From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Heavier and longer summer monsoon rains are said to be fuelling a rise in child marriages in Pakistan, reports Agence France-Presse (AFP). Human rights workers are warning such weddings are on the rise “due to climate-driven economic insecurity”. Great story since it holds out a small hope that banning hydrocarbon use can help solve a problem of forced and under-aged female abuse that has been endemic in many cultures since time immemorial. It is just a shame about the facts. According to the World Bank climate change knowledge portal, monsoon rains in June, July and August in the period 1991-2020 were marginally less in Pakistan than fell during 1961-1990.

In an error-strewn article reproduced in many publications around the world, the French State-owned agency claimed that flooding in Pakistan in 2022 plunged a third of the country under water. Looking at a contour map would show this is unlikely – impossible even – and the true level of inundation was around 8-10%. Even the BBC’s statistical programme More or Less confirmed the much lower figures. AFP claims that “scientists say” climate change is making the monsoons heavier and longer, “raising the risk of landslides, floods and long-term crop damage”. This is said to have led to a new trend of “monsoon brides” as families give away their female children in exchange for money. But massive flooding in low-lying parts of Pakistan is not new. In the recent past – in 1950, 1992, 1993 and 2010 – it killed more people than it did in 2022.

The AFP nonsense story is just the latest in a tidal wave of mainstream fear-mongering designed to boost Net Zero. It takes an emotional theme and tacks on unprovable claims of climate damage caused by humans. The emotion is obvious, but false claims about the volume of rainfall and the inundation of a recent flood are made. Do the people who write this stuff think that nobody will check their facts and sources? Apparently not.

AGF is an organ of the French State and it is all in on grooming the world to accept Net Zero. The climate side is run by Marlowe Hood who describes himself as the “Herald of the Anthropocene”. Certainly, all this heralding seems to be very profitable for Hood who was recently awarded £88,000 by the Foundation arm of a Spanish bank heavily involved in financing green technologies. Recently, he played a major part in organising the eventual retraction of a paper written by a number of Italian physics professors who examined climate and weather data put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and concluded there was no climate emergency.

Led by Professor Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University, the professors found that rainfall intensity and frequency was static in many parts of the world. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity showed no “clear positive trend of extreme events”. None of this would be much of a surprise to anyone who has read the IPCC reports, but Hood claimed the data was “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”. The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. has covered the Alimonti scandal in great detail and notes: “Shenanigans continue in climate science with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review”.

Three AFP writers are currently taking a six-month sabbatical on the latest Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN) course which is funded by elite billionaire money including contributions from Sir Christopher Hohn, a past provider for the eco louts at Extinction Rebellion. They are Ivan Couronne, Future of the Planet editor, Sara Hussein, Future of the Planet reporter and agency editor Linda Tonn. The course provides an immersion in the correct political narrative surrounding climate ‘collapse’, the so-called ‘settled’ science and the need for extreme Net Zero measures. This term, BBC participants include senior climate data reporter Becky Dale and Samah Hanaysha, a London-based broadcaster for BBC Arabic. Interestingly, all these participants will be joined by Ellen Ormesher of DeSmog, a foundation-funded operation that publishes a ‘blacklist’ of so-called climate deniers. Sadly, the list does not appear to be regularly updated these days, possibly on the grounds that it has become too large!

Past speakers at the OCJN have suggested “fines and imprisonment” for those expressing scepticism about “well supported” science and cautioned journalists against the use of photographs of people enjoying themselves in the open air at times of “extreme” summer weather. Infantile suggestions are provided asking participants to write a story about a mango, discussing why it isn’t as tasty as the year before due to climate change.

