Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Smurf1976]

looking for quick info from someone knowledgable about QLD electricity - looking for technical/finance understanding here (not political answers, not interested in getting into that)

Politics is a factor definitely but there are some technical issues of relevance.

Simple answer is that in any power system there are two fundamental constraints and approaching those limits is the normal reason for building a new power station unless it's simply to replace something that's worn out.

1. Peak generating capacity. You need enough generation to always meet actual demand, which varies considerably, in real time and with some to spare (because breakdowns do happen).

2. An adequate source of energy (fuel) with which to run the generating capacity.

Wind and solar PV address point 2 very effectively but they're not of themselves effective at addressing point 1 beyond a very limited extent.

Pumped hydro and batteries both address point 1 effectively but are a net negative so far as point 2 is concerned. To run the generating capacity you first need to have drawn energy from the grid and there will be losses in that.

In the Queensland context there are two modest size conventional hydro schemes of any significance (so excluding really small ones) in operation and one medium sized pump storage scheme which is separate.

Numerous sites exist to build pumped storage so no constraints there.

There are sites where conventional hydro could be developed but it's a limited resource when compared to Tasmania or southern NSW but it's not zero. So it's not a major option within Qld but there are some possibilities, use of which would reduce the need for other methods but couldn't eliminate them.

There's huge hydro resources in PNG however and no technical reason why it couldn't be supplied to Qld. Origin Energy was interested in this idea some years ago, they were proposing 1200 MW as the initial stage. The complexity of course is that it's in a foreign country.

Biomass is also a limited resource and already quite a bit of that is used to the extent that it's available, primarily as a by-product of agriculture. Could do a bit more maybe but not a lot.

For the rest:

Coal - plenty of that and it addresses both points 1 and 2.

Nuclear - having the fuel nearby is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage due to its incredibly high energy density and it addresses both points 1 and 2. Damn expensive though and virtually impossible politically.

Gas - plenty of it as such but there's a lot of issues surrounding it.

I don't have a link to it but there's at least one decent study forecasting Qld gas production to peak in the mid-2020's and after that it's all downhill. I'm no geologist so no comment on how valid that is but ultimately gas is a finite resource and a fairly limited one when compared to coal.

Add to that declining production in SA (a well established trend) and expected steep declines in Victoria during the 2020's (which are starting now and acknowledged by the relevant companies) and there's the great gas squeeze. (There's no gas production in Tas and nothing of significance in NSW / ACT).

To cut a long story short - if you want gas then either cut a deal with the LNG exporters in Qld or you could ship the stiff in from overseas as AGL, Australian Industrial Energy, BHP / Esso and Venice Energy all plan on doing via separate LNG import terminals to be built in SA, Vic (two) and NSW.

FWIW there's already significant gas-fired generation which is operated infrequently due to the above and some of that is in Qld.

Oil - Dead easy to ship the stuff in from overseas but the ongoing cost of doing so will send whoever does it broke almost certainly. Technically sound but it's an expensive way to generate electricity these days.

Put all that together and realistically the options in Qld are:

Coal. Works but it's contentious.

Wind + Solar + Pumped Hydro. Works as long as everything's properly sized but is unforgiving of shortcuts.

Gas only if someone can source the stuff at a sensible price.

Hydro from PNG.

On a small scale there's some hydro and a bit of biomass.

I've left nuclear out for the pragmatic reason that the chance of it actually happening seems incredibly low.

My opinion is that given all the wind and solar already either built or committed in Queensland, plus having a relatively young fleet in terms of existing coal-fired generation, then if they need more peak capacity well then pumped hydro is an obvious answer there. Up to a point batteries also have a role.

 

[kahuna1]

100 ideas ... Utube and PLAN Over a 30 year period ....

Uh huh .... biggest is 90 GT or 3 billion tons per year and whilst I applaud some of the ideas, the damming farce is that by 2070 the average under UN plan will be 50GT per year CO2 released ... or 1,500 per 30 year period and his numbers DO NOT take into account population and increased needs of say India as it develops and emits closer to the USA level CO2 per capita, let alone China and there is ... well with DENIAL the topic that is utmost on the USA agenda, the idea that any of these ... plans CAN work yes ...

