|
|
By Jo Nova
Greenpeace USA say it may be bankrupted by a pipeline billionaire
 Even though the evidence for a climate catastrophe is “overwhelming” and they have the media licking their shoes, Greenpeace have somehow failed to persuade the voters to share their outrage and cancel the pipelines that carry “fossil” fuels. So they moved to lawfare and allegedly a slow sabotage through dubious protests that stopped companies from carrying out legal business activity. Now finally, after years of battling, one pipeline billionaire is said to be “within spitting distance” of winning a $300 million dollar case against them. His company is called Energy Transfer.
In 2016, Greenpeace and some native American tribal groups and activists camped for months in a corner of North Dakota to stop the crude oil pipeline his company was building.
The case is set for trial in February in North Dakota. Obviously the outcome is not known, but everyone seems to be acting as if they do know. The first line of the Wall Street Journal says the billionaire “is about to land a knockout punch on Greenpeace. ”
Donors to Greenpeace will not be happy if their money ends up with a crude oil pipeline company.
By Benoît Morenne, WSJ
Energy Transfer’s lawsuit alleges several Greenpeace entities incited the Dakota Access protests, funded attacks to damage the pipeline, and spread misinformation about the company and its project. The case is set for trial in February in a North Dakota state court, where both sides expect a fossil-fuel-friendly jury. Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million in damages, which would likely wipe out Greenpeace USA, according to the group’s leadership.
Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA’s acting co-executive director, said the lawsuit is “an existential threat” to the group.
Kelce claims people have not wanted to take on these protestors for fear it would “look wrong”:
“Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people,” Warren said in a 2017 TV interview. “But what they did to us is wrong, and they’re gonna pay for it.”
If the Pipeline billionaire does win the $300 million suit, it will wipe out Greenpeace USA (but not the rest of the Greenpeace international circus.) Greenpeace say they had a “limited role”. The lawsuit alleges they funded attacks on the pipeline, incited protests and spread misinformation.
May the floodgates open
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the European arm of Greenpeace has just been ordered to pay $50,000 in fines for getting in the way of oil tankers in 2022:
A court in the town of Svendborg in Denmark has imposed fines totalling DKK360,000 (US$53,000) against the local branch of environmental activist group Greenpeace in connection with some of its members’ actions in attempting to disrupt the movement of crude oil imported from Russia.
After years of petulant attention-seeking antics, Greenpeace has lost community sympathy and its sacred un-suable glow (at least in some states). This is the company with a budget in the hundreds of millions, which threatened people with “we know where you live”.
This was the Greenpeace attitude of 2010:
The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and scepticism. If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like. If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fuelling spurious debates around false solutions and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.
But ponder what a travesty the justice system is. The pipeline was delayed in 2016, and instead of authorities protecting a legal activity at the time, here we are eight years later, after a million or two has been send to lawyers, and we still don’t have certainty. Meanwhile, Greenpeace and others delayed a product that people wanted. Some poor deplorables must have paid more than they would have for crude oil based products during the delay, but they won’t get a cent back in compensation. If only people could sue the justice system…
Protest photo by Becker1999 from Grove City, OH
The comments at the WSJ are spirited:
Harry Prothero says: “Great news!!! How do I contribute to Mr. Warren’s lawsuit against these jackals?“
Mark Limbruner: Thank goodness an oil & gas executive that’s not running to a foxhole and hiding but is taking the fight to his company’s opponents!
Brian Thomas at the WSJ:
During this process – I recall on conversation with a utility industry professional who works in ND who shared a plane ride to NYC with a self-proclaimed professional activist who bragged about the money he made as a protester, including bonus payments for getting his pictures in the paper as part of raising publicity against the pipeline. Hoping that justice prevails vs. Greenpeace and the cleansing light of day shines on the “professional shakedown “ industry of environmental protesting.
h/t Reader
9.9 out of 10 based on 118 ratings
8.8 out of 10 based on 17 ratings
8.3 out of 10 based on 18 ratings
By Jo Nova
The modern media is like a form of hypnosis
Lord help us all. Climate change might wreck Ayers Rock, I mean Uluru. It’s been baking in the desert for 550 million years, but another half a degree C and it’s in “peril“. (You had to use the hair-dryer…)
It’s such bad luck. “Climate change” could hit anywhere but it’s going to hit airports, vineyards, national parks, and Bondi Beach? It’s ruining holidays and your favourite symbols. It’s so unfair.
