Resisting Climate Hysteria

This is quite long but the guy is a scientist and he says.................

“CO2 is a very essential and natural part of life,” Happer says. “It is the gas of life. We’re made of carbon after all, mostly carbon, and we breathe out a lot of CO2 a day just by living. Each of us breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 a day. Multiply that by 8 billion people and 365 days a year, and just [by] living, people are a non-negligible part of the CO2 budget of the Earth.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, we are living through a crusade against so-called pollutant CO2. People talk about carbon pollution. [But] every one of us is polluting Earth by breathing, [so] if you want to stop polluting ... apparently God wants us to commit suicide ...

Click to expand...

We're doing all sorts of crazy things because of this alleged pollutant ... more and more beautiful meadows are being covered with black solar panels. It doesn't work very well; it doesn't work at all at night. It doesn't work on cloudy days. It doesn't work terribly well in the middle of the winter because of the angle of the sun.

Click to expand...

But nevertheless we're doing it. We’re being misled into climate hysteria, and if you haven't read this book, I highly recommend it. It was published first in 1841, called ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.’ It’s as relevant today as it was then ...

Click to expand...

I'm a physicist. I'm proud to say that no one could call me a climate scientist, but I know a lot about climate and I was a coauthor of one of the first books on the effects of carbon dioxide 41 years ago. This was a study done by the Jason Group which I was a member of. I was chairman for a while and it had really good people there.”

Click to expand...

macca said:

This is quite long but the guy is a scientist and he says.................

Click to expand...

He lost me at this:

People talk about carbon pollution. [But] every one of us is polluting Earth by breathing, [so] if you want to stop polluting ... apparently God wants us to commit suicide ...

Click to expand...

Arguments about the detail of the issue and science aside, that's a failure to understand the argument on his part.

The argument not being about the short term carbon cycle but about the addition of carbon to it from otherwise locked up stores aka fossil fuels. The extent to which that is or isn't a problem is perhaps arguable but it's the addition of carbon that's the issue, not the short term carbon cycle.

I have always felt that blaming it all on CO2 was ridiculous, to me it should always have been about pollution and stored carbon usage.

I think they chose CO2 because it is impossible for the average person to measure or see, whereas pollution can be reported, carbon makes smoke, both things that the multi nationals have directed attention away from.

Like the magician, look at my left hand, don't worry about my right

Now your home grown veggies are at risk.
6 times the carbon footprint apparently.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240122140408.htm

Environmentalists will be receiving a carbon footprint in their ar5es if this sht keeps going. Looks like an effort to control food supply.

There seems to be a coordinated attack on food supply, food inflation, also a push for war. Conspiracy theorist in me says looks like a global depopulation effort.

Food security keeps popping up in articles along with a return to conscription in multiple countries.

moXJO said:

Now your home grown veggies are at risk.
6 times the carbon footprint apparently.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240122140408.htm

Environmentalists will be receiving a carbon footprint in their ar5es if this sht keeps going. Looks like an effort to control food supply.

There seems to be a coordinated attack on food supply, food inflation, also a push for war. Conspiracy theorist in me says looks like a global depopulation effort.

Food security keeps popping up in articles along with a return to conscription in multiple countries.

Click to expand...

That is a good article moxjo. Great research with good analysis.
The headline statement is accurate but requires explanation which the remainder of the article offers. I don't believe this attacks food supply per se and is overall quite constructive in its approach.