All of which explains how stories about climate change leading to more child marriages end up in the increasingly unpopular prints. For the last three years, Paul Homewood has chronicled the climate bloopers at the BBC and he summarised this year’s edition in yesterday’s Daily Sceptic. It notes numerous howlers which have added to the gaiety of the nation. How we laughed when we were reminded of Matt – “Yes, we have no bananas” – McGrath reporting that climate change posed an enormous threat to banana supply. Production has increased six-fold since the 1960s. Or the no more beer piss-take. Apparently, it could get too hot to grow hops in Kent although that is not a problem for growers in warmer central European climes, but again don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Then there are the coral reefs about to die off, while in the real world the Great Barrier Reef continue to show stonking levels of record growth. Finally, we have the much loved rare bird sighting story. Last year it was the turn of the black-winged stilt that is moving north due to climate change. As it appears to have done for hundreds of years, according to ornithological reports. One unfortunate passing passerine even being shot in 1684. Again, as with the child bride story, why are basic facts not checked to stop all this alarmist drivel being printed in the first place? Attending climate grooming courses funded by elite billionaires with an obvious political agenda would fill any independent, investigating journalist with horror.

As Homewood notes, many have concluded that the BBC’s coverage of climate change cannot be trusted. His comments could equally apply to many other mainstream outlets. “For years their treatment has been one-sided, full of misinformation and at times factual errors, along with the omission of alternative views and inconvenient facts,” he observes. Quite so.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

The biofuel industry, once heralded as the golden child of renewable energy, is now facing a series of catastrophic failures that underscore its inherent inefficiency and lack of economic viability. The dream of turning agricultural products into clean fuel has been shattered by the harsh realities of economics, technology, and logistics. Despite the grand promises made by industry leaders and policymakers, biofuel companies have struggled to deliver on their claims, leading to a cascade of failures that highlight the fundamental flaws in this sector.

The Biofuel Industry: A Failed Experiment

The concept of biofuels gained significant traction in the early 2000s as a potential solution to reduce carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Governments around the world, particularly in the United States and Europe, poured billions of dollars into subsidies and incentives to kickstart this industry. The idea was simple: convert crops like corn, soy, and sugarcane into ethanol or biodiesel, which could then be used as cleaner alternatives to gasoline and diesel.

However, the biofuel industry has failed to live up to its hype. Many companies, once considered the darlings of the green energy movement, have gone bankrupt or are on the brink of collapse. The Wall Street Journal article highlights the struggles of these companies, pointing out that

Startups promising to power planes, ships and trucks with clean fuel are sputtering before they get off the ground, showing how hard it will be to wean many industries off oil and gas.

A company backed by United Airlines that raised hundreds of millions of dollars to turn trash into jet fuel appears to have shut down. Another, backed by Airbus, JetBlue and GE Aerospace, that was working on using hydrogen to power planes went bust. Chevron, BP and Shell, meanwhile, are scaling back projects to make biofuels from cooking fats, oils, greases and plant material.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/clean-fuel-startups-were-supposed-to-be-the-next-big-thing-now-they-are-collapsing/ar-AA1oZDQQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp

This statement encapsulates the broader trend of failure that has plagued the biofuel sector.

The Inefficiency of Biofuels

One of the primary reasons for the failure of biofuel companies is the inherent inefficiency of the process. Turning crops into fuel is an energy-intensive process that often results in a net loss of energy. In other words, the amount of energy required to grow, harvest, and process the crops into biofuel can exceed the energy content of the final product. This inefficiency makes biofuels economically unviable without significant government subsidies.

Moreover, the use of food crops for fuel production has raised ethical concerns. The diversion of crops like corn and soy from food production to fuel production has led to higher food prices and food shortages in some parts of the world. This has sparked criticism that biofuels are contributing to global hunger rather than solving the energy crisis.

Economic Realities: The Collapse of Biofuel Companies

The economic realities of the biofuel industry have caught up with many companies, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and closures. The article notes that

Many clean-fuel projects have become money pits, in part because of the great amounts of power they need. High interest rates, supply-chain disruptions and expensive power-grid upgrades have driven up electricity prices.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/clean-fuel-startups-were-supposed-to-be-the-next-big-thing-now-they-are-collapsing/ar-AA1oZDQQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp

This observation is critical because it highlights that the failures are not isolated incidents but rather symptomatic of deeper issues within the industry.

Several factors have contributed to the economic struggles of biofuel companies. First, the price volatility of oil has made it difficult for biofuels to compete in the market. When oil prices are low, biofuels become less attractive to consumers and investors. Second, the high costs associated with biofuel production have made it challenging for companies to achieve profitability. Even with government subsidies, many biofuel companies have struggled to break even.

“The excitement of the early days has not lived up to the hype,” said Andy Marsh, chief executive of Plug Power, a startup that recently opened one of the country’s first plants making green hydrogen, a potential replacement for fossil fuels in industries such as steel making and chemical production.

Shares of Plug Power have tumbled more than 90% since the passage of the U.S. climate law two years ago. Shares of biofuels startup Gevo, where Marsh is a board member, are down about 80% in that span.

The failures and delays are all but extinguishing the early optimism after the climate law passed. Rising costs have pushed out project timelines and made it more difficult for companies to raise money. The government’s delays in completing tax credits are adding to the challenges.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/clean-fuel-startups-were-supposed-to-be-the-next-big-thing-now-they-are-collapsing/ar-AA1oZDQQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp

This is a common theme in the biofuel industry, where ambitious projects often fail to translate into viable business models.

Environmental Concerns: The Myth of Clean Energy

One of the most significant selling points of biofuels has been their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this claim has been increasingly challenged by scientists and environmentalists. The production of biofuels can generate significant carbon emissions, particularly when considering the entire lifecycle of the fuel—from crop cultivation to processing and transportation. This revelation is a critical blow to the industry, as it undermines one of the key arguments in favor of biofuels.

Furthermore, the environmental impact of large-scale biofuel production extends beyond carbon emissions. The intensive farming practices required to produce biofuel crops can lead to deforestation, soil degradation, and water shortages. These environmental costs further diminish the appeal of biofuels as a sustainable energy source.

The Role of Government Subsidies

The biofuel industry has been heavily reliant on government subsidies to stay afloat. These subsidies, often justified on the grounds of promoting green energy and reducing carbon emissions, have propped up an industry that is fundamentally uneconomical. The article highlights that “without government support, many biofuel companies would have gone bankrupt years ago.”

However, the reliance on subsidies has created a dependency that is unsustainable in the long term. As governments face mounting budget pressures and shift their focus to other forms of renewable energy, biofuel companies are finding it increasingly difficult to secure the funding they need to survive. The withdrawal of subsidies has exposed the underlying weaknesses of the biofuel industry, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and closures.

The Future of Biofuels: A Grim Outlook

Given the numerous challenges facing the biofuel industry, the future looks grim. The article concludes that the collapse of the biofuel industry is a cautionary tale for other sectors of the green economy.”

The failure of biofuels highlights the importance of critically evaluating the economic and environmental viability of alternative energy sources before committing significant resources to their development.

The lessons learned from the biofuel industry’s failures should inform future energy policy. Rather than blindly subsidizing technologies that are not economically viable, policymakers should focus on supporting energy solutions that are both efficient and sustainable. The biofuel debacle serves as a warning against the dangers of letting ideology drive energy policy at the expense of sound economic and scientific principles.

Conclusion: The Biofuel Industry’s Legacy of Failure

The biofuel industry was supposed to revolutionize the energy sector by providing a cleaner, more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. Instead, it has become a cautionary tale of economic and environmental mismanagement. The cascade of failures among biofuel companies underscores the inherent inefficiency and lack of economic sense that has plagued the industry from the start.

This sentiment captures the essence of the biofuel industry’s downfall. Despite the grand promises and billions of dollars in government support, the biofuel industry has failed to deliver a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

In the end, the biofuel experiment has left behind a trail of bankruptcies, environmental degradation, and unfulfilled promises. It serves as a stark reminder that the pursuit of green energy solutions must be grounded in reality, not wishful thinking. As we look to the future of energy, it is crucial to learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure that our energy supply and development is based on sound science and economics, not on ideological fervor.

In conclusion, the biofuel industry’s collapse should prompt a re-evaluation of our approach to energy. Rather than chasing after every new technology that promises to save the planet, we must carefully assess the feasibility and impact of these solutions. The biofuel industry’s legacy of failure is a testament to the importance of critical thinking and skepticism in the development of energy policy.

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… However, there are still numerous hurdles to overcome before the goal of automated debunking is achieved …”

Hierarchical machine learning models can identify stimuli of climate change misinformation on social media

Communications Earth & Environment volume 5, Article number: 436 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Misinformation about climate change poses a substantial threat to societal well-being, prompting the urgent need for effective mitigation strategies. However, the rapid proliferation of online misinformation on social media platforms outpaces the ability of fact-checkers to debunk false claims. Automated detection of climate change misinformation offers a promising solution. In this study, we address this gap by developing a two-step hierarchical model. The Augmented Computer Assisted Recognition of Denial and Skepticism (CARDS) model is specifically designed for categorising climate claims on Twitter. Furthermore, we apply the Augmented CARDS model to five million climate-themed tweets over a six-month period in 2022. We find that over half of contrarian climate claims on Twitter involve attacks on climate actors. Spikes in climate contrarianism coincide with one of four stimuli: political events, natural events, contrarian influencers, or convinced influencers. Implications for automated responses to climate misinformation are discussed.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01573-7

The section on the ultimate goal of the project is fascinating.

… These findings have practical implications. Adopting our model could help Twitter/X to augment and enhance ongoing manual fact-checking procedures by offering a computer-assisted procedure for finding the tweets most likely to contain climate misinformation. This adoption could make finding and responding to climate-related misinformation more efficient and help Twitter/X enforce policies to reduce false or misleading claims on the platform. Yet environmental groups have shown that Twitter/X ranks dead last among major social media platforms in its policies and procedures for responding to climate misinformation and there is little evidence that X will improve these procedures in the near term⁴¹. Alternatively, our model could provide the basis for an API that Twitter/X users could employ to assess climate-related claims they are seeing in their feeds. Overall, the potential practical applications of our model underscores the need for continued academic work to monitor misinformation on Twitter/X and raises important questions on the data needed to hold social media platforms accountable for the spread of false claims.

However, there are still numerous hurdles to overcome before the goal of automated debunking is achieved. An effective debunking requires both explanation of the relevant facts and exposing the misleading fallacies employed by the misinformation. Contrarian climate claims can contain a range of different fallacies, so automatic detection of logical fallacies is another necessary task that, used in concert with the CARDS model, could bring us closer to the ”holy grail of fact-checking”¹⁷. …

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01573-7

Our old friend John Cook was involved with this paper. According to the paper he is now a researcher for the rather Orwellian sounding Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, which appears to be part of the University of Melbourne Psychology Department. The mission statement of the center is “Harnessing research and education to produce sustainable, durable changes in behaviours, policies, and practices that will enhance lives, livelihoods, and environments.“.

John Cook suffered a public embarrassment back in 2013, when his collection of creepy artwork became public knowledge, thanks to poor website hygiene. The artwork featured a self portrait of John Cook dressed in a NAZI uniform, and included a picture of prominent climate skeptics, including Anthony Watts, dressed as semi-naked Roman gladiators. But I’m sure this unusual art hobby in no way affects Cook’s work for the Centre for Behaviour Change’s mission to “produce sustainable, durable changes in behaviours“.

I couldn’t figure out who funded the AI paper, but given the close author affiliation with major Australian and British universities, I’m pretty confident tax dollars feature somewhere in the picture.