But and there always is a BUT ... the Artic will melt. WILL release 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 ALONE ... every item on his list, MAY if fully implemented, which is unlikely if not absurd, sadly, will be needed just to negate this ... and we still would be 600 PPM CO2 even if this were implemented. Such is the scope of the issue. Good ideas, but a lot of things are missing. Solutions missing which without a price on CO2, penalties for it, not many of the numbers he has even has a hope of working. Protecting Natural forests, ignored totally climate and temperature change. Forests, work .... but stop working when the cycle reaches maturity. Trees grow, absorb co2 for 40 years then die, and the cycle begins again. Soil and other issues, well ... win win win is not an issue when climate, rainfall and actual temperature move, its well an idea, but one that by say 2100 most arable lands will be hit via both temperature change and climate events from droughts to massive floods. Talking about saving things via better management, ignores all this and this is 40% of the list.

Interesting, but he, is an Eugenicist and reproduction reduction ... by 2050 is NOT possible outside some plague, or virus. Then again India banned the Gates foundation after 70,000 vaccinated became paralyzed. Its basically the German master plan, wrapped up in a lolly paper. Yep didn't have to dig hard at all ... funded by none other than Eugenics founders. He speaks of freedom of choice, as long as your white ... you can reproduce. Each has a plan and some good ideas, but, well so unlikely its more likely Trump is re=elected in 2020 and his daughter or son in law in 2024 and again in 2028 and well ... all of it is an abstract either way.

Each of these have their agenda. I suppose I have my own, apathy and a weird morbid fascination as the species ignores its own environment till its, well, over the edge. None of this mans efforts will long term remove much if anything without such massive social change that it will tear society apart. Something that current powers in the USA who deny via price, even basic medical care to the poor, will rule for some time, till they don't. Again, likely conflict and mayhem ensue. Sure saving food and more wind power, good, nuclear, the economics DON'T work ... let alone the public well founded fear on this and its number 20 on his list ? I can think of 20 different green and safe power alternatives he missed prior to going to the nuclear one. Thats without breaking a sweat.

Without humanity as a group accepting MAYBE their is some problem, the list, is, whilst well meaning, a waste of 17 minutes and time. I doubt of his top 20 that 3 make it to a top 20 when and if we ever do take change. Seeding clouds to reflect the sun, missed ... or not known about ? Better absorbing things than bloody trees ... are you kidding me ? 4 tons per hectare per year and it stops after 40 years. Try some ALGAE at 150 tons per hectare or a closed system at 500 tons and THEN you may be talking. One is 125 times the other and likely to go to 1,000 tons per hectare .... even open ponds do 125 tons verses 4 tons ... so whilst he sounds intelligent and reasonable, its NOT even close to being much help or even USE.

Somehow first is acceptance. Then a price on CO2 .... then ... a PRICE to bury some of it back in the ground and sequester it. Talking about radically altering the expected 10 billion souls by 2050, is absurd !! Yet he did it !! Sure it will over time self correct as we see now in China and other nations when life expectancy goes up .... so too the birth rate goes down. NATURALLY ...

Until Humanity as a species even accepts their is a threat to their existence, plan all you like. I will watch in my remaining life the Great Barrier Reef die, whilst people debate it. Climate change and NASA on the moon. We sadly are in the hands of the Koch Brothers and other creepier ones. Possibly a very good thing such a greedy, cruel species is not allowed to expand into the Universe being honest.

 

[Ann]

What or who are you talking about? What's a "small oiler"? What support are the Koch Bros going to "struggle to get", and what "major funds" are they going to struggle with?

Big Oil is a name used to describe the world's six or seven largest publicly traded oil and gas companies, also known as supermajors. The supermajors are considered to be BP, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total and Eni, with ConocoPhillips also sometimes described in the past as forming part of the group. (ref)

Did you read the whole of the Investopedia article you linked? The Koch bros own 84% of Koch Industries and are worth about USD60Billion each. They have given billions of dollars to support (euphemistically speaking) selected right wing politicians and policies. They are widely known, though apparently not to you, as ruthless and effective opponents of action against global warming.