I thought this was surely an AI joke, or a grade school project, but Graham Readfearn put his name on it and the Guardian editors didn’t run away. The whole story is a keyword salad of hot button words and random numbers. 620,000 tourism jobs will be at risk they say mindlessly, as if 26 million Australians will stop having holidays and 10 million international guests will stay home, scared off by a one degree Fahrenheit rise.
Uluru, the Daintree and Bondi beach among iconic Australian locations that could be impacted if planet hits even 2C of warming by 2050
Who comes up with these headlines: “almost 68%”? What is that? They could have said, well ….”67″. They could have said 2 out of 3, but they had to drop some meaningless specificity in there to give these chicken entrails the appearance of “scienctifiiness”. As if the error bars on this analysis don’t reach plus or minus 100.
The basis is that some people who want to sell us insurance have helpfully done a report telling us which industries, towns, airports and businesses will be mercilessly crushed by the Climate Gorgon. Given the dismal state of the climate models, these are the modern equivalent of Shamanic Spells.
I’m sure the Zurich-Mandala team did good work on the economic costs and losses, but they start with IPCC climate models, so they might as well be analyzing the Land at the top of the Magic Faraway Tree.
Even the media know this is a nothing-burger
For some reason even Bloomberg thought there was something newsworthy about this new “index”:
The index calculated for the first time the risk from climate change to Australia’s A$170 billion ($114 billion) tourism sector. It studied 178 sites, ranging from Sydney Airport and Bondi Beach to the Melbourne Cricket Ground and Uluru, using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change modeling and proprietary impact assessments.
Though hold off with the SWAT Team:
Assuming 2C of warming, by 2050 the proportion of Australia’s tourism sites in the three highest climate-risk categories will rise from 50% to 55%, the report said.
So the writers at Bloomberg know there’s nothing there. To put it bluntly: if half a degree more warming happens by 2050, (and if the models are right, which they rarely are) a big 5% of Australian tourist sites will shift from one arbitrary category to a slightly worse one? That’s as bad as it gets.
So much of what we call news is so absurd, yet repetitive, at best, it’s a kind of trance with a drip drip drip feed…
9.8 out of 10 based on 108 ratings
8.4 out of 10 based on 28 ratings
8.1 out of 10 based on 30 ratings
By Jo Nova
Life on Earth is about to collapse but the government may have to keep their 2035 emissions target a secret until after our next election. Shucks…
The government was supposed to release the “2035 update” by February next year. It was part of the sacred Paris Agreement that they pump up the NetZero promises every five years, which means by February 2025. But when The Australian newspaper asked if the government would keep that deadline, the spokeswoman pointedly did not say “Yes”.
When asked by The Australian if the government would stick to its February deadline, the spokeswoman said: “The Albanese government is working to bring down energy prices and emissions after a decade of delay, dysfunction and denial – but our progress is precarious.
— by Rosie Lewis, The Australian
Australia will, of course, be caught in the wake of the US Election with our election due by May next year. It will be impossible to run on climate piety if Trump wins (beyond the margin of cheating). And the rise of skeptical parties in Europe is surely spooking campaign managers.
Suddenly climate activists don’t want climate on the agenda
In tandem, ‘o-so-conveniently, the chief climate propaganda unit simultaneously announced they might have to delay giving their “frank and fearless advice” until after the election too, proving they are not frank or fearless at all. They’re scared the voters will drive a pike through their climate balloon.
They all know the public won’t vote for the Labor Party if they reveal their extortionate plans. The only way for the blob to get what they want is to hide it. They are just copying “the Team-Kamala Plan”. (Don’t mention the Climate.) In the US, Kamala is saying nothing about the climate, and the Greens fully endorse her silence. The only way to solve that paradox is to assume Kamala plans to deceive the voters, and the Green approve of the deceit.
