What the 'News' Won't tell you

How Green is my Island? Well, it is very green, both enviromentally and politically. And many of the people here are treated as though they, too, are green, like cabbages. Tasmania is covered in forests which in many places you just cannot go to see. But in Melbourne, which I took a good long look around last week, you can see the ones there. Despite the hugeness of the City of Melbourne and its stretch in all directions, there are more trees than you can shake a stick at. 

In the Dandenong Ranges one can drive along well maintained roads through the trees and hills. There is a vibrancy about the Dandenongs. Pretty villages and walking tracks, restaurants and 'lookout' galore.  'Views' are everywhere. But those roads would not be built today. As in Tasmania, the 'Greenies' would throw a fit and become violent. They were made a long time ago by men who wanted you to come and enjoy.

Suburban Melbourne

The green scourge is never told of as a scourge but as a saviour.  Green is the Islam of the land. It is lied about. We are forced to 'tolerate' the 'diversity', as far as the greens allow and the 'News' lauds. We are not told the truth.

Despite 4 and a half million people having homes in an area far less than an eigth of the size of Tasmania, there are trees everywhere. There must be at least ten trees per head of population. 45 million of them. A 'guess'. And that's just the suburbs and parks. There would be at least the same number in the Ranges.

The city and local Councils inventory the trees along the suburban and arterial roadways. There are over 1 million, 380,000 of them. Trees that is, not councils. Think of all the gardens ! 

And trees live on sunlight and Carbon Dioxide.

Ah, yes, that polluting, poisonous stuff that will bring wrack and ruin to the world. That gas that has the Greenies as sworn enemies. The greenies swear we are all doomed.

Mat Ridley wanted us to hear some truth for a change. And his drinking buddy Mr Dyer put his oar in the water as well.

Matt told of his part:

The world is getting greener. 

Why does no one want to know?

As carbon dioxide levels have risen, the planet’s green vegetation has increased by 14 per cent 

Global greening is the name given to a gradual, but large, increase in green vegetation on the planet over the past three decades. The climate change lobby is keen to ensure that if you hear about it at all, you hear that it is a minor thing, dwarfed by the dangers of global warming. Actually, it could be the other way round: greening is a bigger effect than warming.

It is a story in which I have been both vilified and vindicated. Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner. In fact, overall in 30 years, the green vegetation on planet Earth had increased by a rather extraordinary 14 per cent. He said this was occurring in all vegetation types — from tropical rainforests to arctic tundra.

 http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/

What was responsible for this ecological good news? He credited rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere for half of the greening — rather than, say, the application of agricultural fertiliser, warmer temperatures or increased rainfall. Carbon dioxide, along with water, is the raw material that plants use to make carbohydrates, with the help of sunlight. So it stands to reason that raising its concentration should help plants grow.

I was startled by Myneni’s data. I knew that there had been thousands of experiments in which carbon dioxide levels had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems to find out whether it boosted their growth (it did). 

I also knew that commercial greenhouse owners now routinely maintain carbon dioxide levels in their greenhouses at more than double normal levels, because it makes their tomatoes grow faster.

But the global effect of CO2 levels on the quantity of vegetation had not, as far as I could tell, been measured — until now. 

When I wrote about this, it was among the very first non-scientific articles on the satellite evidence for global greening. But, as I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.

Myneni’s results were eventually published six months ago — when the great Paris climate jamboree was over. His results were now even stronger than he had concluded in his original lecture. Now he said that almost three quarters of the cause of greening was carbon dioxide — up from half. As the paper’s lead author, Zaichun Zhu, of Beijing University, puts it, 

it’s the equivalent of adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA. 

Frankly, I think this is big news. A new continent’s worth of green vegetation — all created in a single human generation.

But it’s so controversial that even Dr Myneni felt the need to criticise me for publicising his research. At the end of last year, he said I had been wrong to claim that carbon dioxide fertilisation is ‘responsible for the greening of the earth’. And this from the man who, a few months later, would say that ‘CO2 fertilisation explains 70 per cent of the greening trend.’ As the climate economist Professor Richard Tol commented: ‘The new paper vindicates what Matt Ridley and others have been saying all along — yet they apparently deserve to be kicked nonetheless.’