I am not trying to find the opponents of GW, I am looking to see who supports it with billions of dollars worth of funding. They will want a return on their investment.

I am looking to see who will benefit most from supporting the Global Warming agenda.

So far I could see Big Oil benefit by shutting off the funding for the small oilers and reducing their competition. Once Big Oil takes control of the entire market, they will be able to charge what they want. This will make the investment into the GW agenda worth their while.

Then there is the other group of energy producers who may want to rid the world of all viable energy options that would be the Nuclear Power proponents. They have the money to support the GW agenda and it would be to their enormous benefit to become the world's preferred energy source. They struggled to convince the world to adopt NP after Chernobyl people just didn't want to know. With the 'crisis' of GW and carbon emissions they can now say forget Chernobyl and Fukushima it wasn't so bad and you need to adopt NP to save the world from Carbon.


World Electricity Production by Source 2016

Need for new generating capacity

There is a clear need for new generating capacity around the world, both to replace old fossil fuel units, especially coal-fired ones, which emit a lot of carbon dioxide, and to meet increased demand for electricity in many countries. In 2016, 65.0% of electricity was generated from the burning of fossil fuels. Despite the strong support for, and growth in, intermittent renewable electricity sources in recent years, the fossil fuel contribution to power generation has remained virtually unchanged in the last 10 years or so (66.5% in 2005).


2 there is an ambitious ‘Sustainable Development Scenario’ which is consistent with the provision of clean and reliable energy and a reduction of air pollution, among other aims. In this decarbonisation scenario, electricity generation from nuclear increases by almost 90% by 2040 to 4960 TWh, and capacity grows to 678 GWe. The World Nuclear Association has put forward a more ambitious scenario than this – the Harmony programme proposes the addition of 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050, to provide 25% of electricity then (about 10,000 TWh) from 1250 GWe of capacity (after allowing for 150 GWe retirements). This would require adding 25 GWe per year from 2021, escalating to 33 GWe per year, which is not much different from the 31 GWe added in 1984, or the overall record of 201 GWe in the 1980s. Providing one-quarter of the world's electricity through nuclear would substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions and have a very positive effect on air quality.(Ref)

 

[rederob]

I am not trying to find the opponents of GW, I am looking to see who supports it with billions of dollars worth of funding. They will want a return on their investment.

You refuse to realise that science supports the theory.

I am looking to see who will benefit most from supporting the Global Warming agenda.

There is no such agenda.
You stupidly suggest a scientific theory is an "agenda" because you will not accept what has been proven.

So far I could see Big Oil benefit by shutting off the funding for the small oilers and reducing their competition. Once Big Oil takes control of the entire market, they will be able to charge what they want.

Oil markets are dominated by supply and demand at global levels and, frankly, outside of Saudi's state-owned company, those you name are not even in the equation.

This will make the investment into the GW agenda worth their while.

Only science invests in the theory. What on earth are you suggesting oil companies will do?
I read a consistent stream of dribble from you Ann. You are exceptionally poorly informed on just about every aspect of climate and would do well to write about what you actually know.

 

[kahuna1]

World Nuclear Association ... tee hee ... lobby group for nuclear industry which I pointed out in 2007 TO YOU ANNE .... was unreliable then when you were buying PDN ... Palladin and it's ilk at $10- today they are at 15 cents and your still using it as a source ?

their views make Donald Trump look smart and truthful.

Golly...

Calling Koch anything other than small ... is idiotic and its revenues MATCH most of the big oilers.

Whoops trolled again by same person who just woke up after 18 hour nap ...



The Science of Internet Trolls

 

[Ann]

You refuse to realise that science supports the theory.

Science supports the required agenda of those who do the funding.

There is no such agenda.
You stupidly suggest a scientific theory is an "agenda" because you will not accept what has been proven.

No I don't. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Oil markets are dominated by supply and demand at global levels and, frankly, outside of Saudi's state-owned company, those you name are not even in the equation.

It probably isn't the oilers it is far more likely to be NP funding GW's science.

I read a consistent stream of dribble from you Ann. You are exceptionally poorly informed on just about every aspect of climate and would do well to write about what you actually know.