For the same reasons, The Climate Change Authority (CCA) (the Australian propaganda unit) also realize that if they lay out the path to Net Zero by 2050 before the election, the Prime Minister will be put on the spot, and forced to deny or admit the points on the list, and they don’t want that. He might have to agree to let Australians buy the car they want, eat whatever they like, and even install gas stoves. That won’t stop him doing those things after the election, but it will make it more embarrassing. It’s harder to win the subsequent election if the opposition can play an annoying reel of him saying “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” and that sort of thing. It’s so much better to lay low, then spring those horrible plans later, after a storm or a flood.
Look at the vapid excuses the Climate Change Authority make for delaying the “advice”:
CCA chair Matt Kean, who was hand-picked by Mr Bowen [The Minister], said the release of the advice wouldn’t be “dictated by domestic political timetables”, leaving open the possibility of it coming after the federal election.
In other words, it is absolutely being dictated by domestic political timetables.
“The Climate Change Authority’s role is to provide independent, frank and fearless advice to the parliament and to the government of the day, irrespective of political colour,” Mr Kean, a former NSW Liberal treasurer, said.
“That advice needs to be informed by all of the facts and that’s why we will take our time to do the appropriate work to ensure the recommendations we make are as robust as possible.”
— by Rosie Lewis, The Australian
Never in history did they wait for “all the facts” before telling everyone what to do.
The only voters who want NetZero targets are the billionaires who invest in unreliable power
There are no school-girls screaming for climate action any more, just investors:
As the Climate Change Authority prepares to release a review into what actions key sectors could take to reach net zero by 2050, Investor Group on Climate Change policy managing director Erwin Jackson said businesses needed stability.
“Investors are looking for all governments to announce strong 2035 climate targets well before the COP in Brazil at the end of next year,” he said.
“Failing to act on climate change will make the job of Australian farmers, businesses, communities and investors even harder as they face more extreme weather events and an increasingly volatile future.”
When they say “businesses need stability” they really mean “businesses need subsidies”.
Climate plans will not be released,
Until after elections at least,
As talk of emissions,
Raises voter suspicions,
Whose skeptical views have increased.
–Ruairi
POST NOTE: Australia is supposed to be installing 22,000 solar panels every day and one wind turbine every night to meet the Net Zero targets.
9.8 out of 10 based on 124 ratings
8 out of 10 based on 25 ratings
By Jo Nova
It’s just another day of profligate waste in Renewable World
It’s barely spring in Australia and already we’re reaching the point where there’s too much solar. There’s such an excess of useless energy, prices are negative, meaning the hapless generators have to pay people to take the poison power away. And on Sunday, at a time when investors ought be making their peak profit for the day, they were rushing to turn 80% of their panels off.
Feel the pain — the stunted curve of the solar plants (below) is supposed to be the same shape as the rooftop PV.
In reality, this is how we make the parabolic curve of orbital solar physics fit a rectangular box — by building five times as much as we need and wasting most of it.
Bear in mind, this is just the start of a the lumpy road to nowhere. Even though we already have more solar panels than we can use, we’re supposed to be installing 22,000 more panels every day in Australia to reach our mystical NetZero target.
Paul McArdle of WattClarity noticed the dire situation. As he says “rooftop PV is killing it’s big brother!”
He has calculated the curtailment levels were often around 40 to 50% for large solar plants in the last week of August.
Who would want to invest in a solar plant?
And at the moment, there’s a bite out of the daily peak, every day.
Call it “spillage”
We’ve reached this surreal point because there is more wind power than usual and it’s spring. The weather is mild, so householders don’t need as much electricity — thus the minimum demand on the grid is falling dangerously low. That’s a problem because the giant coal plants and other reliable generators need to keep running, to supply the frequency stabilization and so they can ramp up to fill the gaps.
Angela Macdonald-Smith, Australian Financial Review
[Josh Stabler, managing director at adviser Energy Edge] …said the available wind and solar resource almost exceeded total demand, but noted that renewable “spillage” – where renewable output is not made use of – was also at a record high.
“Spillage and abundance will be continuous features of the electricity market into the future and will become more common, especially during spring,” Mr Stabler said.
It’s mayhem on the market:
The 24-hour average wholesale price was negative for Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, according to National Electricity Market data, with NSW only just in positive territory at $16.81 a megawatt-hour for the 24 hours to 3am on Monday. That compares with the four-week average price in NSW of $206.23/MWh.
