Thursday, 22 March 2018

Alarmist Greens are wrong on global warming again

This blog has constantly reported that a VOTE for the Greens is a VOTE against Australia. If you look at the Greens' policies you can see that they are anti Australian sovereignty, promoting world government.

Andrew Bolt has exposed the fact that theGREENS are vultures (again) with a column:

Alarmist Greens are wrong on global warming again


THE Greens are vultures. They flap in to feed off every natural disaster, screeching: “Global warming!” They’ve done it again with the fires in NSW and Victoria and the cyclone that hit Darwin. 
INSURANCE COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA DECLARES SOUTHWEST BUSHFIRES A CATASTROPHEMASSIVE STORM DEVASTATES RURAL COMMUNITIES IN VICTORIA’S WESTGREENS LEADER RICHARD DI NATALE WON’T STAND DOWN AFTER BY-ELECTION LOSS 
With the fires at Tathra still burning, Greens leader Richard di Natale on Monday accused the Turnbull government of doing “everything it can to slow this country’s transition to renewable energy”. Australians were “bearing the brunt of their failure”, he claimed. “In the last few days we’ve seen bushfires savage Tathra, Bega and South West Victoria. We’ve seen a cyclone hit Darwin.”Di Natale made three points there — each one false. How typical. 
First, a cyclone hitting Darwin is not a sign of warming. Even the Bureau of Meteorology admits its warming models actually “project fewer tropical cyclones in the Australia region in the future”. Get that? Global warming means fewer cyclones, not more. Indeed, the BoM reports a steady fall in the number of cyclones here over the past 30 years — and fewer severe cyclones, too.http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/ae222820a76e1f615d1f638c95bd6f02?width=650 With the fires at Tathra still burning, Greens leader Richard di Natale on Monday accused the Turnbull government of doing ‘everything it can to slow this country’s transition to renewable energy’.  
Secondly, Di Natale is also wrong about the fires. True, Tathra residents lost 69 homes. Thank heavens no one was killed. But in the past century we’ve had many worse fires, making these far from unusual or evidence of a more dangerous climate. In 1939, for instance, the Black Friday fires killed 75 people and the heatwave that summer was so extreme — reaching 47.8 degrees in Sydney — that more than 400 other Australians also died. Never since has Sydney been that hot, despite all the Greens’ talk of global warming. 
Di Natale’s third point is even madder — that these fires and the cyclone are the price we pay for the government’s bad global warming policies. In fact, nothing Australia could do would make any measurable difference to temperatures. We’re just too small, making up only 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions. 
What’s more, satellite data shows the world’s temperature last month was just 0.2 degrees above the average for the past 30 years. 
What tiny part of that tiny warming (some of it natural) could we have changed by cutting our emissions even more? And what difference would that have made to the fires? So Di Natale is either a liar or a fool, in my opinion.http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/346dafa72a5ede373717e6044c66afa3?width=650 If the Greens were genuinely interested in what fed these fires, they’d ask what some locals are asking — whether authorities were too green to do proper hazard reduction burns.  Now, if the Greens were genuinely interested in what fed these fires, they’d ask what some locals are asking — whether authorities were too green to do proper hazard reduction burns. 
Or they’d ask why the Bega Valley Shire Council has a 30-page document outlining its rules and regulations against clearing trees. Or they’d ask why the Rural Fire Service initially turned down offers of help from the urban-based Fire and Rescue NSW. 
But no, the Greens are too eager to beat up their warming scare to ask such practical questions. And they’ve done that for years. They’re always the vultures when there’s death and destruction. 
Ten years ago, when we had a drought, then Greens leader Bob Brown blamed global warming, claiming he had “data indicating that drought was the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl” — the Murray Darling basin. Indeed, he said in 2006 we faced there “the spectre of permanent drought””. When the rains instead returned and floods hit Brisbane in 2011, Brown didn’t miss a beat. This, too, he claimed, was global warming at work and coal companies should pay for the flood damage they’d caused.
What a phony. Once again, those Brisbane floods were far from the worst to hit the city. In 2013, Greens leader Christine Milne blamed global warming for the floods of Cyclone Yasi, as well as for the dry that fed the later fires in NSW. 
There had been a higher flood in 1974 and an even higher one in 1841 — 150 years before the Greens got their global warming religion. It’s as if the Greens have no memory at all of the floods and droughts and fires Australia has endured for centuries. Every disaster for them is the first and worst and sign of a climate in chaos.
And so in 2013 Greens leader Christine Milne blamed global warming for the floods of Cyclone Yasi, as well as for the dry that fed the later fires in NSW.
Greens MP Adam Bandt last year likewise blamed global warming for Cyclone Debbie and accused the Turnbull government of not doing enough “to stop cyclones becoming more violent”. Yet just the year before — 2016 — Australia for the first time recorded not one severe cyclone. If that’s global warming, then good.
Enough.

The Green vultures have feasted too long on our disasters.
Drive out these scavengers.

Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate the Costs of Climate Change

Oren Cass
A report by Oren Cass for Manhatten Institute:

ABSTRACT (link)

Prominent recent studies that forecast the cost of human-caused climate change rely on statistical analyses of the effects of temperature variation. These correlation-based, temperature-impact studies start with present-day relationships between temperatures and outcomes such as mortality or economic growth. They extrapolate from those relationships a proportionally larger response to long-term projected climate warming and assign dollar values to the very large impacts that appear to emerge. 
This paper examines a set of such studies that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Government Accountability Office have used to estimate the costs of human-caused climate change for the U.S. by the end of the 21st century. The costs include deaths from extreme heat, lost hours of work from extreme heat, and deaths from heat-caused air pollution. The paper also examines another study, published in Nature, that projects the effect of human-caused climate change on global economic production.

READ FULL REPORT
Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 

More From Oren Cass in this YouTube presentation:

Sea level rise grossly overstated by sloppy science

Fig. 6: Plot of the Nino3,4  index since 1980.
Currently it is showing a moderate La Nina. Source here.
As reported by Pierre Gosselin (link)

German scientists Dr. Sebastian Lüning (geology) and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (chemistry) say recent sea level rise paper is “alarmist” and based on sloppy, “faulty” science
.
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

In mid February a frightening report made the rounds through the mainstream media, and also the German evening news Tagesschau warned: Sea level is not rising linearly, but rather exponentially and thus we should expect a sea level rise of 65 cm by the end of the century! At linear sea level rise rate at today’s 3 mm/year, 25 cm would be only manageable.  So what’s behind the story? 
The urgent report is traced back to a study led by Robert S. Nerem of the University of Colorado in Boulder. In it the authors should have adequately filtered out the ENSO sea level fluctuations. An El Nino results in much greater rainfall in the East Pacific, which leads to a temporary rise in global sea level. Vice versa, a La Nina results in much rain falling on land (especially Australia) where it is temporarily stored and so leads to less water in the ocean, and this is clearly detectable globally.
A total false alarm
The conclusion is clear: a faulty paper that bordered on alarmism ended up making its way into the German evening news. 
Findings on the temperature trend-dampening factors such as the AMO and the PDO don’t even get mentioned in our science media. This is how politics gets done using science selection. We will see over the coming years exactly how things develop. Both major ocean indices are pointing negative and the solar activity is below normal, which are major counter-warming factors. 
Read more at NoTricksZone.