world

Australia has its hottest day on record; more to come

42 Comments
By SAEED KHAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


42 Comments
Login to comment

Extremes are becomming the norm all over the globe - just as predicted - indeed in many cases - faster than predicted.

Hopefully this will put pressure on the duffus of a PM over there, that even he and is neo-con friends cannot ignore or deny any longer .

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Here is a 35 sec video link showing temperature anomalies over the last century - amazing! https://e360.yale.edu/digest/new-video-visualizes-a-century-of-global-warming-in-just-35-seconds

6 ( +9 / -3 )

prolonged drought that has left the land tinder dry and many towns running out of water.

The reason that towns are running out of water is not because of a drought. Water from the Great Artesian Basin has been syphoned off into dams which are owned by agricultural and mining companies and these companies are using the water for private reasons. This has come about because of government corruption. Any Australians reading this should take the time to watch the video below (+ Notes for extra info)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBsFVn-kKV8

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Prime Minister Scott Morrison last week made a rare admission that climate change was one of the "factors" behind the fires.

A "rare admission"! Got to drag this heretic to the inquisition. I just love the loaded terms the propaganda media uses for its propaganda.

Even to IPCC believers, this loaded terminology should be embarrassing.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

A "rare admission"! Got to drag this heretic to the inquisition. I just love the loaded terms the propaganda media uses for its propaganda.

What expression would you prefer? ‘In a moment under duress he caved in to the power of the globalists and CNN’?

6 ( +10 / -4 )

I am afraid too many people require a 2X4 up against the side of the head to think more than a year or two ahead. It looks like the world is giving Australia, one of the places where denial of science is strongest, a few 2X4 whacks, and the summer is just starting. Sadly for these fools, the whacks will continue long after they start caring for the future of their children. Climate does not turn on a dime.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Some Australian newspaper clippings and a farmers handbook from the past showing that the current temperatures are nothing new.

-Australia Dept of Agriculture, Farmers Handbook, 1934

Extreme maximum temperatures range from 105F (40C) to 127F (52C)

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/12/official-53c-at-bourke-nsw/

- Extensive Heat Wave 124F (51C) in the shade - The Age and Coolgardie Miner, Jan 8, 1906.

Deaths from Heat, Cases of Heat Apoplexy ...

- The Great Drought - The Capricorn March 2, 1906

- Drought in Queensland - The West Australian Nov 30, 1899

- Still Hot in the Country but Cooling, Bush fires raging - The Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 9, 1896

Bourke and Brewarrina 117F (47C), Walgett, 116F (46). 44 stations out of 100 reporting shade temperature exceeding 100F (38C)

Great Heat in the Country - The Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 24, 1896

Insufferable heat out west - 120F at 5 in the evening. It is the rare exception rather than the rule to have it under 100 in the shade, and deaths are everywhere reported, either from sunstroke or heat apoplexy.

-Hot Weather - The Daily Telegraph, Jan 8, 1896.

varies from 114Fdeg to 123Fdeg in shade guaranteed by officials conditions.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/12/bom-hiding-the-heat-in-australia/

Coffs Harbour - Feb 3, 1939

On 37 consecutive days ... the temperature passed the 100F mark. On 11 days ... the average max temperature was 110F.

State's Blanket of Heat - Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 13, 1939

The registration of 124F at White Cliffs was the highest recorded in NSW since the record for the State, 125 degrees, was made at Bourke in 1909.

Heat and Fires - The Evening Journal, Dec 18, 1900

Waigett 113F, Trangie 114F

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/12/record-heat-in-australia/

how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology hides Australia's hottest temperatures, which occurred before the year 1910.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WppbuIoyXdg

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

People are dying, their livelihoods destroyed.

And yet, the ostriches will continue to bury their heads in the scorching sand.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

It's all well and good to jump on the climate change bandwagon for an easy excuse to get some political recognition. However, there is no direct evidence to support climate change is causing the the fires and high temps in Australia. Accurate records of the Australian climate have only been kept for a little over one hundred years. The droughts in the 1930's and the 1950's were much hotter and lasted longer. The current bushfires are the result of a combination of drought and inaction from the Greens who banned controlled burning and disallowed the forest ministry to cut sufficient fire breaks through the forests. Thirty years ago these large raging fires rarely happened because there were ample fire breaks cut into the forest and controlled burning was carried out during the winter months to keep the fires manageable. Yeah, blame climate change to cover the real truth as to why Australia is on fire.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

The droughts in the 1930's and the 1950's were much hotter and lasted longer.

Really?

