Who will oppose the planet?
“Global warming is pushing the Australian platypus towards extinction”. So reads a recent headline in oceanographic magazine reporting a study published by researchers from the University of New South Wales and the University of Melbourne.
Based on alarming projections of worsening and more frequent droughts, the researchers concluded that “platypuses face an increase in local extinctions,” with their numbers dropping by up to 73 percent.
But then, apocalyptic premises will inevitably lead to catastrophic conclusions even when the weather conditions are not unprecedented. Indeed, the five worst drought years on record occurred before 1900. And, despite the latest floods, 2021 was only the wettest year since 2010 and the sixth wettest year since national records began. in 1910. This was long before humans started emitting ‘dangerous levels’ of CO2.
But for catastrophists, if droughts and floods don’t, the Bureau of Meteorology’s “homogenized” average land temperatures, which cannot be independently verified, are still a safe bet. They consistently record higher temperatures than the more accurate satellite observations of the lower troposphere. Satellites have been measuring temperatures since January 1979 and have seen no statistically significant global warming for a decade. No matter. The BoM knows there is a ready market for warming data.
But wait. Haven’t platypus been around for 16 million years and wouldn’t they have survived climatic conditions more hostile than modern times? And, despite all the panic, isn’t the reality that the actual global rate of temperature increase is about a third of the predicted centennial rate?
Yet studies that conclude climate change threatens the survival of wildlife, including cuddly koalas, are career enhancing. But, as researcher Maria Nilsson and her colleagues at the University of Münster argue, Australian marsupials have also been around for a long time. They attribute a migration scenario in which possibly a group of ancestral South American marsupials migrated through Antarctica to Australia. This happened before the continental masses separated during the warm Cretaceous period, around 80 million years ago, when the poles were free of ice. Volcanic eruptions and an asteroid put an end to that. Sea levels began to drop and temperatures began to drop. The drop in temperatures was so extreme that the dinosaurs disappeared. But not marsupials.
And it’s not just our wildlife. The Great Barrier Reef has been a popular hotbed for climate catastrophists. Not as ancient as many wildlife species, reefs developed on the southern Queensland continental shelf for around two million years and up to eighteen million years in the north. In their current incarnation, they are probably 12,000 years old.
During their entire existence, sea levels have changed several times. During the last Ice Age, which began about 2.6 million years ago, sea levels dropped more than 100 meters, making it possible to walk to the outer reef. When the Ice Age ended about 15,000 years ago, sea levels rose rapidly and new corals grew to form today’s reefs.
Despite this extraordinary survival record, since the early 1970s activists have been predicting the end of the reef. The latest warning came from a study by the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University. He claimed the reef had lost more than half of its corals since 1995 due to warming seas caused by climate change. The lead author of the study predicted that “the northern Great Barrier Reef will never be quite the same again…. There is no time to lose, we must drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible”.
This call to arms has been enthusiastically joined by the ultimate global warming cheerleader – the United Nations. He warned that if temperatures reached 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, 90% of corals would be wiped out. He called for the reef to be placed on a list of “endangered” World Heritage sites. Its UNESCO agency has urged Australia to take “decisive and immediate action to mitigate the impacts of climate change”. The JCU and the UN seem to ignore the fact that Australia already spends ten times more per capita on renewable energy than the world average and four times more than China, Europe, the United States and Japan. And by making Australia a convenient scapegoat, they cowardly avoid exposing the real villain – Beijing, whose emissions in the past decade alone have risen 25% and now exceed all developed countries combined, equaling them. almost per capita.
Which makes the latest annual report from the Australian Institute of Marine Science proving that coral cover in the northern and central parts of the Great Barrier Reef is at its highest level since monitoring began 36 years ago, particularly unwelcome. This validates the views of Dr. Peter Ridd whose scholarship against mainstream apocalyptic orthodoxy got him fired from JCU.
That said, while the results are reliable, AIMS’ methods are outdated, raising questions as to why, with $1.44 billion in government grants and pledges, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation n has not funded AIMS in the latest Japanese technology. Perhaps in ignorance lies financial happiness? True or not, blaming global warming for the projected decimation of the platypus, some marsupial populations, and the Great Barrier Reef, has proven to be a lucrative source of funding for activists and rent-seekers. It’s also an excuse for the federal government to institutionalize massive wealth transfers through a 43% emissions reduction target by 2030. It knows that ambition is totally unattainable but that a repeated lie quite often becomes the truth. Thus, the ensuing forced economic and social distortions will enrich the few at the expense of the many and will be justified on the familiar but dishonest grounds that the cost of reducing emissions is far outweighed by the damages of inaction. .
As Speaker of the United States House, Nancy Pelosi perfectly summed up her support for the Democrats’ landmark climate bill: “How can they (Republicans) vote against the planet? Mother Earth gets angry from time to time and this legislation will help us solve all of that.” In a world ruled by superstitious authoritarians, who will argue?