.
The causes for 2018′s lack of violent tornadoes are many, but one key factor is high pressure tending to be more dominant than normal throughout peak season this past spring. This was particularly so during April and May, when tornado numbers were below to well below normal.
Although the country ended up seeing a number of memorable tornado events after the spring, including several this fall, in most years over half of the tornadoes occur from March through May. Making up those numbers is difficult at other times of the year when ingredients for them are less likely.
Despite the downtrend in annual numbers, studies continue to find that more tornadoes are happening on fewer days. In that light, it is certainly possible this drought won’t last much longer
On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the prediction to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference:
Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”
Watch the video:
Here’s the polar ice cap extent today:
As you can see from the graph above, Arctic sea ice came nowhere close to disappearing during the summer minimum, and has rebounded to be within 2 standard deviations in the last few weeks.
During the summer minimum, the North polar ice cap looked like this:
Arctic sea ice from September 18 – 24, 2018, image from MODIS
Have you noticed something missing this year? No? Each time just before these conferences happen the World Meteorological Organisation normally pronounces that the current year will be the hottest or second hottest on record, often weeks before the end of the year. Then when the figures are actually collated and published well after the climate scare conference, a quiet retraction is published that says “We didn’t quite lie, but it wasn’t exactly true.” Maybe it’s because nobody’s listening any more, except the ABC.
Tim Blair on the religion of “Point of No Return”
It’s that time of year again when we join with friends and family to celebrate the annual Point of No Return religious festival.
On Sunday morning hundreds of politicians, government officials and scientists will gather in the grandeur of the International Congress Centre in Katowice, Poland.
It will be a familiar experience for many. For 24 years the annual UN climate conference has served up a reliable diet of rhetoric, backroom talks and dramatic last-minute deals aimed at halting global warming.
But this year’s will be a grimmer affair – by far. As recent reports have made clear, the world may no longer be hovering at the edge of destruction but has probably staggered beyond a crucial point of no return.
Hooray! This fine tradition truly unites all people and cultures in a spirit of holy panic and demands for cash prizes. Let’s take a look at how the world marked the Point of No Return in years past:
2017:
We’re Now Even Closer to the Point of No Return
2016:
Climate change escalating so fast it is ‘beyond point of no return’
2015:
Climate Change Goes Past Point Of No Return
2014:
Passing the “Point of No Return” on Climate Change
2013:
The Fast-Approaching ‘Point of No Return’ for Climate Change
2012:
Warming nears point of no return, scientists say
2011:
When do we hit the point of no return for climate change?
Embedded video
BBC News (World)
✔
@BBCWorld
“We’re facing a man-made disaster of global scale… time is running out” – Sir David Attenborough issues warning at UN Climate Conference #COP24 in Poland http://bbc.in/2Pd3yfP
We are passing the point of no return on climate change
2009:
Climate Change: The Point of No Return
2008:
ARCTIC: POINT OF NO RETURN?
2007:
Beyond the Point of No Return: It’s too late to stop climate change – so what do we do now?
2006:
Environment in crisis: ‘We are past the point of no return’
2005:
Climate’s Point of No Return
2004:
Is Greenland Ice Sheet passing “Point of No Return”?
2003:
Beyond these temperature thresholds, evidence suggests a ‘point of no return’,
It’s quite mild here in Sydney today, by the way. How’s the end of the world going in your neighbourhood?
New Life Narrabri 