Well here is actual data - from Aus Gov't - rising and continuing temperature trend is more than clear. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

3 ( +5 / -2 )

ifd66Today 04:34 pm JSTHere is a 35 sec video link showing temperature anomalies over the last century - amazing! https://e360.yale.edu/digest/new-video-visualizes-a-century-of-global-warming-in-just-35-seconds

Dumpster Don: 'Ooooooh, climate change is a myth! We're gonna be burning clean coal and (coff coff) pushing automakers to push those gas-guzzling machines on the public. They'll never know!'

Saudi Arabian King: 'Good boy, Donnie! You may now kiss my ring.'

And the fabled Lorax shakes his head again.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

starpunkToday  10:10 pm JST

That's some wild imagination you got there, starpunk. But what exactly does it have to do with the topic at hand here, which is a temporary heat wave in Australia?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

GreenPeas - while that's certainly interesting - most thinkers on this topic would never deny the history of hot weather in Australia - it doesn't follow the current data showing big changes in extreme events / anomaliies correlated with other pointers such as CO2 levels etc.

The up to the moment science is there. It's explicit and supported by 1,000s of leading climatologists and scientists world wide.

Funny how so many "lay experts" have all the nails hammered in to compliment their rigorous research.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

SerranoToday 10:32 pm JSTstarpunkToday  10:10 pm JST

That's some wild imagination you got there, starpunk. But what exactly does it have to do with the topic at hand here, which is a temporary heat wave in Australia?

100 years of petroleum-based pollution, filthy coal mining, greenhouse effect. do the math.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

100 years of petroleum-based pollution, filthy coal mining, greenhouse effect. do the math.

Are ye sure Mother Nature doesn't have anything to do with temperatures rising and falling, like they have for millions of years before the first drop of oil was ever burned by man?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Well here is actual data - from Aus Gov't - rising and continuing temperature trend is more than clear. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

It's only clear if you accept it without question. There are always two sides to a story. That there is mischief going on should come as no surprise considering Climate-gate, Michael Mann's now discredited hockey stick and other climate-related scandals and propaganda like Al Gore's "documentary". The url below has a graph with all 1,389,419 daily maximum temperature readings going back to 1876 and all the stations showing data and trend lines.

"The real graph looks nothing like the fake graph generated by BOM, which uses hundreds of fragmented stations with short term records homogenized together into a meaningless hodgepodge of politically useful nonsense."

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/australia-shows-no-warming-since-1876/

A few more links to show that the skeptics have a case and that the "actual data" put out by govt should not be swallowed hook line and sinker.

Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/02/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/

Another BOM scandal: Australian climate data is being destroyed as routine practice

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/another-bom-scandal-australian-climate-data-is-being-destroyed-as-routine-practice/

LNP Senate candidate accuses weather bureau of fudging data to suit 'global warming agenda'

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/lnp-senate-candidate-gerard-rennick-bom-climate-conspiracy/11036404

Another bureau rewrite warms Australia’s climate history

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/11/another-bureau-rewrite-warms-australias-climate-history/

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Check the upcoming weather for Oodnadatta in South Australia. A balmy 44 degrees C (111 degress F) for the next 7 days including 2 days of 47C (116F).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

browny1

anomaliies correlated with other pointers such as CO2 levels etc.

Correlation does not imply causation. If you go back to the Cambrian period when there was a so-called explosion of life on the planet you will find that CO2 levels were at their highest at 4000ppm (Wikipedia). That's 10x the amount that's in the atmosphere now. How is it that the CO2 concentrations were so high when there was no industrialisation way back then? Any extreme events possibly caused by the maligned CO2 can't have been too bad for all that life to suddenly appear, to prosper and evolve.

The up to the moment science is there. It's explicit and supported by 1,000s of leading climatologists and scientists world wide.

Yes, I'd heard that :). But have you heard about the 1,000s of leading scientists and climatologists who do not support the official story? There are more than a few.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

http://www.petitionproject.org/

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Thank your local climate change denier.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Having earned a Master of Science in this field, I have watched as Big Money has perverted this issue into a political one, not being able to defend the science. The deniers are emotionally-welded to their positions based on political prejudice. We will not change their minds.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I suggest Greenpeas look up the IPCC Summary with the graphs of actual conditions, and tell us what they find.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

gkamburoff - Thank your local climate change denier.

There is a difference between denying that climate change is occurring, and understanding that the climate change has been occurring since the last ice age. And the ice age before that. And the ice age before that. It's almost as if global warming, and global cooling, are part of some kind of repetitive cycle.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Was hot last year and the year before and before. Point being?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There seems to be a lot of 'flat-earthers' in this thread. Yes, climate change is real, but we are talking about an increase in average temps of one-degree or less. This is not enough to cause the devastation of the bush fires you all seem to believe that climate change is responsible for. The fires in Australia are caused by a conglomeration of many factors, most of which are coincidences.