If I may Rob, I think you are meaning to say drivel not dribble.
What I know about is business and how they make money. Find/create a problem and then solve it.

 

[kahuna1]

Dribble is what ... occurs at one end ... drivel comes out the other.

Dribble ... means ... to let or cause to fall in drops little by little

or to fall or flow in drops or in a thin intermittent stream ,,, say after a curry .,,,

or ... to let saliva trickle from the corner of the mouth such as a slack mouthed imbecile.

SO I don't see any issue with the word.

Or so I thought, it dribbles out. When someone presents to opposing view, to create responses, and quoting the Nuclear Association as anything better than say the Right WING CATO institute or PragerU or a long list of lobby groups which are funded by oil, gas or other interests, is sadly insane.

Or just silly ? Or trolling ? Dribble in my sense of the word. Quoting the history according to MAD MAGAZINE as a valid source is what it it .... a bad curry.

 

[rederob]

My comments are in black.

Science supports the required agenda of those who do the funding.
That is not how science works - you are totally clueless here.
No I don't. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
You are the one peddling lies.
You are incapable of providing anything in support of your claims.
It probably isn't the oilers it is far more likely to be NP funding GW's science.
How science is funded is not relevant here. Trump denies the science yet his scientists are active contributors to the IPCC and show no dissent on the theory.
If I may Rob, I think you are meaning to say drivel not dribble.
I definitely meant the stuff that seeps from your lips onto the keyboard. But I admit I was spoilt for choice.
What I know about is business and how they make money. Find/create a problem and then solve it.
Then stick to that.
Your contributions here are unremarkable.

 

[Ann]

Your contributions here are unremarkable.

I am sure if I was pushing the pro GW agenda by posting garbage Huge Headlines from the Guardian I would be lionized.

Let's have a try.....

The Frontline:
Australia and the climate emergency

The north has flooded, the south is parched by drought. Rivers are dying and forests are burning. We are living the reality of climate change. This reader-funded series investigates its true impact and interrogates policy solutions and adaptations. Thanks to all Guardian supporters who funded The Frontline campaign.


Notice their articles about GW are 'reader-funded'. That means bought and paid for folks, just doing business.

 

[rederob]

I am sure if I was pushing the pro GW agenda by posting garbage Huge Headlines from the Guardian I would be lionized.

I read the science and don't care what headlines are written so long as they are reasonably accurate.
Only fools think there is an agenda on climate.
Climate science follows the evidence.
You got lost a long time ago, it seems, and keep posting a stream of meaningless dribble.

 

[Ann]

Key Journalists and the IPCC AR5: Toward Reflexive Professionalism?

Abstract

This chapter uses the framework of journalistic professionalism to explore how the specific challenges of climate journalism are affecting the profession. In particular, we consider how some key journalists from around the world reflected on the task of reporting climate change in general and on the IPCC AR5 in particular. 16 prominent professional journalists were interviewed to gather the data analysed in this chapter. The main findings were that while covering the field of climate, journalists adhere to professional journalistic norms, but as science journalists on one hand and environmental journalists on the other, also allow themselves to adopt more of an activist frame.

((BOLD)biased reporting)

 

[kahuna1]

Troll ... bait ... hook ... response .

On and on it goes. AN idiotic article about journalist integrity ? Hilarious Fox News follows it to a tee ...



If your over 80 ... white and American its for YOU ...

7 years ago ...

same thing ...





Delusional comments make me laugh at how stupid I am !! ME ... I am stupid after listening to FOX ... and it only took two clips and 5 minutes to make me dribble out one end and drivel out the other ...


one even better ...



Obama actually said he was worried about climate change and FOX ... being impartial .. as they are did what they did. Pity the USA did not elect a new president in 2016 and left the office vacant ...

 

[Ann]

I read the science and don't care what headlines are written so long as they are reasonably accurate.
Only fools think there is an agenda on climate.
Climate science follows the evidence.
You got lost a long time ago, it seems, and keep posting a stream of meaningless dribble.

