With a guest appearance of the disturbed highschool dropout who has become the icon of climate zombies worldwide. Hauntingly appropriate!
The other day it was reported that “The Conversation” would ban any contributor who strayed from the strict climate change orthodoxy that man is destroying the planet and emissions reductions will fix the problem.
I had never bothered to look at their website before but in the spirit of objectivity I took a look at some of the offerings.
The first, entitled “A shot of hope in the face of climate despair” starts off with,
Hope, like a slinky, springs eternal. While rage, fear and disgust are all appropriate responses to the realities of climate change (which we have explored extensively this week), we must move from despair to action.
Some of the “actions” are:
Here are four ways Australian cities can reduce their emissions in a hurry: avoid endless urban sprawl, help people shift to lower-emission options, share our cars and improve what we already have. Finally, we’re not going to get electric planes any time soon but that doesn’t mean low-carbon flights aren’t in the future.
Sounds wonderful but how do we “avoid endless suburban sprawl”? Perhaps we could force people to move to William Creek or Oodnadatta. How do we “help people shift to lower emissions option”? Subsidise electric cars and give everyone a solar system and a battery?
Share our cars? Pull the other one. Improve on what we already have? Is this code for more renewable energy and NO COAL?
But we don’t have to persuade cows not to fart: we could feed them seaweed instead. Speaking of seaweed, farming giant kelp in the ocean can reduce ocean acidity, help delicious shellfish grow, reduce carbon in the air and also produce a biofuel that further reduces emissions if you use it instead of fossil fuels. Seaweed! What can’t it do?
Who will organise the harvest and transportation of enough seaweed to feed the national herd who happen to occupy vast swathes of the outback? Note the reference to “ocean acidity” which does not exist now and never will.
In fact, we could make Australia a renewable energy exporting superpower. We’re astonishingly well-placed to run our own country on renewables as well, with research identifying 22,000 viable sites for pumped hydro energy storage. (If you’re not clear on pumped hydro, here are five gifs we prepared earlier.)
22,000 “viable” pumped hydro sites? This is rubbish and refers to a “report” some time ago where the sites were “identified” from aerial photographs and most of them were miles away from any reliable water and miles away from where the electricity is needed. No mention of the fact that these will be nett consumers of electricity and not generators.
All of this from an “author” who was: “The Conversation’s Arts + Culture deputy section editor, before moving to the Environment + Energy section in 2017. In 2018 she was seconded to the Fact Check desk to cover the South Australian and Victorian state elections”.
Other gems include an article about how it’s all about Greta Thunberg’s voice rather than what she says:
There’s a certain poetic justice here. After first learning of the environmental crisis facing the planet, Thunberg was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, depression, and selective mutism, and describes herself as “only talking when necessary”. The very presence of her voice in the public sphere alone therefore signals the urgency of the climate and ecological crises. And in making her voice heard, its unique characteristics tell their own important story.
Another one reckons if all the cars in Australia were electric they could power the grid for 24 hours.
On January 18 2018 the total consumption for the day was just under 600,000 MWh. The article says Australia has 14 million vehicles so each one needs to contribute about 43 kWh. Electric vehicle battery sizes differ significantly but using the Nissan Leaf of 30 kWh it cannot be done. Maybe we can subsidise the Tesla that has 90 kWh and still have a bit left over or only require 7 million Tesla’s.
Of course the cars could not be driven while they were “powering the grid” and there is the issue of how they would be recharged ready for the next day but why let the details get in the way of a good story.
I invite those with a strong stomach to spend a little time just looking at the standard of the stuff on this site. The fact that Universities and the CSIRO are complicit in putting this rubbish out speaks volumes about the state we are in.
It’s not “The Conversation”; it is “The Diatribe”. It’s Mum telling you to eat the tripe even if you don’t like it. Serious “sceptics” should not worry about being banned from the site; they should be embarrassed to be associated with it.
Climate worriers confess their climate sins and promise to try harder.
Climate activists competing for the Darwin Award.