So wholesale electricity prices are six times higher than they used to be, and we have an overdesigned grid with twice as much infrastructure as we need and most of the time, a lot of the capital assets are sitting around doing nothing.
And people think if we just do more it will “be cheaper”.
POST NOTE: Australia is supposed to be installing 22,000 solar panels every day and one wind turbine every night to meet the Net Zero targets.
9.7 out of 10 based on 100 ratings
8.4 out of 10 based on 23 ratings
By Jo Nova
If the Germans just did nothing at all, it would have been Greener
Germany already had nuclear power in 2002, if they just kept it and didn’t build all the wind and solar plants, they wouldn’t have had to spend 697 Billion Euro on subsidies, and would have cut their emissions by 73% more.
If ever there is a statistic that says there is something rotten in the State of Climate Panic, this is surely it. I mean, does CO2 matter or doesn’t it? Do the Greens care at all, or even a bit? If there was a climate emergency and The Greens were worried about CO2, they might have protested that the EnergieWende was a reckless experiment. But if the Greens were tools for communists, foreign states or banker-investors, then they might keep choosing options that benefit other countries, help Bankers or just make Big Government bigger.
Either the German Greens have utterly failed at the very task they set out to do, or they were really aiming at something else.
Ross Pomery writes at RealClearScience and WattsUpWithThat
Study Quantifies Germany’s Disastrous Switch Away From Nuclear Power
At the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition to renewable energy. “Die Energiewende” initiated a massive expansion of solar and wind power, resulting in a commendable 25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2022…
In 2002, nuclear power supplied about a fifth of Germany’s electricity. Twenty-one years later, it supplied none. A layperson might think that cheap wind and solar could simply fill the gap, but it isn’t so simple.
Jan Emblemsvåg, a Professor of Civil Engineering at Norway’s NTNU just published a study comparing the ambitious German Energiewende renewable program with nuclear power:
“what if Germany had spent their money on nuclear power and not followed their policy from 2002 through 2022 (20 years); would Germany have achieved more emission reductions and lower expenses?”
Even German bureaucrats admit Energiewende “poses a threat to the German economy”:
German Federal Accounting Office (Bundesrechnungshof) writes about the German policy dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ in German, and it concludes: ‘The Bundesrechnungshof warns that the energy transition in its current form poses a threat to the German economy and overburdens the financial capacity of electricity-consuming companies and households’ (Bundesrechnungshof Citation2021a).
A whole lot of wind (green) and solar (orange) power were added to the German grid and it was worse than useless:
Given these results, there can be no doubt whatsoever that if Germany had invested in NPPs [Nuclear Power Plants] instead of VREs [Variable Renewable Energy], Germany would have decarbonised more with far less nominal expenditures. The short conclusion is that Germany would have reached its climate goals with a substantial margin at half the expenditures of Energiewende.
The Germans have done this experiment so we don’t have to
Just burn that money in a pyre to the Weather Gods:
 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#d1e128 These costs do not include the added burden of expensive electricity on businesses and homes, the opportunity costs of money that could have been spent elsewhere, or the loss of talent, brains and industry to other countries.
Building new nuclear plants was still cheaper than wind and solar
The paper goes through another scenario where more nuclear plants were built with careful estimations of the costs and long times to construct plants and still concludes that the Germans would have saved $330 billion euro.
 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#d1e128 Not coincidentally, in 2024 Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in Europe, business confidence is low, and VW have just announced that after 87 years in production, they might have to close their German factories.
Volkswagen, which was founded in 1937, said on Monday that it could no longer rule out unprecedented plant closures in Germany as it seeks ways to save several billion euros.
Chief executive Oliver Blume said: “The economic environment has become even tougher and new players are pushing into Europe. Germany as a business location is falling further behind in terms of competitiveness.”
Volkswagen employs around 650,000 workers globally, almost 300,000 of whom are in Germany, and the threat of factory closures sparked an immediate fierce backlash …
REFERENCE
Emblemsvåg, J. (2024). What if Germany had invested in nuclear power? A comparison between the German energy policy the last 20 years and an alternative policy of investing in nuclear power. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642
9.6 out of 10 based on 111 ratings
8.6 out of 10 based on 18 ratings
By Jo Nova
The Modern West is regressing to 8th Century occult science
Today the supposed “newspaper of record” for the most powerful nation on Earth is effectively telling people that the steak they eat, the car they drive and the heater they use could cause bridges to collapse “like Tinkertoys”. But you’ll have to join the dots yourself, because they never do. No one asks the experts: How many Tofu-burgers does it take to save Brooklyn Bridge? How many bus trips will we need to save the Golden Gate?