Alarmist by bad design: Strongly popularized unsubstantiated claims undermine credibility of conservation science

“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper by Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019): Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. There is also another slightly less sweeping but still bold conclusion: “Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world’s insect species over the next few decades”. In an interview by Damian Carrington of The Guardian, the authors explained that they are not alarmist, but that they really wanted to wake people up. If measured by the global media attention, they succeeded. A version of their conclusions hit the headlines across the planet in mainstream media such as BBC News, Al-Jazeera, ABC News and USA Today. Unfortunately, even if not intentional, the conclusions of Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) became alarmist by bad design: due to methodological flaws, their conclusions are unsubstantiated.


Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess “the changes in species richness (biodiversity) and population abundance though time” and “the likely drivers of the losses” of insects across the globe. The authors searched the online Web of Science database using the keywords [insect*] AND [declin*] AND [survey]. By including the word [declin*], there is a bias towards literature that reports declines, and the bias is not resolved by the procedure in which “additional papers were obtained from the literature references”. If you search for declines, you find declines. Searching for declines would have been appropriate, had the authors only aimed for evaluating the drivers of the declines. In the same vein, the statement “almost half of the species are rapidly declining” is unsubstantiated, as there are no data about the speed of the decline. Furthermore, the data are not extensive geographically (as the authors acknowledge) or taxonomically, so the conclusion that the current proportion of insect species in decline would be 41%, or that insects as a whole would be going extinct, are also unsubstantiated.


Our second criticism concerns the mismatch between the study objectives and the actual studies included. The authors state “Reports that focused on individual species...were excluded” and “We selected surveys that… were surveyed intensively over periods longer than 10 years”. Why, then, did they include a single-species study on Formica aquilonia which was conducted over four years only (see Sorvari and Hakkarainen 2007)? We did not scrutinize all the reviewed studies but just happened to be familiar with this one. Because Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) lumped together single species studies and continent-wide data sets, as well as primary field studies, various reports and expert opinions like the national IUCN Red Lists, analyses and interpretations were challenging. In fact, many of the “extinctions” in the reviewed papers apparently represent losses of species from individual sites or regions, and it is not straightforward to extrapolate to the extinction of species at larger spatial scales (see also Thomas et al. 2019). The extrapolation is also challenging because the study included only cases with detected declines.


Our third criticism concerns the misuse of the IUCN Red List categories (citation for IUCN 2009 is actually missing from the references) to assess extinction risk. At least in one case (McGuinness 2007), Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) lumped together species in the category ‘Data Deficient’ and ‘Vulnerable’. Because by definition there are no data for Data Deficient species to assess neither the decline nor the range size or population abundance, this means that the authors themselves designated a 30% decline (Vulnerable indicates > 30% decline) for Data Deficient species. This is not trivial, since 24% of the Vulnerable species were actually Data Deficient in McGuinness (2007). The use of the IUCN criteria is also poorly described. Did the authors solely use the number of threatened species as presented in the original articles, or did they also themselves designate declining species to different IUCN categories (not all countries follow the IUCN system)? And if the latter, did they consider the fact that the IUCN criteria assumes the decline has happened in ten years or three generations, whichever is the longer.


Putting the unsubstantiated claims about the extent of insect declines aside, there may also be a methodological complication regarding the drivers, because of the chosen indicator. The authors base their inference about the importance of the driver on the number or share of the papers where the driver is reported to have caused the declines. Number of reports is not a reliable indicator of the importance of the driver as it can simply reflect the interest of scientists or ease of studying certain drivers. More reliable conclusions about the importance of different drivers would have required reviewing also the drivers in studies without declines. Vote counting as conducted here, provides only limited, if any, information about the strength of the driver, which would be of interest for the conservation managers. Ideally, a formal meta-analysis with effect sizes of different drivers, and an unbiased sample of population trend studies including positive, negative and no effect would have provided a more complete picture of the declines and their relative strengths.


The final problematic issue with the paper is its strong language. Like noted by The Guardian, the conclusions of the paper were set out in unusually forceful terms for a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The text is rich in non-scientific intensifiers such as dramatic, compelling, extensive, shocking, drastic, dreadful, devastating, and others. This language is clearly reflected by the media with direct quotes, and with what media often does, by adding on to the already intensifier rich text. Exaggerated news made by the media itself are bad as they are, but similar exaggerations in the original scientific papers should not be acceptable. The current case has already seen corrections and withdrawals in the print media as well as in social media, and the first academic responses have been published (e.g. Thomas et al. 2019). As actively popularizing conservation scientists, we are concerned that such development is eroding the importance of the biodiversity crisis, making the work of conservationists harder, and undermining the credibility of conservation science.


