Despite the Lies, the Spin, and the Propaganda, Antarctic Sea Ice is Growing — both Extent and Concentration Greater Now than in 1980
The UN and their scraggly little offshoot, the IPCC, are at it again — obfuscating data in order to push their fraudulent catastrophic global warming agenda.
According to the IPCC, and picked up the usual AGW propaganda rags such as the Guardian: “the South pole is warming three times faster than rest of the world.”
The Guardian article dated June 30, 2020 continues in predictably befogging fashion: “Dramatic change in Antarctica’s interior in past three decades a result of effects from tropical variability working together with increasing greenhouse gases.”
But, 1) the MSM have a habit of claiming everywhere is warming faster than everywhere else:
And 2), the actual data reveals quite the opposite re Antarctica.
As @Harry_Hardrada recently pointed out on Twitter, there was a larger extent and concentration of Antarctic Sea Ice in June 2020 than back in June 1980:
A closer look:
Robert Felix over at iceagenow.com dives into the data, adding that sea ice extent today stands at 700,000 sq km (270,272 sq miles) greater than in 1980.
And in case you’re having a hard time reading the numbers, Felix breaks them down for you:
Sea ice extent in June 2020 = 13.2 million sq km
Sea ice extent in June 1980 = 12.5 million sq km
Sea ice concentration in June 2020 = 10.6 million sq km
Sea ice concentration in June 1980 = 9.6 million sq km
That’s enough extra ice to entirely cover Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Ohio and all six New England states. Oh, and throw in Washington, D.C. for good measure. (Which might be a good idea.)
If you read the likes of the Guardian then you deserve to be misinformed.
The earth isn’t warming, any longer. The Sun’s Grand Solar Maximum is over, and our star is now once again shutting down, effectively — in turn, the COLD TIMES are returning, the glaciers are re-advancing, all in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.
Even NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Prepare accordingly — learn the facts, relocate if need be, and grow your own.
Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach; Twitter are purging followers, and Facebook are labeling posts as “false” — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).
And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse
The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.
Any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.
Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift
‘We need a Prime Minister with the guts to tell the privileged fools of Extinction Rebellion that importing coal creates more carbon dioxide.’
The Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, says his priority is: ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs.’ For Boris Johnson, it is: ‘Build, build, build.’
Last week, the Prime Minister declared his commitment to end unwarranted delays in the decision-making process, so as to make sure the planning system delivers the infrastructure and employment we all want.
Yet the Conservative Government has been deliberately obstructing a project that would safeguard hundreds of jobs in one of the most depressed areas of the North of England.
The secretary of state now responsible for the continued prevarication is Robert Jenrick — which is particularly ironic given his speedy go-ahead for a housing project proposed by the Conservative party donor Richard Desmond, a development which Jenrick’s own department had advised him to reject.
But the project over which Jenrick has been demonstrating masterly inactivity is not a property development in increasingly trendy East London: it is in Northumberland, and involves the development not of fashionable flats for yuppies working in the City of London, but a coal mine.
And what could be less fashionable or trendy than that?
This is the Highthorn scheme, put before Northumberland County Council in 2015 and approved by both Conservative and Labour elected officials. Their decision was later backed by the national Planning Inspector, who declared that ‘the national benefits of the proposal would clearly outweigh the likely adverse impacts’.
But in 2018, the then Housing and Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid (in the job now occupied by Jenrick), rejected the national Planning Inspector’s report.
The company behind the project, Banks Mining, took the matter to the High Court. The judge quashed the secretary of state’s objections (which were based on ‘the very considerable weight he gave to the adverse effects of the emissions of greenhouse gases’) declaring them to be ‘significantly inadequate’.
In a forensic demolition of the Government’s arguments, Mr Justice Ouseley declared: ‘The Planning Inspector thought the evidence and his reasoning merited the grant of permission … The secretary of state does not indicate … what evidence he had for any conclusion he reached, or by what reasoning he arrived at it.’
That was in November 2018. But Sajid Javid didn’t comply with the judgment. Neither did his successor, James Brokenshire. And nor has the latest incumbent, the increasingly beleaguered Robert Jenrick. For a Government which declares its determination to speed up planning decisions, this is hypocrisy on an industrial scale.
Jenrick’s officials had promised that its response would finally be made in April of this year, but we are now in July.
They blame the Covid-19 crisis for the continued delay, but this, of course, is a mere excuse. There is nothing in the effects of the virus that has the slightest relevance to this case, and nor are there any new ‘facts’ to be discovered.
No, the reason behind the Government’s obstruction and ill-will is that it likes to portray itself as the ‘world leader’ in the ‘battle against climate change’: and coal, of all forms of mass energy production, produces the greatest amount of CO2 emissions.
In particular, Downing Street has been obsessed with its role as host of COP26 (the next meeting of the UN’s climate change intergovernmental conference) which had been scheduled for November this year in Glasgow.
The pandemic has caused that to be postponed, but the Government continues to be fixated on its image on that stage, and the need (as No 10 sees it) to have some sort of ‘brand leadership’ in the drive to reduce CO2 emissions.
But this whole business is an elaborate British con trick, at least in carbon accounting terms.
The Government’s ‘net zero carbon’ commitment makes no account of the emissions created elsewhere to supply the energy-intensive manufactured goods that we no longer produce.
As Dieter Helm, Oxford University’s Professor of Energy Policy, told the BBC last year: ‘The story of the past 20 years is that … we have been de-industrialising, and we’ve been swapping home production for imports, so even though it looks to the contrary, [our policies] have been increasing global warming… There are no plans in the net zero carbon target which address that.’
Professor Helm’s point is that China, in particular, has a high proportion of coal in energy used for manufacture — much higher than we do — so our offshoring of production actually increases global emissions. Indeed, China is now building almost 260 gigawatts of new coal-fired power generating capacity — in itself about the size of the entire existing U.S. coal-fired capacity.
Perhaps even more absurdly, blocking the Northumberland open-cast mining project (we are not talking about men going down pits) means that we will simply be importing more of the coal we still need for what’s left of our steel industry.
Coal remains an essential mineral in the production of steel, acting as a chemical reductant in blast furnaces which reach temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees centigrade: roughly, one tonne of coal is required to produce 1.25 tonnes of crude steel.
Tata Steel, our biggest remaining producer, has declared that coal from the Highthorn project would be ‘ideally suited’ to its requirements.
As it is, the coal we still need is being, to an ever-greater extent, imported.
Last year, 86 per cent of our coal was brought in from overseas — compared with an import component of 46 per cent as recently as 2016. The blocking of new domestic mines has led to 6.8 million tonnes of coal being imported in 2019, of which over a third came from Russia.
So not only is the world’s CO2 not reduced, emissions are actually increased because of those generated by transporting the coal from Russia, the U.S. and even as far away as Australia. And it means saving the jobs of miners in those countries, not our own. […]
In the case of Banks Mining (a diverse energy business, operating 14 wind farms) this is an entirely British owned company, set up by Harry Banks in 1976. Over the years he has run 115 surface mines in the North of England.
Yet Banks, who was awarded an OBE for services to industry, will next month be closing his — and England’s — last one.
It is especially infuriating to the newly-elected Tory MPs who in last December’s election seized seats from Labour’s former ‘Red Wall’ in the North-East.
They describe this battle as ‘broke versus woke’ — and broke the 250 people who currently work in Banks Mining will certainly be if the Government continues to block the Highthorn scheme (which would be worth an estimated £100 million to the area).
One of Banks’ miners, Graham Henderson, says: ‘If Robert Jenrick gives our jobs to Russian miners, we would be livid about the betrayal.
‘Most of the lads on site voted Conservative for the first time last year because they believed them when they said they would look after the North. The ones we sent to Westminster haven’t forgotten those promises, but the others in Westminster don’t care about us.
‘We need a Prime Minister with the guts to tell the privileged fools of Extinction Rebellion that importing coal creates more carbon dioxide.’
The post Dominic Lawson: Is Boris Johnson On The Side Of The Broke Or The Woke? appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
July 6, 2020 at 02:20AM
- Australia’s energy crisis
- Australian power prices
- 50% renewable energy target
- Scott Morrison energy policy
- Angus Taylor energy policy
Australians are experiencing their first recession in nearly 30 years; its ruinous renewable energy policies are only adding insult to injury.
Australia’s energy market is a shambles – thanks to the $60 billion squandered on intermittent wind and solar, it was already in the midst of a power pricing and supply calamity, with disastrous consequences for energy hungry businesses such as manufacturing and mineral processing.
At the heart of the debacle is politics.
The May 2019 election was billed as a referendum on Climate Change. Labor’s then leader, Bill Shorten pitched up a 50% Renewable Energy Target and a whopping carbon dioxide gas tax, to boot. Bill also promised that he would eradicate Australia’s frequent and punishing droughts, with the aid of windmills and solar panels. Although no one, save Bill, was quite sure how this novel and ingenious ‘plan’ would make it rain on cue.
Having lost the ‘unloseable’ election, the ALP politely invited Bill Shorten to walk the plank. Shorten obliged and the party replaced him with Anthony Albanese – a man whose politics is best defined by his undergraduate neo-Marxist rhetoric, such as his favoured catchphrase: “I like fighting Tories. That’s what I do.”
After the unexpected flogging that the ALP received last May – thanks to its anti-coal/anti-mining campaign pitch – Albanese and the gang are trying to re-brand, re-badge and refocus their energy ‘policy’. Although, to refer to his muddleheaded mishmash as ‘policy’ is to flatter it. It is, rather, the same woolly headed, anti-business, pro-subsidised renewable energy nonsense that overtook this country 20 years ago, and has all but ruined it.
We’ll hand over to Alan Moran and the team from JoNova for a closer look at Australia’s wrecking ball energy policy, and how it can only get worse from here.
Albo’s Claytons climate policy switch
24 June 2020
In the media today, we see two contrasting ALP position papers, by Kevin Rudd in the AFR, and by Anthony Albanese in a Press Club address pre-released to some media outlets.
Kevin Rudd, in ranting against “the faceless men of the factions” claims among the ALP successes that, “We ratified the Kyoto Protocol, (in 2007) legislated a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target now delivering 20 per cent clean energy, and legislated twice for a carbon price only to be defeated by the Liberal-Green coalition”.
Rudd’s measures accelerated the trend to subsidised wind and solar, the upshot of which became clear in 2016. At that time, the increased market share of difficult-to-control intermittent generation finally forced the departure from the market of two very significant coal generators, the Northern in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria. The upshot was first, the collapse of the South Australian electricity supply system, demonstrated the vulnerability of a system that is dependent on renewables, and secondly the doubling of the wholesale costs of electricity.
The wind/solar-driven market collapse is being combatted by expenditures that further add to the subsidies these sources of generation require.
The price increases that the renewables have caused, short of abandoning the subsidies, can only be mitigated by reduced demand. This is presently in place due to COVID-19. To sustain it, we would have to see a continuation of the de-industrialisation higher energy prices have brought about in recent years, with all this means in terms of lower living standards.
Anthony Albanese now says he wants to form a common policy front with the Government in which the ALP would no longer be wedded to the NEG carbon tax or the 50 per cent renewables-by-2030 target. But the apparent change of direction is highly nuanced and is contingent on any future model being “scalable to different emission reduction targets by future governments.” This allows the ALP to neutralise claims that it is supporting a carbon tax while leaving open such a solution as well as more draconian measures to eliminate low cost coal energy.
Moreover, in handing out an ostensible olive branch, Albanese is also calling for the COVID crisis to be the catalyst for further spending on renewable subsidies. Apparently, the solution to a crisis that has reduced national prosperity is to embark in measures that further impoverish us by requiring an accelerated replacement of cheap electricity by expensive, unreliable sources!
Indeed, the controller of Albanese’s Twitter account today Tweeted:https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1275553524852510720&lang=de&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwordpress.com%2Fread%2Fblogs%2F44428672%2Fposts%2F35192&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=500px
“Renewable energy investment has fallen off a cliff – down 50 percent last year, all before the recession. People want solutions. Businesses need certainty. Because action on climate change can mean lower emissions, lower prices and more jobs.”
This is a Clayton’s change in policy.
Moreover, one condition for backing off on support for a carbon tax includes never supporting nuclear power. Another condition expresses support for carbon capture and storage projects if there is a new funding mechanism for it. This is highly disingenuous.
The so-called Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCS) was a Rudd government initiative with an initial grant of $315 million funded in a way that successive governments cannot unwind it. Claiming to be “member-owned”, it is very secretive about its accounting, but mainly involves itself in agitprop, professing that the technology is on the cusp of providing a low-cost solution to CO2 emission-free burning fossil fuels.
GCCS is joined on the taxpayer gravy train by another Commonwealth agency, the CO2CRC, chaired by Martin Ferguson, who, as the former minister, stood with Rudd in launching these programs. Ferguson told us in 2012 the government would be spending $2bn and getting another $4bn from industry and we’d have up to four carbon sequestration plants built by 2017. But the CO2CRC itself puts the cost of a CCS coal plant at $150 to $250 per megawatt-hour, compared with its, somewhat exaggerated, estimate of $65 per megawatt-hour for a new black coal plant. CCS costs do not appear to have fallen in the past decade.
Rather than substituting, more expensive energy for cheaper coal-based sources, Matthew Canavan has proposed additional investment in coal generation. He argues for government guarantees to indemnify any new coal generator against policy measures that would undermine future profits. Such a guarantee was implicit in days gone by, but government measures undermining the economics of coal generators by forcing consumers to subsidise their renewable energy competitors now, sadly, necessitates an explicit guarantee.
For his part, Albanese presents new proposals that are strong on cunning but would actually shift us further away from the competitive low-cost electricity industry we had before renewable subsidies brought a doubling of costs and diminution in reliability.
Labor in Australia finally gets a message from the voters and “wants to end climate wars”
Jo Nova Blog
25 June 2020
Labor dumps a bit of green extremism, but it’s mostly symbolic. Anthony Albanese says “Yes” to Coal (only with Carbon Capture) but still “No” to Nukes. Keeps the same emissions target.