The worlds leading journalists never ask the obvious questions. They just leave a trail of breadcrumbs: Man makes CO2, CO2 causes Spooky weather and Spooky weather eats bridges. So good people drive EV’s!
Each breadcrumb looks like bread, like it might be real, but no one sees the whole loaf and before you know it, everyone is lost in the woods, installing solar panels to save their bridges.
Two days ago the breadcrumbs said “good people go without air conditioners”.
Things are so bad the New York Times tells us that on a 95 degree day in summer, one bridge in Manhattan got stuck open “for hours”. (The tragedy). Another time a railway bridge in Iowa got washed away and some pavement buckled in Maine.
The truth is that US bridges are a miracle. There are, seriously, more than 600,000 bridges across the country and yet this was all the catastrophe they could find in the leading paragraph. We’re supposed to believe that we’re in a bridge crisis, and that “extreme” heat, floods and “snap weather changes” are new, and worse, and we’re causing it.
Be afraid:
“…now, extreme heat and increased flooding linked to climate change are accelerating the disintegration of the nation’s bridges, engineers say, essentially causing them to age prematurely.
The New York Times doesn’t mention the big numbers, but they do say that a quarter of the bridges in the US were built before 1960. So amazingly there are 150,000 bridges which are over 60 years old. The oldest is 327 years old. They’re trying to make out that old bridges weren’t built to cope with modern”climate change”. But who designs bridges that can’t handle warming of a half a degree?
The last time anyone died in a bridge collapse in the US it was not climate change but because a ship ran into it.
The time before that, the footbridge that collapsed was still under construction.
People are not being killed by climate change, they’re being killed by incompetence.
The Professor was paid to find a crisis
And as I keep saying “we got what we paid for”:
“We have a bridge crisis that is specifically tied to extreme weather events,” said Paul Chinowsky, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder who researches the effects of climate change on infrastructure. “These are not things that would happen under normal climate circumstances. These are not things that we’ve ever seen at this rate.”
So if Prof Chinowsky found that “climate change” had no effect at all he wouldn’t get much of a grant next year. His field is hardly likely to be starring in emergency sessions at the UN and he probably won’t get a paid ski-trip to meet Harry and Megan at Davos either. On a more mundane level the top students won’t be beating a path to his door. Even if he is a decent bloke and a breadwinner, all roads in Science World serve the government.
The real problem in this story is that one sided government funding has killed science, and the journalists are conducting a seance with the ashes.
h/t Bally
9.8 out of 10 based on 125 ratings
8.3 out of 10 based on 21 ratings
7.9 out of 10 based on 32 ratings
7.9 out of 10 based on 36 ratings
By Jo Nova
And then the climate pledges evaporated
The Tech-Giants are backing away. Microsoft and Google have given up — they’re not bragging about their carbon neutrality anymore. Not now that their emissions have increased 29% and 50% respectively in the last four or five years. Over 500 companies pledged to get to net zero by 2040, but 96% of them are failing to stay on track. To distract us from talking about how the Climate Bubble has popped, some are blaming “AI”.
The world is facing mass death and boiling oceans, and wind and solar are still as cheap as they never were, but Big Tech are sneaking away from saving the world, wait, because Artificial Intelligence uses a lot of electricity? It’s like, these CEOs were saviors of Mother Earth not long ago, but the ice-caps be damned, there’s a race on to capture the AI market? Apparently, the planetary heroes just turned back into robber barons doing business.
