Fairfax Newspaper warmist and smug Dumb-Ass Jacqueline Maley accuses sceptic Liberal MP Craig Kelly of making "outlandish" claims and "scaremongering".
Maley seems completely ignorant of the facts that actually support Kelly:
The idiot writes: You can tell the coal-fanciers within the Coalition are panicked. Not content with scaremongering about rising electricity prices, they are now invoking the greatest carbon price of them all – death.
On Thursday morning Liberal MP Craig Kelly said people would die of cold
Two hundred people, most of them elderly, will die in Britain of cold-related diseases every day this winter, according to calculations by Britain's leading advocacy group for old people, Age UK.
The charity's figure of 200 deaths a day follows sharp price hikes by energy companies, credited with driving inflation to its highest level in 20 years. At the same time, a report by Britain's leading academic expert on poverty and inequality, Professor John Hills of the London School of Economics, found a deepening "fuel poverty gap".
Then there's this further ignorance from Maley:
Kelly says people will be forced to burn wood in their homes because they can't afford to turn on their heaters, which will lead to increased air pollution. Kelly's logic is spectacular in its circularity – note he is actually admitting that burning carbon is toxic to humans, but no way is he letting that sway him into thinking we might want to come up with a few alternatives to burning it globally, on a massive scale.
Maley makes two fundamental mistakes here.
First, burning wood in a home heater produces more particulates than does burning coal in a modern generator equipped with the usual technology to remove them. That's why what you see above the giant generators we have left is not smoke but steam from the cooling systems.
Second, Maley confuses these particulates - soot - with the carbon dioxide gases that are said to be heating the world dangerously. Carbon dioxide is as "toxic" as the breath you exhale. In fact, it IS the breath you exhale. All the global warming programs we have are designed to reduce carbon dioxide and not particulates.
But even more remarkable than Maley's ignorance of global warming science and complete lack of interest in poor people dying from cold is her hypocrisy over fear mongering.
Having savaged Kelly's "scaremongering", Maley then proceeds to deliver a completely hysterical rant on the global warming apocalypse she imagines is around the corner.
She makes Kelly seem the soul of moderation:
[Kelly] has stolen the thunder of those who urge climate change action on the basis of the extinction of the species if we leave things as they are. Here comesDeath, high cancer rates, drownings – that territory is supposed to be the environmentalists' (speedily defrosting) tundra.
Climate scientists, not by nature a rowdy crew, have, for decades now, been politely ahemming at the back of the room to get our attention, so they can warn us about all the various ways our children are going to get cooked if we don't act collectively soon.
A New York Magazine cover story published a few weeks ago entitled The Uninhabitable Earth, (that scientists rated on their Credibility Index 0.07) laid out some of the terrifying scenarios that could eventuate "absent aggressive action", broken down into cheerful subheadings like "Poisoned Oceans", "Climate Plagues" and "Permanent Economic Collapse".
It was criticised as being overblown by some climate scientists and focusing on the worst, worst-case scenarios, but not before it lodged firmly in the amygdalas of hundreds of thousands of readers.
It lays out what the author says are the possibilities of unmitigated climate change – including the annihilation of Bangladesh and Miami, tens of millions of climate refugees, deadly heat waves, cities like Kolkata and Karachi becoming uninhabitable for humans, and greater social conflict leading to war, not just because of the food shortages and shrinking land resources, but because everyone is so irritable from the heat.
A number of climate scientists have since objected to the piece, saying it is too dire – as Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said, "the evidence that climate change is a serious problem that we must contend with now, is overwhelming on its own". But the piece also mentions a phenomenon called "scientific reticence", which describes the habit climate scientists have of being so cautious and self-censoring they fail to communicate how dire the threat is. This is where politicians could, for once, be useful.
All we need is one Craig Kelly for the climate – to stand up in Parliament and, instead of brandishing a lump of coal for the amusement of the proletariat, hold up a picture of an infant with her skin peeling off, or a submerged Palm Beach mansion, or a Torres Strait Islander forced to flee his home because of rising seas, or a piece of grey coral plucked from our dying reef.
The Way I See It.......The greatest thing about this scare campaign? You don't even have to make up the facts.
Seriously? These are "the facts"? An "infant with her skin peeling off", thanks to man-made warming? The "annihilation" of Miami? Food shortages? Plagues? Our extinction?
Here's what we have in fact seen so far: rising living standards world-wide, record crops, a dramatic slowing of the rate of warming, fewer cyclones, no trend to more droughts, 80 per cent of low-lying atolls actually growing or stable.
What on earth is Maley talking about? She's coated in the slime of Fake News !