The long drought in Australia is not caused by climate warming. Longer droughts have been recorded.

Strong winds are not caused by climate change. They happen everywhere.

*The fuel for for the fires has come about because the Greens stopped controlled burning which removes the leaf-litter fuel. They also stopped the forestry ministry cutting adequate fore trails through the forests, which has resulted in giving firefighters no access to the more remote fires.

*90% of the Australian forests are made up of eucalyptus trees. The oil and sap from these trees is highly flammable.

Add all these together and you get extremely dangerous bushfire conditions. Just screaming 'climate change' is malarky!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I suggest all look at the IPCC Summary and just the graphs of conditions. Draw your own conclusions, but do not ignore the evidence because you decide to not "believe" it.

Once again: Having earned a Master of Science in this field, I have watched as Big Money has perverted this issue into a political one, not being able to defend the science. The deniers are emotionally-welded to their positions based on political prejudice. We will not change their minds. but we can have them face the facts.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Left unsaid here is the beautiful fact the cleanest power available to power companies is also the cheapest. The City of Los Angeles contracted to buy power from a PV array and battery storage for under 2 cents/kWh daytime, and 3.3 cents/kWh at night with battery storage. The newest Vogtle Reactors almost finished in Georgia have construction costs so high the price of their power will be 15 cents/kWh.

Whose power do you want to buy?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Here we go again with the old furphy that the "Greens" have prevented hazard reduction burns.

The "Greens" are not in power. They have little influence in any policy. So how does anyone think they can dictate what happens.

The window of opportunity to perform hazard reduction burns has decreased hugely, due to the change in weather patterns. Where once there was maybe 4-5 months of the year to do burns has now reduced to 1-2 if lucky.

To undertake any hazard reduction burns costs money, and lots of it. This money is provided (or not as is the case) by the current Govt.

I do not buy into the argument either way whether the change in climate is influenced by man. But as a firefighter of 35 years experience I know a bit about the operations of the Fire Services.

I'm just a bit sick of hearing from the ignorant politicising of the situation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

gkamburoff:

I suggest all look at the IPCC Summary and just the graphs of conditions

Sure, do that. But also look at the numerous whistleblowers who have described the shoddy procedures and blantant bias that goes into these IPCC reports. Remember that IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, charged with the task to create never-ending climate scare. Without the scare, there would be no reason for the IPCC to exist. Of course, many pigs feed off this trough, so there is very big motivation to keep it full.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

starpunk:

100 years of petroleum-based pollution, filthy coal mining, greenhouse effect. do the math.

Being such a knowledgeble mathematician, can you explain the math for us?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

People who clearly don't understand the science, asking others to explain the science when they are too lazy to go find it for themselves: Facepalm.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

WilliB is wrong all counts. IPCCs NOT a political organization. He fell for that, spread by the same folk who screamed "WMD!" at him.

He assumes scientists have the same sorry ethics we see in business, unaware of how science works. Inscience everything has to be proven, and there are always those who are trying to prove you wrong. This is not selling real estate of used cars, it depends on facts instead of opinion, something lost on those not in science.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I suggest Greenpeas look up the IPCC Summary with the graphs of actual conditions, and tell us what they find.

I have. Someone else posted the link here on a previous thread and I took a look at it. It looks like something you would find on CNN but couched in more scientific language. Here's one part of it.

The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.

"The removal of human-emitted CO2..." They make it sound as though CO2 emitted by humans is a poison or somehow dangerous! The earth does not differentiate between human emissions of CO2 and naturally produced CO2. All CO2 comes from mother earth and if you take it that oil and coal are fossil fuels, then at one stage they were above ground in the distant past anyway.

The report says "...CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). AND ... emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years.

You say you have a Master of Science in this field please explain how this is possible! CO2 is denser than air and naturally returns to the earth in a relatively short time - something like a decade on average. That is why, according to NASA, the earth is becoming greener - it's plant food. It is also the reason why it's a trace gas in the atmosphere.

As another commenter on JT who said he was scientifically literate admitted, the IPCC report is 'entirely a synthesis report'. So scientists from around the world are doing their field work and a bunch of bureaucrats and corrupt scientists are writing the final report to make it fit to the political narrative.