Back in 1908 Svante Arrhenius, a Nobel laureate and the father of the greenhouse theory, predicted something like this would happen. ‘By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates,’ he wrote. The earth, he predicted, ‘will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind’. This has proved to be the case. Environmentally, this is perhaps the best news you’ve

never heard about.

So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected. That price is falling more heavily on poor than on rich people. The evidence suggests that this imbalance will persist for most of this century, perhaps longer. It is time for a rethink.

Yes, Indeed. But the PTB that control the news and the commentariat do not want you to rethink. They want you scared and compliant. And to pay up. 

It is a Great Scam.

Mr Dyer chipped in.

BOOM: Mike Rowe Expains Why Climate Change is the SCAM of the Century

Mike Rowe, television personality and amazing common sense advocate, recently exposed the way global warming adherents shut down anyone who questions their orthodoxy. 

 http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/boom-mike-rowe-expains-why-climate-change-is-the-scam-of-the-century

Rowe narrates the show “How the Universe Works” on the Science Channel. Recently, he sat down with climate change supporting scientists at a bar and blew wide open one of the major problems with their position. He detailed the conversation in a Facebook post:

""This weekend, in a bar called Grumpy’s, I listened as two professors from Berkeley discussed with great passion the inevitable consequences of ignoring climate change. When I was invited to share my opinion, I shrugged and said, “Beats me, fellas. Last week the smartest people on the planet thought there were 100 billion galaxies in the universe. They were off by a couple trillion. I’m not really sure what’s in store for planet earth.”

I was surprised by their response. One frowned real hard, and stared into his beer. The other asked if I was some kind of “Climate Denier.”

“Not at all,” I said. “Any fool can see there’s a climate.”

“You know what I mean,” he said. “Are you skeptical of the fact than man is destroying the planet by heating it up to an unnatural degree?”

“I’m skeptical of most things,” I said. “But who cares what I think? I’m just a narrator. You guys are the actual scientists, right?”

Hmmmm. I think I sound a bit like Mike. 

“We are,” said the one staring at his beer.

“Well then, tell me this. Isn’t skepticism at the very heart of scientific inquiry?”

“It is.”

“Then how come people who question the claims around global warming are called “Deniers?”

“Because Global Warming is real, and man is causing it. And our planet is in terrible trouble.”

Then the other one chimed in with this. 

“Right now, this planet is one of the worst places to be in the universe.”

Hey, I am but a humble Tavern Keeper but even I raised an eyebrow at that. 'Worst places to be in the Universe'? Which friggin' Universe is he from? 

I nodded. “I’m sure you’re right,” I said. “But if it turns out you’re not, and you need someone to walk it back for you – give me a call. I’m in the booth all the time.”

I’m not sure they got it."

I bet they didn’t. Whether you believe in climate change or you don’t, the point Rowe made is simple and extremely important — scrutiny is crucial for good science.

Any good scientist would welcome skepticism. 

They would welcome questioning and intensive analysis of their theories. That’s how something becomes a fact, and why global warming is far from it.

Global warming does not hold up to strong scrutiny. It simply doesn’t. Again, whether or not man-made climate change is real or not isn’t the issue here, but rather the fact that those pushing it mock, shame, and try to shut down dissent. 

Why is that?

There’s a lot of money in the climate change hoax. 

There’s also a big political angle. The government scares people into thinking that the end is nigh and that the only way to turn it around is to cede control to the federal government and allow them to force their economy-killing policies on business.

You know what else it does? It allows them to knock down the west and move toward globalism. Why else would you do something that obliterates the economy based on dubious science? 

Or any science for that matter. 

Even if it is true, how much sense does it make to cripple our economy as we watch other economies who have no intention of complying with the restrictions overtake us?

It doesn’t, unless of course there’s something bigger going on.

Melbourne regularly features at the Top of the List of the World's Most Livable Cities. It is green and well maintained. It is wealthy. 

Wealthy places attract people who want to keep the place nice. Look after it. Enjoy it. Be proud of it. Invite people to it.

Not locked away. As Tasmania does.

The Tavern is pretty nice too. Come for a pint or two.

Pax