The researchers identified three best practices crucial to making low-tech urban agriculture more carbon-competitive with conventional agriculture:

• Extend infrastructure lifetimes. Extend the lifetime of UA materials and structures such as raised beds, composting infrastructure and sheds. A raised bed used for five years will have approximately four times the environmental impact, per serving of food, as a raised bed used for 20 years.
• Use urban wastes as UA inputs. Conserve carbon by engaging in "urban symbiosis," which includes giving a second life to used materials, such as construction debris and demolition waste, that are unsuitable for new construction but potentially useful for UA. The most well-known symbiotic relationship between cities and UA is composting. The category also includes using rainwater and recycled grey water for irrigation.
• Generate high levels of social benefits. In a survey conducted for the study, UA farmers and gardeners overwhelmingly reported improved mental health, diet and social networks. While increasing these "nonfood outputs" of UA does not reduce its carbon footprint, "growing spaces which maximize social benefits can outcompete conventional agriculture when UA benefits are considered holistically," according to the study authors.

basilio said:

That is a good article moxjo. Great research with good analysis.
The headline statement is accurate but requires explanation which the remainder of the article offers. I don't believe this attacks food supply per se and is overall quite constructive in its approach.

The researchers identified three best practices crucial to making low-tech urban agriculture more carbon-competitive with conventional agriculture:

• Extend infrastructure lifetimes. Extend the lifetime of UA materials and structures such as raised beds, composting infrastructure and sheds. A raised bed used for five years will have approximately four times the environmental impact, per serving of food, as a raised bed used for 20 years.
• Use urban wastes as UA inputs. Conserve carbon by engaging in "urban symbiosis," which includes giving a second life to used materials, such as construction debris and demolition waste, that are unsuitable for new construction but potentially useful for UA. The most well-known symbiotic relationship between cities and UA is composting. The category also includes using rainwater and recycled grey water for irrigation.
• Generate high levels of social benefits. In a survey conducted for the study, UA farmers and gardeners overwhelmingly reported improved mental health, diet and social networks. While increasing these "nonfood outputs" of UA does not reduce its carbon footprint, "growing spaces which maximize social benefits can outcompete conventional agriculture when UA benefits are considered holistically," according to the study authors.

Click to expand...

I agree.

But the extremes from either side have already grabbed a hold of it and turned it into something it's not.

moXJO said:

I agree.

But the extremes from either side have already grabbed a hold of it and turned it into something it's not.

Click to expand...

No doubt..

I know I have gone through carbon footprints, food miles and all the tedious paperwork which would support the headline statement. I'm quite sure the carbon footprint as defined in the analysis is way more than a super efficient mono culture market garden But I still have a vegie garden.

It speaks to me. The veggies are lovely. My time in the garden is less time wasted on a score of less soothing and useful pursuits. I can see some value from all my worm farm castings and leaf compost.

Community gardens offer even better social value. Frankly an excellent compromise is community supported agriculture projects. Economies of scale. Great networking and a more practical way to support small scale organic gardening.

moXJO said:

There seems to be a coordinated attack on food supply, food inflation, also a push for war.

Click to expand...

I've a foot in both camps on all this.

One one hand there's a lot of problems with fossil fuels and, detail aside, common sense says changing the composition of the atmosphere is at best a risky experiment given there's likely to be some sort of feedback from doing so.

On the other hand I'm not blind to where we're being lead and it's to war yes.

Smurf1976 said:

...changing the composition of the atmosphere...

Click to expand...

Let's get this into perspective. The amosphere is ~0.0004 co2, an increase of ~0.00015 or what what was an historic low and only ~0.0001 above the point at which life cannot exist on earth.

h2o is a much more important and potent greenhouse gas and averages ~0.004 of the atmosphere, ten times the concentration.

But, this composition changes according to many factors, from virtually zero, to ~0.04 (yes that's 4%).

The dynamics are different of course but a bit of perspective.

Happer is on the money.

Smurf1976 said:

I've a foot in both camps on all this.

One one hand there's a lot of problems with fossil fuels and, detail aside, common sense says changing the composition of the atmosphere is at best a risky experiment given there's likely to be some sort of feedback from doing so.

On the other hand I'm not blind to where we're being lead and it's to war yes.

Click to expand...

One of the issues is ignorance around gases, they are strangely (sarcasm) not all the same and anyone who has worked with gases will just roll their eyes over when the various composition of atmospheric gas percentages are trotted out arla "He touched us all" Alan Jones quoting percentages how small Co2 is so it not a problem, DFS IMHO.

Ignorance is bliss.

IFocus said:

One of the issues is ignorance around gases, they are strangely (sarcasm) not all the same and anyone who has worked with gases will just roll their eyes over when the various composition of atmospheric gas percentages are trotted out arla "He touched us all" Alan Jones quoting percentages how small Co2 is so it not a problem, DFS IMHO.

Ignorance is bliss.

Click to expand...

Haha

I defer to blokes like Happer, who does know what he's on about, especially co2... Rather than a galah

IFocus said:

One of the issues is ignorance around gases, they are strangely (sarcasm) not all the same and anyone who has worked with gases will just roll their eyes over when the various composition of atmospheric gas percentages are trotted out arla "He touched us all" Alan Jones quoting percentages how small Co2 is so it not a problem, DFS IMHO.

Click to expand...

The big problem with all this is the whole thing has become subject to politics. That goes from the science itself through to practical "on the ground" solutions.

Regarding the latter, the one common theme with pretty much anything regarding renewable energy or energy efficiency is that it's required to jump a higher "bar" on assorted criteria than anything else.

Take noise regulations in urban areas for example. We allow all manner of things to disturb the peace but one particular item stands out as being subject to tougher restrictions than anything else. Yep, it's heat pumps and reverse cycle A/C.

Aesthetics? Widely ignored with practically everything. Well, everything other than solar panels, heat pumps and hanging washing on the balcony that is. Can't have that.

Land use? Take a look on Google Earth and in Australia we've radically changed the use of vast areas of land, mostly for agriculture and the rest for cities and roads. But heaven forbid anyone suggest putting even a trivial area under water for hydro, out come the protestors.

And on it goes. There's a long list of examples where solutions to CO2 emissions have barriers placed in their way, requirements imposed, that apply to literally nothing else.

Now I wasn't born yesterday, there's far too many examples for it to be coincidental and it's all sides of politics that does it. Regardless of the climate science, there's a game being played here with all this. Big time.

Smurf1976 said:

The big problem with all this is the whole thing has become subject to politics. That goes from the science itself through to practical "on the ground" solutions.

Regarding the latter, the one common theme with pretty much anything regarding renewable energy or energy efficiency is that it's required to jump a higher "bar" on assorted criteria than anything else.

Take noise regulations in urban areas for example. We allow all manner of things to disturb the peace but one particular item stands out as being subject to tougher restrictions than anything else. Yep, it's heat pumps and reverse cycle A/C.

Aesthetics? Widely ignored with practically everything. Well, everything other than solar panels, heat pumps and hanging washing on the balcony that is. Can't have that.

Land use? Take a look on Google Earth and in Australia we've radically changed the use of vast areas of land, mostly for agriculture and the rest for cities and roads. But heaven forbid anyone suggest putting even a trivial area under water for hydro, out come the protestors.

And on it goes. There's a long list of examples where solutions to CO2 emissions have barriers placed in their way, requirements imposed, that apply to literally nothing else.

Now I wasn't born yesterday, there's far too many examples for it to be coincidental and it's all sides of politics that does it. Regardless of the climate science, there's a game being played here with all this. Big time.

Click to expand...

When I was working had 8,000 instruments onsite, zillions of widgets plus all the electrical control stuff plus DCS's, 50 PLC's, Elect site distribution 132kV to 22kV to 3.3kV then the low voltage etc , all the problems had solutions loved it, the site politics was impossible

Snip, from order-order.com

Billionaire John Caudwell responds to Gaia”s criticism of his hypocrisy over owning a helicopter and a super-yacht yet calling for Net Zero policies…

“I get this all the time, Titania is absolutely dreadful for the environment… as are aircraft and people’s package tours going on holiday and travelling all around the world. But weaponising a yacht to try to undermine its owner’s calls for climate action is a distraction from the huge overhaul of energy systems and agriculture that is needed to deliver real progress on carbon emissions.”

Follow da science

Absurd alright. Irrational maybe. These cases shouldn't get any where near a court room.




The World Justice Project ranks New Zealand 7th out of 142 countries on its ‘Rule of Law Index’, narrowly ahead of Australia’s 13th place. However, Australia still has hope – if only because of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The case is easily told. In 2019 Mike Smith, an indigenous activist fighting climate change, filed a lawsuit against seven large New Zealand companies – including Fonterra and Z Energy – for their carbon emissions. Smith claims that they are causing him harm.

The case falls under what lawyers call ‘tort law’. It is an ancient branch of the common law dealing with making good damage unlawfully caused to one person by another.

In his case, Smith argued that the seven companies were responsible for the torts of ‘public nuisance’, ‘negligence’ and a hitherto unknown tort of ‘damage to the climate system’.

Armed with these claims, and supported by pressure group Lawyers for Climate Action, Smith went to court. The defendants promptly applied to strike his claims out. In legal parlance, such a ‘strike out’ means that the court considers a claim too frivolous to be taken seriously.

In the first instance, the High Court struck out Smith’s public nuisance and negligence claims. However, the High Court allowed Smith to take his damage to the climate system forward, not least to see whether that fabled new tort really exists.

The Court of Appeal did not think so. It threw out Smith’s whole case.

This is where Smith’s case would have ended, had it not been for the New Zealand Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. A couple of years ago, it permitted Smith to argue his case.

Last week, we finally learned the verdict. The Supreme Court not only allowed Smith to have his claim of damage to the climate system heard in the lower court. It did so on all three alleged torts.

You do not have to be a lawyer to understand the problems with New Zealand’s top judges’ decision last week. But perhaps one must be a lawyer to come up with it.

To be clear, the Supreme Court did not decide that Smith will eventually win his case. But it does mean that the court believes that he might.



Asia - 20Bt CO2 pa
NZ - 32Mt pa

NZ companies to blame for climate change?

Only in The Guardian.

Unfortunately we have been eating to many sandwiches in WA ATM it's friggin hot.

Not perfect but sums up the basic situation pretty well.

Ignoring arguments about climate science here and just looking at the solutions to it, on one hand we have activists proclaiming this or that as the solution and demanding governments implement it, which often they end up doing, meanwhile sitting out the back are an assortment of engineers and other practical people shaking their heads in dismay.

If the aim is to actually cut CO2, CH4, NO2 etc emissions then we need to do things that actually cut those emissions rather than playing political games which has thus far been the overwhelmingly dominant approach. Politics rather than actually fixing it.

Get yourself a lamb chop for dinner while you can.



Red meat producers are concerned that the move by the National Health and Medical Research Council to incorporate environmental sustainability into Australian Dietary Guidelines will be based on “misinformation” and present an incomplete picture about the industry’s effect on the environment. They have called for it to be scrapped.

The statutory authority’s dietary guidelines expert committee says the change is based on “stakeholder feedback” and has already started setting up a sustainability working group to help its review of the 2013 guidelines, due by the end of 2026.

Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop accused the NHMRC, which is responsible for funding medical research and providing health and nutrition recommendations to the government, of straying beyond its remit. “These developments are an overreach by the dietary guidelines expert committee that go well beyond the policy intent of the Australian Dietary Guidelines to provide recommendations on healthy foods and dietary patterns,” he said.

“The red meat industry has a strong story about sustainability, so our concerns are not because we believe it’s a weakness but because it’s not the role of the dietary guidelines nor is it the expertise of the dietary guidelines expert committee. The nation’s dietary guidelines should be focused on promoting public health, preventing chronic diseases and ensuring that all Australian have access to accurate and reliable information about their basic nutritional requirements.”