The IPCC has been shown to be corrupt time and again through whistle blowers and wildly inaccurate reports of impending doom. At one time it was run by a dodgy railroad engineer, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who published IPCC reports "full of wildly unscientific errors emanating from green activists." And, yes, it very much is a political organisation since it is tied to the UN.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11441697/Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri-the-clown-of-climate-change-has-gone.html

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Research in recent years from the University of Copenhagen proved that CO2 follows temperatures by a few hundred years. Previously the lag was believed to be longer (800 yrs). This is well established and not the other way round as we are falsely led to believe. So although CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, man's contribution to the total (4-5% of 400ppm) is nothing to be concerned about.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

Ask yourself "Who benefits from this?"

We're talking Trillions of dollars once the UN's global CO2 tax is introduced while industry is profiting big time. And once IoT is up and running you will be monitored on your CO2 use through your smart appliances, smart meter etc.

Even the Oil companies profit from the CO2-is-dangerous meme since scarcity drives up oil prices, while the government can 'earn' more revenue through taxes on fuel like the tax the airlines introduced some years ago.

It also came out that the scientists involved in climate-gate were even corresponding with big oil.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

While the father of the environmentalist and global warming movement, Maurice Strong, earned his fortune through oil.

In the Sixties, having become very rich himself from Canada’s oil industry, Strong came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.

A superb political operator, in 1972 he set up a UN “Environment Conference” in Stockholm, to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe.

To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the Eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Greenpeas - thanks for your reply.

You referenced the Cambrian era and its high CO2 levels and explosion of life.

Sorry - but that's just bizarre.

100s of millions of years ago the earth's surface bore no resemblance to now. Giant oceans & unrecognizable landmasses, small living creatures predominately inhabited the sea and dinosaurs were eons away let alone anything remotely resembling humanoids. Trilobites and molluscs probaly didn't care if their world was changing over millions of years. Maybe they would have it changed over 30 years!!!

So a slight variation in global temps/ CO2 levels etc at that time, didn't impact agriculture or the sustainability of the billions who now live in coastal regions - or infact influence anything of consequence as we know today.

The whole point of the climate change debate is not pin the exact cause (there isn't one), but what we as humans can do to ameliorate the situation that is evolving with unprecedented rapidity. Arguing that human activity, esp of the 20thC, has had no influence on our earthly situation, so just grin and bear it, is not what most, and I reiterate most scientific leaders of the world believe. Anything that can be done to make now & future generations aware of the dynamics of the situation is to be welcomed.

Are the current bushfires in Australia due to climate change? Well exclusively not. But being aware of the myriad of consequences of climate changes is not being an anti-business, trendy lefty alarmist as some would like to put it. The more discussion & deliberation on the topic of humans impact on the world environment is crucial to understanding that we can contribute to the change in our world - negatively or positively

2 ( +2 / -0 )

gkamburoff - WilliB is wrong all counts. IPCCs NOT a political organization.

The IPCC/UN are nothing if not political organizations. Organizations that have repeatedly failed to convince people to change the status quo. IPCC/UN supporters prefer to blame everyone else for the failures of the IPCC/UN.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

browny1

Fair comment about the small living creatures - it was late :).

Despite that neither you or I were there so we can't comment on the climate at that time with any certainty, especially concerning CO2 levels and temperature. All we know is that CO2 was much higher at that time than now and that it was most likely beneficial to life. What caused such high CO2 levels to eventually come down and where did it go?! Obviously it was sequestered by those giant oceans you talked about. And plant life. Ice core samples show that there have been very warm periods in the past (much warmer than today) along with ice ages and mini ice ages. Yet there was no industrialisation all those years ago.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbrook_fig5.png

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010-where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/

What causes these large temperature variations and natural changes in CO2 levels? Danish researchers and others have shown that CO2 levels follow rises and falls in temperature.

https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/

Which means that it's the Sun and its cycles which is the main driver of the climate, along with water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas), cloud cover and other natural phenomena such as ocean currents, albedo, volcanic eruptions and yes, CO2, to a small degree. It is also theorised that cosmic particles play a major role as they help form cloud cover, and this is dependent on the sun's activity (sun spots, solar wind).

The whole point of the climate change debate is not pin the exact cause (there isn't one),

There is no debate! Remember the so-called consensus and how virtually all debate has been shut down because "the science is settled"? That is NOT how science is supposed to work. Like you, I would like to see debate. The reason there is no none is because the AGW scientists would be humiliated and shown to be the peddlers of dubious science that they are. I've only seen one of these guys (Gavin Schmidt) on TV and he refused to debate another reputable scientist (Roy Spencer) who was not as convinced that CO2 was a problem.

but what we as humans can do to ameliorate the situation that is evolving with unprecedented rapidity.