Dr Jemma Green, who sells software for renewables markets, is trying to sell us a bad-luck story, as if it makes any sense. The truth is that if net zero technologies were cheap and useful, and the CEO’s ever cared about the planet, they wouldn’t be abandoning them. But they are…
Jemma Green, Forbes
AI’s energy hunger and corporate climate hypocrisy
…corporations like Google, Microsoft, and Shell once positioned themselves as leaders in sustainability, setting ambitious net-zero goals to align with global environmental efforts. However, the rapid rise of energy-hungry artificial intelligence is forcing these companies to reconsider—or even abandon—these commitments…
Corporate climate pledges surged recently, with over 500 companies globally committing to net-zero emissions by 2040. This momentum continued between June 2022 and October 2023, with a 40% increase in new net-zero targets. Yet, as the AI revolution gains traction, cracks in these promises are beginning to show. Recent analysis reveals that only 4% of these companies are on track to meet their goals, highlighting a disconnect between corporate rhetoric and reality.
Despite the headline, Jemma Green isn’t even trying to explain “Why” the end is here. After a few paragraphs blaming AI she laments how other giants like Shell, or Gucci, or EasyJet are stepping away too from their goals too, poking a hole in her thesis that it was only due to AI. It’s not like Gucci want to sell you AI programs to wear.
What she’s documenting is the corporate world quietly erasing their mistakes:
Shell, for instance, has abandoned its 2035 target of a 45% reduction in net carbon intensity, citing “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.” This target was a key milestone towards Shell’s broader goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
The same goes for luxury fashion house Gucci, which once committed to carbon neutrality through verified carbon offsets and in May 2023, quietly removed its claim of being “entirely carbon neutral” from its website.
The truth is that if the Earth was in danger, smart CEO’s and billionaires, who have to live on the planet too, would be pushing nuclear power like their children’s lives depended on it.
Instead it was all an intellectual fashion contest and a quick subsidy buck, and maybe a few even believed wind and solar power did something useful, but they don’t anymore.
9.7 out of 10 based on 140 ratings
8 out of 10 based on 20 ratings
By Jo Nova
And where was the ABC, the BBC, the CBC…
This week UN was scaring the kiddies again in order to increase the river of funds that it feeds from. Harder to understand, science journalists were rushing to sell-out their homelands and repeat their incantations. We’re worrying about a 3mm annual rise (at most) but while Grok was inventing the wheel circa 5,000 BC, oceans were 2,000 millimeters higher. That surging water left clues like piles of giant oyster shells that are still 20 kilometers inland at Taiwan.
In the frozen depths of the last ice age, the water piled up at the poles in the ice caps and the oceans shrank 125 unthinkable meters below where they are today. We’re getting precious about losing a sand dune, but Mesolithic people lost entire continental shelves.
Only a poorly educated high schooler, or a UN Secretary-General, might be silly enough to think that the oceans had stayed the same for a million years and just jumped up 20 centimeters…
Science communication is a train-wreck. When will the “journos” discover the Pleistocene.
 Axios https://www.axios.com/2024/08/27/un-sea-level-rise-antonio-guterres The prophesy reads like a new Bible:
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned Tuesday that rising sea levels will “soon swell to an almost unimaginable scale with no lifeboat to take us back to safety,” highlighting the dire threat the crisis poses to Pacific Island nations.
The UN wants to be your God and they need your money:
A coalition of NGOs used the forum’s backdrop on Tuesday to release a report claiming at least $US1 trillion in climate finance is needed to support low-income countries.
While seas have risen in Tonga they have barely shifted in places like Kiribati, Fiji or Tuvalu. Does the money follow “the tide gauges”? Will the BBC or ABC ever ask Guterres a single hard question.
 http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70060/IDO70060SLI.shtml According to 1000 tide gauges,spread all over the globe, sea levels are rising slowly at around 1mm a year. The rise started long before human CO2 output increased, and there is no sign of acceleration with rapidly increasing human emissions of CO2. Careful analysis of 60 beaches in Northern Europe to find one of the most stable gauges in the world agrees. The Topex/Poseidon satellite sea-level data set also showed similar rates until they were adjusted up to fit climate models (or one sinking gauge in Hong Kong). Likewise the Envisat sea-level satellite data was also adjusted up. Vincent Gray graphed sea level around many South Pacific Islands. There is no CO2 induced disaster.
And for the record, below is the latest data on all the South Pacific Islands monitored by the Bureau of Meteorology. Natural variability surges according to it’s own beat. The Pacific Ocean slops back and forth, and the ground beneath the islands shifts too.
Keep reading →
9.5 out of 10 based on 106 ratings
7.1 out of 10 based on 19 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments