If you’ve seen my latest video below on the Australian fire situation, you know that current Australian PM Scott Morrison is a first rank climate science denier.

It’s not a fluke. Former PM Tony Abbott, also of the Liberal Party (it’s backwards down there) recently reeled off a chain or climate denial canards to your Uncle Dittohead proud.

This is Rupert Murdoch’s bloody work.


Video above – this fire fighting thing could get expensive.

Associated Press:

Australia’s forests are burning at a rate unmatched in modern times and scientists say the landscape is being permanently altered as a warming climate brings profound changes to the island continent.

Heat waves and drought have fueled bigger and more frequent fires in parts of Australia, so far this season torching some 40,000 square miles (104,000 square kilometers), an area about as big as Ohio.

With blazes still raging in the country’s southeast, government officials are drawing up plans to reseed burned areas to speed up forest recovery that could otherwise take decades or even centuries.

But some scientists and forestry experts doubt that reseeding and other intervention efforts can match the scope of the destruction. The fires since September have killed 28 people and burned more than 2,600 houses.

Before the recent wildfires, ecologists divided up Australia’s native vegetation into two categories: fire-adapted landscapes that burn periodically, and those that don’t burn. In the recent fires, that distinction lost meaning — even rainforests and peat swamps caught fire, likely changing them forever. 

Flames have blazed through jungles dried out by drought, such as Eungella National Park, where shrouds of mist have been replaced by smoke. 

“Anybody would have said these forests don’t burn, that there’s not enough material and they are wet. Well they did,” said forest restoration expert Sebastian Pfautsch, a research fellow at Western Sydney University. 

Read the rest of this entry »

At least he’s acknowledging the problem.
But, mops and buckets might not do it.

Dude, that’s kind of what environmentalists have been saying for oh, (checks watch) 50 years.

Jim Cramer on the Ultimate sustainable stock.

We all know El Nino, AMO and PDO.
Now meet IOD.

You may have heard that Larry Fink, Manager of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, sent a letter to clients this week underlining the need to move investments into sustainable technologies, and soon.
“In the near future”, he wrote, “and sooner than most anticipate, there will be a significant reallocation of capital.”

The announcement precipitated a near food-fight on the financial network CNBC. The interview segments with Fink are rather jaw dropping – after which the network’s resident science denier weighs in with typically infuriating cluelessness.


BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, says that it will now make climate change central to its investment considerations. And not just for environmental reasons — but because it believes that climate change is reshaping the world’s financial system.

That was the message in BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink’s annual letter to CEOs published on Tuesday. 

“The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance,” he wrote, explaining that climate change is the top concern that investors raise with BlackRock. “In the near future — and sooner than most anticipate — there will be a significant reallocation of capital.”

BlackRock manages approximately $7 trillion on behalf of investors. Its shift could signify a watershed moment for corporate action on climate, particularly among U.S. firms. BlackRock says it will require additional reporting from the companies it invests in, including disclosure of climate-related risks and plans for operating under the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Fink raised a number of financial risks presented by climate change: 

“Will cities, for example, be able to afford their infrastructure needs as climate risk reshapes the market for municipal bonds? What will happen to the 30-year mortgage — a key building block of finance — if lenders can’t estimate the impact of climate risk over such a long timeline, and if there is no viable market for flood or fire insurance in impacted areas? What happens to inflation, and in turn interest rates, if the cost of food climbs from drought and flooding? How can we model economic growth if emerging markets see their productivity decline due to extreme heat and other climate impacts?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Click on the image above to enlarge.
Comparison of Yale’s “6 Americas” polling on climate concerns from 2016 and today.

Yale Program on Climate Communication:

Nearly six in ten (58%) Americans are now either “Alarmed” or “Concerned” about global warming. From 2014 to 2019, the proportion of “Alarmed” nearly tripled.

Our prior research has categorized Americans into six groups – Global Warming’s Six Americas – based on their climate change beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. The “Alarmed” are the most worried about global warming and the most supportive of strong action to reduce carbon pollution. In contrast, the “Dismissive” do not think global warming is happening or human-caused and strongly oppose climate action. [A short “Six Americas” quiz is publicly available online.]

Our latest survey (November 2019) finds that the Alarmed segment is at an all-time high (31%). The Alarmed segment has nearly tripled in size since October 2014. Conversely, the Dismissive (10%) and Doubtful (10%) segments have each decreased over the past five years. The proportion of Americans in these two segments combined has decreased by about five percentage points since 2014.

Over the past five years, the U.S. population as a whole has shifted dramatically towards membership in the Alarmed segment. In 2014, the Alarmed and Dismissive were similar in size. As of November 2019, however, the Alarmed now outnumber the Dismissive by more than 3 to 1 (31% vs. 10%), representing a major shift in these two “issue publics” most engaged with the issue of climate change.

Larger and larger numbers of Americans are Concerned or Alarmed about climate change. (see post on this page)
The Republican Party now preparing to get ready to pretend to look like they give a damn.


House Republican lawmakers held a closed-door strategy session over their approach to climate change on Thursday, as they face intensifying pressure from younger voters to address the environmental threat.

The huddle was spurred by a recognition among some Republican leaders that the party has ceded the debate to Democrats.

“There’s been a lot of credibility given to some really crazy and dangerous and irresponsible ideas, and we’ve got to make sure that we are working to inform and educate the public about the dangers of some of these policies,” Representative Garret Graves of Louisiana, the top Republican on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, said in an interview.

Graves addressed his colleagues at the session, along with Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The meeting came amid polling showing young Americans want politicians to tackle climate change and warnings from GOP strategists that if Republicans don’t address the issue, they could alienate an entire generation of voters.

It remains to be seen if Republicans can make any change in a party where many of its politicians — including President Donald Trump — have denied that there are human factors behind climate change.

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy convened the special policy conference discussion, the first held this year. It is set to be followed by similar gatherings to discuss privacy, technology and other issues that call out for deeper caucus-wide conversations. The session could help inform a later Republican climate proposal built around advancing green innovation, carbon-capture technology and nuclear power.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin Pluck is a twitter treasure.