Can you point me to information that humans are causing any kind of measurable climate change? I have not seen any solid proof, just hype, alarmism and fear mongering. Pollution, by the way, is an entirely different matter.

Arguing that human activity, esp of the 20thC, has had no influence on our earthly situation, so just grin and bear it, is not what most, and I reiterate most scientific leaders of the world believe.

No informed, rational skeptic argues that CO2 has zero effect on the climate and that we should move to cleaner forms of fuel and improved technology. But if you take it that man's contribution to CO2 as a whole (0.04%) is 4-5% then the math shows we contribute 0.002% of CO2 to all atmospheric gases. So those CO2 molecules are spread very far apart. The question is how much of a detrimental effect is it having, if any, and is it worth worrying about. Of course we only hear one side of the story. I would like to see debate but TBH, I don't think it's about science anymore, it's political (see above).

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

..especially concerning CO2 levels and temperature

..especially concerning high CO2 levels being a cause for extreme weather and climate.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Greenpeas - thank you.

"..Can you point me to information that humans are causing any kind of measurable climate change? .."

Massive deforestation, agricultural practices, CFC & Ozone breakdown just in 10 secs off the top of my head have surely impacted climate in varying ways.

And why , as you suggested, pollution is an entirely different matter? How can it be seperated from the issue?

And I say again, and stick by my earlier posts that most scientists agree on the data to varying extents. They don't all say the same thing but are uniform in the idea that humans actions can impact the climate. Many of the ones I have read also have suggested that the problem of climate change is multi-faceted, but we can't ignore the human factor.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

browny1, Thanks also for your replies.

Massive deforestation, agricultural practices, CFC & Ozone breakdown just in 10 secs off the top of my head have surely impacted climate in varying ways.

I think we agree that massive forestation is not good, especially in rain forests and the like. And agricultural practices fall far short of the mark re depleted nutrients in the soil, chemicals and so on. As for CFC, well that's a chemical and therefore a pollutant and should be dealt with if has a detrimental effect on the ozone. But these things have nothing to do with CO2 which, we are constantly warned, is causing catastrophic climate change and will be the end of us. On the contrary you can see that NASA acknowledges CO2 is beneficial to the planet.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

NASA Says Earth Is Greener Today Than 20 Years Ago Thanks To China, India

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/#712a3a386e13

And why, as you suggested, pollution is an entirely different matter? How can it be seperated from the issue?

Because all life is carbon based and without CO2 we wouldn't be here. That's why it isn't a pollutant - far from it. The problem is that money power is running the planet and they have an agenda. Spuriously claiming that CO2 is a life-threatening danger is simply a ruse to control humanity, make huge profits and introduce measures and laws we wouldn't usually accept. But don't rely on what I say, see what some of the major players have to say.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation)

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” (and) “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.” Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” – IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” – U.S. Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, Rio Climate Summit, 1992

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” – former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996

More here..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#7ccd8a2668a3

Climate, weather and pollution have now been rolled into one so that any time there is extreme weather it can be blamed on "climate change". A slight exaggeration but not much. The only way this can be solved is through educating people to wake up to what's going on, but very difficult because of the deep corruption and mind control through the media and so on.

And I say again, and stick by my earlier posts that most scientists agree on the data to varying extents.

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. It might be a good idea to listen to the skeptics in addition to the pro-warming scientists though. Here's one site with a contrarian view. One of the skeptics, Richard Lindzen, was the lead author on one of the IPCC's assessment reports.

Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees. Even Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen’s successor at NASA’s New York shop, GISS, has remarked that ‘general statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media’. He went on to say that it takes only a few seconds’ thought to realise that the popular perceptions that ‘global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time‘ is ‘nonsense’.

https://www.quora.com/Currently-what-fraction-of-academic-scientists-believe-climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Greenpeas:

But these things have nothing to do with CO2 which, we are constantly warned, is causing catastrophic climate change and will be the end of us. On the contrary you can see that NASA acknowledges CO2 is beneficial to the planet.

"Beneficial to the planet" is a vague term. Certainly we could not live in a 100% CO2 atmosphere, but neither could we in a 0% CO2 atmosphere. The climate activists seem oblivious to the fact that CO2 is plant food. That is why CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to achieve better growth.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The climate activists seem oblivious to the fact that CO2 is plant food.

Right, it's an amazing thing to observe. It reminds me of this quote by ex CIA Director William Casey

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"

and Joseph Goebbels;

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Certainly we could not live in a 100% CO2 atmosphere

True, but one physicist, William Happer, in a video I recently saw explained in an easy way why CO2 will never cause any kind of run-away warming. From the 6.20 - 9.30 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCCE-sw_Sc

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites