Monday, 30 April 2018

Avengers: Infinity Wars.


Avengers: Infinity Wars: a great critique of Paul Ehrlich and the final solution proposed by Greens and Alarmists

Movie Review: Anthony Cox



The grim chap above is Thanos one of the nastier villains in the Marvel Universe and the anti-hero of the latest marvel movie blockbuster. Thanos has a plan to restore environmental balance to the universe: kill half of all the people who are alive and that will ease the pressure on nature and allow the rest of the people to live in bucolic bliss. The method of the killing will be random and of course Thanos is exempt from the culling.

This is not a new idea. I discussed it previously in another review of the movie Kingsman where another super-powerful (or at least super-rich) loon, Valentine, tried to enact a similar plan on Earth. Thanos wants to take it further and apply the principle to the whole universe.

Back in the real world there are plenty of people like Thanos and Valentine. Paul Ehrlich is the author of The Population Bomb and notorious for making a bet with Julian Simon about the imminent shortage of crucial metals and resources. Ehrlich lost and would not make another bet. To this extent Ehrlich belongs firmly in the same camp as the peak oilers who have predicted a world shortage of oil, another failed prediction.
Predictions are stock in trade for people like Ehrlich and global warming alarmists (Ehrlich is an alarmist, no surprise there). None of these predictions about the world ending due to global warming have eventuated and the alarmists are left with manipulation of temperature records and hysterical further predictions.

Ehrlich’s view about population draws heavily on the studies done by a legitimate scientist, Malthus. Thomas Malthus was an 18thC environmental scientist who formed the view that population growth will always outstrip food production. Malthus was wrong as modern agronomists like the great Norman Borlaug and modern agricultural techniques showed


Norman Borlaug

If Ehrlich and his ilk just stayed in their university office and didn’t bother the rest of us they would not be a problem. Unfortunately, Ehrlich has influenced politicians and policy at the highest levels. One of Ehrlich’s associates was science advisor to president Obama, John Holdren. Both Ehrlich and Holdren think there are too many people on Earth; they both think too many people will exacerbate AGW and that natural retribution will be as bad as Malthus predicted.


In their 1977 book, Ecoscience, Holdren and Ehrlich advocated forced abortions and community sterilisation. They also supported a world superagency for control of population and the environment. This idea has underpinned the United Nations approach to AGW and was central to the Copenhagen process with the Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] solution to AGW based on the UN having governmental status and powers. All the subsequent IPCC gatherings such as Paris support this idea.


Population control and reduction is a view shared by other leading AGW supporters. In Australia Clive Hamilton and Glenn Albrecht advocate drastic reductions in population. Albrecht, a former Newcastle academic now based in Western Australia, thinks that the true sustainable population of Australia should be no more than the Indigenous population which existed before European settlement occurred. Other leading green commentators like Keith Farnish and Finnish philosopher Pentti Linkola also see humanity as a threat to nature, and again their solution is for the population to be severely reduced to a few million living in a non-technological primitive state.

What alarmists and doomists like Ehrlich don’t appreciate is that prosperity is the antidote to population increase; and a stable democratic society. People who live in a free and open society with the government on their side generally don’t have large families to look after them in their old age because they know what they earn won’t be taken off them and there will be safety nets.

Population increase occurs through religion and poverty. The alarmists like Ehrlich through their advocacy actually increase social poverty by encouraging failed energy sources like renewables. They also say nothing about insidious religions like Islam and generally oppose agricultural innovation and technology. In short they actually work to produce the very thing they are afraid of by opposing real  progress.

Alarmists are also hypocrites. Thanos says he only wants to kill half the people. In fact he wants to kill everyone. The misanthropy of alarmists knows no bounds. Typical alarmist commentators at places like the ABC hate humanity and express delight at the prospect of the extinction of the human race. Consider these comments made by alarmists:
The human race behaves like a parasite on the earth, but in the end the earth will win. After we are long gone it will correct itself and revert back to its pristine state. The humane race lived in harmony with the environment, for thousands of years, like a benign cancer, but over the last few centuries we have mutated into a full blown aggressive cancer gobbling up the earths resources at an ever increasing rate and causing massive degradation to the environment.

And the sooner the human race departs this poor planet for good, the better off it and all non-human inhabitants will be.

There's a lot of solace in knowing the Earth still has more years ahead of it than behind. Plenty of time for evolution to re-work its wonders - without humans around to muck the whole thing up again. (Just hope all the chimps get wiped out, too - they're no better than us)

This is sick. And it is sick that this mindset has infiltrated policy through-out the world. There are many people who want to exterminate the rest of us. They hide behind noble causes and actions. They are merely deranged. Look at the 2 photos above, Thanos and Borlaug. Who would you prefer? Let’s hope the remaining Avengers get their act together in part 2 of Avengers Infinity Wars and rid the Universe of the terrible Thanos. And let’s hope the world wakes up and gets rid of alarmism and the influence of ratbags like Ehrlich.




The Drowning Maldives...or NOT?

The Maldives Government, in 2009, held a cabinet meeting underwater:

Maldives government highlights the impact of climate change... by meeting underwater
The 30-minute cabinet meeting held six metres below sea-level was intended to show what the future could hold for the Maldives.
So, would this government, threatened with being inundated by 6 metre sea-level rises, spend money on new hotels and new airports? Well, nine years after the underwater cabinet meeting, that is exactly what is happening.

Emerald Maldives Resort
Opening October 2019
Not 6 metres above sea level!!

10 new hotel openings in the Maldives
The next year or so is going to be a busy time for the hospitality trade in The Maldives. A clutch of 10 new hotels will fling open their doors throughout 2018 and into early 2019, expanding its already well-established portfolio of luxury resorts.



New runway construction begins at Maldives international airport March 15, 2018

Work began Wednesday on laying the first asphalt layer for Velana International Airport’s new runway.
Yes, spend $$$$s on hotels and airports built at sea level and  yet the Maldives government are asking for $$$$s to assist locating citizens at higher land atolls.

'We need development': Maldives switches focus from climate threat to mass tourism.





Remember, years ago Nils-Axel Mörner exposed the fact that a tree revealed that there had been very little sea level rise in the Maldives. Alarmist scientists/terrorists from Australia tore down that tree because it exposed the fraud of the man-made global warming religion.
See also Nils-Axel Mörner's Paper: Sea level is not rising. (link)






Thursday, 26 April 2018

Earth Day: Fake News rebutted by Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks

In the Columbian, an Op-Ed under the headline:

In Our View: Our Planet Needs Us Now

Earth Day reminds us to care for, defend the one thing that ties us all together

(link)

The increasingly observable effects of climate change, combined with the Environmental Protection Agency’s work to undermine its own mission, have drawn renewed attention to environmental issues. So, as we recognize Earth Day today, we seize the opportunity to reinforce the need for taking care of the planet. After all, it is the only one we have. 
Earth Day was founded in 1970 as an environmental teach-in. It since has grown to be recognized in nearly 200 nations each April 22, providing a reminder of issues that threaten the health of the planet and the creatures that inhabit it.

Co-creator of Earth Day: Ira Einhorn
NBC Science
The Co-creator of Earth Day followed his plan by trying to compost his (dead) girlfriend:
Ira Einhorn was on stage hosting the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970. Seven years later, police raided his closet and found the "composted" body of his ex-girlfriend inside a trunk. 
Source: ACS blog
Meanwhile, Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks comments:

Yes, Earth Day is the holiest day on the Far Left's religious calendar. It is a day when they try to seize the high ground from science by proclaiming that 97% of scientists support their hysterical nonsense. But saying so many things that are completely untrue is hardly seizing the high ground. Even one deliberate deception, like the claim of 97% support, relegates this Op-Ed to the propaganda swamp 
But this Op-Ed goes on to make the very common mistake among those ignorant of science who think the majority rule in science just as in politics. A little Jewish man proved such ideas very wrong, when he published his two magnificent papers in 1905, one on the Photoelectric Effect and the other on Relativity. Both enjoyed little support initially and provoked considerable backlash from the "consensus." When the book "One Hundred Against Einstein" was published, Einstein famously replied: "Why 100? One man can prove me wrong!" 
Albert Einstein clearly understood that science is completely based on sturdy logic and robust evidence. The Columbian clearly does not. 
Then there are nonsensical statements about climate change. Does the Columbian realize that our climate is always changing for perfectly natural reasons? After all, we live on a fluid planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are NEVER in equilibrium. Hence, we experience many natural climate cycles like the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) that brought us considerable El Nino warming in 2016 and considerable cooling after that as we switched to a La Nina. 
And what about the Columbian's claim that we are experiencing an increased frequency of severe hurricanes. We did have two massive hurricanes strike the USA in 2017, but only after a lack of such monster storms impacting our coasts for eleven years. Hurricanes and tornadoes are no more prevalent today than they were in the past. 
And what about the Columbian's criticisms of the Trump administration for not being ecologically sensitive? What could be more ecologically and scientifically sensitive than the action of the EPA today to eliminate the long standing practice of basing regulations on "Secret Science." Secrecy and science DO NOT go together! 
You can no longer get away with claiming that the debate is over! You have to present real logic and evidence. You know that is severely lacking.
Those who pretend to care about our environment should prove it by making at least a meager attempt to understand the real science and the real issues. 

Wednesday, 25 April 2018

New Paper Shows Global Warming May Be Much Slower Than Estimates


paper just published by the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate concludes that high estimates of future global warming from most computer climate simulations are inconsistent with observed warming since 1850.

The implication is that future warming will be 30 to 45% lower than suggested by the simulations.


Abstract  and 





Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5). Recent revisions to greenhouse gas forcing and post-1990 ozone and aerosol forcing estimates are incorporated and the forcing data extended from 2011 to 2016. Reflecting recent evidence against strong aerosol forcing, its AR5 uncertainty lower bound is increased slightly. Using a 1869–1882 base period and a 2007−2016 final period, which are well-matched for volcanic activity and influence from internal variability, medians are derived for ECS of 1.50 K (5−95%: 1.05−2.45 K) and for TCR of 1.20 K (5−95%: 0.9−1.7 K). These estimates both have much lower upper bounds than those from a predecessor study using AR5 data ending in 2011. Using infilled, globally-complete temperature data gives slightly higher estimates; a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5−95%:1.0−1.90 K). These ECS estimates reflect climate feedbacks over the historical period, assumed time-invariant. Allowing for possible time-varying climate feedbacks increases the median ECS estimate to 1.76 K (5−95%: 1.2−3.1 K), using infilled temperature data. Possible biases from non-unit forcing efficacy, temperature estimation issues and variability in sea-surface temperature change patterns are examined and found to be minor when using globally-complete temperature data. 


These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

Read more at Climate Change Dispatch.

"Secret Science" departs after "Fake News"


Potus Trump exposed the Main Stream Media's "Fake News" after his election. eg
Now, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt today announced the end of “secret science” at the agency. In a press release from the EPA: (link)

WASHINGTON (April 24, 2018) – Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule to strengthen the science used in regulations issued by EPA. The rule will ensure that the regulatory science underlying Agency actions is fully transparent, and that underlying scientific information is publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.
“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. “The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of rulemaking process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”