After losing three elections in a row on and with help from SARS-2, the Labor Party have realized they can’t wedge the coalition by being holier-than-all-the-workers that used to vote for them. They can’t be seen as anti-coal. So just in time for a key marginal byelection, Anthony Albanese, leader of the Opposition, offers a token olive leaf.
He’s got his eye on the Queensland election due in October, and all those seats the Labor party lost one year ago.
Anthony Albanese urges Scott Morrison and Coalition to work with Labor on energy policy
Federal Opposition leader Anthony Albanese has urged the Coalition to work with Labor on a bipartisan energy policy…
So Labor will support “development” of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). This is the impossible idea of stuffing a gas back down the small hole it used to live in, when it was a rock and before it met O2 and grew threefold in weight and 2,000 times in volume.* Everyone in polite society knows it can’t work, but if you have to hate coal and also live with it, CCS is the get-out-of-jail card, where people can pretend that they want to find a low carbon way of burning a fuel made of carbon.
Ultimately the Labor Party are still climate believers with an uncosted zero emission target by 2050.
They probably figure if they get lucky, and the Coalition does create a “scalable” energy plan with them, they can just ramp up the targets on it if they win the election, then say they’re just using the bipartisan plan and “speeding” it up.
It’s not about reducing carbon — it’s about helping the renewables industry
Watch the deck-chairs of Labor desires:
However he said those [CCS] projects should not be funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) or the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), as recommended by a recent review, arguing support should not be diverted from renewables.
Labor also remains opposed to the Emissions Reduction Fund, which pays organisations to reduce their carbon emissions…
Labor don’t want climate-money paid to friends of the Coalition, meaning farmers or small business owners, it wants money shuffled to renewables companies (friends of Labor). But the farmers and small business owners are reducing carbon at bargain prices compared to multinational Renewable giants.
The Emissions Reductions Fund was Tony Abbott’s direct auction plan, but Big-solar and Big-wind can’t compete with $14 a ton carbon reduction, which is why Albanese wants to funnel the money through other agencies. He says he wants to stop the pork barrelling, but he’d be stopping a successful program in order to send more pork to his friends. Big Renewables need Big Government.
Nukes would be a disaster for the Labor Party, they’d “solve” the climate crisis
Some Coalition MPs have called for the Government to look at establishing a domestic nuclear power industry, but Labor has again made it clear it does not back such a move.
The worst thing for the Labor Party (and the Renewables industry) is if the Coalition managed to get a nuclear plant running in Australia. It would achieve all the carbon reduction that wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and carbon capture could never do.
The National Energy Guarantee — the NEG is dead
The Labor Party has effectively dumped the NEG — which Malcolm Turnbull promoted. It was a hidden carbon tax on electricity generators forcing them to buy international carbon credits – something that suits the Big Bankers and the Big UN. It was designed to be impossible for coal. It was always a Labor preferred plan — improbably endorsed by Labor, but not the Coalition, reminding us of that old cliche, that Turnbull was the best Leader the Labor Party never had.
The Labor plan has no plan
Energy Minister Angus Taylor criticised Mr Albanese’s speech today at the National Press Club, arguing it left a lot of questions unanswered. “They didn’t explain how their energy policies will create a single job,” he said.
“They didn’t explain how they’re going to bring down prices, how they’re going to keep the lights on, they didn’t explain what their targets were and they didn’t explain how they’re going to achieve those targets.”
The most significant change announced here is that Labor is aiming more for the centre, trying to look less extreme-Green. They’re still pandering to the Green vote, but they are trying in a small way to pander to the struggling Australians and blue collar workers too.
The Coronavirus era has meant people like seeing more bipartisan governments — with some agreement, good manners, and less adversarial nit-picking and demonization. Albanese is trying to look statesmanlike and cooperative. But that’s a lot better than trying to present themselves as smug Guru’s opposing corporate Nazi planet wreckers..
Paul Kelly, The Australian: Albanese’s offer one Morrison must refuse:
The Labor leader’s speech and letter to the Prime Minister shows the coronavirus, not the bushfires, is framing climate change policy for Labor — as distinct from the Greens. Albanese is taking Morrison’s success with co-operative politics over COVID-19 and inviting him to achieve “bipartisan agreement” on climate change.
It is a neat but deceptive ploy. There will be no negotiation and no grand bargain. Albanese’s calculation was that if Morrison agreed, that would boost Labor’s “olive branch” credentials; but if Morrison declined, then Labor would have the moral high ground for seeking to repair the great energy policy divide.
Symbolic deck chairs are shaking.
*Calculating the expansion of coal to CO2: 1 ton of Coal generates 2.8 tons of CO2. 1 ton coal fills 0.74m3. 1 ton of CO2 fills 556m3. Therefore, 1 ton of coal expands from 0.74 to 1590m3. or about 2148 times.
Jo Nova Blog
Wind & solar ‘powered’ South Australians know the drill