Dodgy science folks, meant to be dramatic headline grabbing stuff. Science goes to the highest bidder. Scientists need to eat and not all of them are necessarily ethical.

 

[rederob]

Dodgy science folks, meant to be dramatic headline grabbing stuff. Science goes to the highest bidder. Scientists need to eat and not all of them are necessarily ethical.

Not climate science - another classic fail, Ann.
Get it right or give it a rest.

 

[kahuna1]

Hilarious ... win for workers ...


he will put Miners or is it MINORS ... back to work ? Coal Miners or MINORS ?

 

[explod]

Not climate science - another classic fail, Ann.
Get it right or give it a rest.

She won't, she is a troll for the oil and coal industry.

In my humble opinion. DYOR

 

[Ann]

She won't, she is a troll for the oil and coal industry.

In my humble opinion. DYOR

Jim, if I was a troll for the Oilers why would I have been bearish about oil since 2013 and I am still bearish.
I don't recall ever commenting on coal.

 

[rederob]

She won't, she is a troll for the oil and coal industry.

Plod, I won't pull apart Ann's link, but it was actually a pathetic attempt to discredit the author.
For example, it says this: " 'Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper....' "
However, this is the actual statement, "The conclusion is clear: unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades (Dudley et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2008; Gomiero et al., 2011)." In other words, the authors quoted referenced, peer reviewed conclusions from other biologists.
Ann's link also says "Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess..."
However, that is a false statement.
In fact the authors said "This review summarises our current state of knowledge about insect declines, i.e., the changes in species richness (biodiversity) and population abundance through time, and points to the likely drivers of the losses.... "
In other words, just about everything they wrote was "borrowed" (with attribution) from the peer reviewed papers of other biologists.
I guess Ann never bothered to check the source, but I am so used to her incompetence here it comes as no surprise.

 

[rederob]

Jim, if I was a troll for the Oilers why would I have been bearish about oil since 2013 and I am still bearish.
I don't recall ever commenting on coal.

Being a troll and being "bearish" are different concepts, Ann.

 

[basilio]

Plod, I won't pull apart Ann's link, but it was actually a pathetic attempt to discredit the author.
For example, it says this: " 'Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades”. This is a verbatim conclusion of the recent paper....' "
However, this is the actual statement, "The conclusion is clear: unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades (Dudley et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2008; Gomiero et al., 2011)." In other words, the authors quoted referenced, peer reviewed conclusions from other biologists.
Ann's link also says "Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) set out to review and systematically assess..."
However, that is a false statement.
In fact the authors said "This review summarises our current state of knowledge about insect declines, i.e., the changes in species richness (biodiversity) and population abundance through time, and points to the likely drivers of the losses.... "
In other words, just about everything they wrote was "borrowed" (with attribution) from the peer reviewed papers of other biologists.
I guess Ann never bothered to check the source, but I am so used to her incompetence here it comes as no surprise.

Excellent effort at going to the source of the papers that were used in the "scholarly"work Ann referred to.
I think Ann (and anyone else who used this article) was stooged. Essentially the writers have created a seemingly well researched paper published in a "Journal" which is crafted to make the original works seems "Alarmist". That instantly makes it attractive to a world of people who want to believe there isn't anything really bad happening in the environment. And Voila - there's the proof !

I would be very surprised if Ann would have stumbled across this article by accident. It has to have been prominently promoted amongst the usual suspects of bad actors in this arena. No doubt it will be be trotted out by the Andrew Bolts in our media to trash concern about the state of affairs with our insect population.

The research review undertaken by the original scientists led them to the view that there is a catastrophe in the making with the steep decline in insect species. Yes they did use very strong language to make this clear. But maybe that is what we need to understand about what is happening in our environment - and not have this situation rejected as "alarmist"