Currently, China is producing more pollution and C02 and trash than the rest of the world combined. Add the number 2 offender India and you have almost all the climate change problem that the talking heads are espousing.
But wait, C02 and the temperature were hotter hundreds of years ago. There weren’t as many people or cars back then. How do you explain that? I can, it’s called cyclical climate patterns that have gone on without man affecting it.
The popular target is the United States, who has reduced it’s footprint more than most, but is the bank of climate change to cash in on.
The science says man hasn’t affected the climate as much as the AGW play for money says it has. I had to listen to the pontificating by Climatards like Tim O’Reilly and Tom Raftery on this nonsense for years when I was at IBM. I never believed it was anything but a grasp at attention and money. They lead in being wrong on the climate with Al Gore, Greta, AOC and John Kerry, but right on scaring people for money.
It turns out that Carbon offsets is a racket also. It is for money as it doesn’t offset anything
Obviously, this is already a scam. And the few sincere environmentalists who believe the sky is actually falling denounce it as such. But it’s an incredibly lucrative scam that moves billions if not trillions of dollars around.
Now some real facts.
Before the Meme’s here’s some Scientific proof from Oxford that shows wind farms are a failure.
The inadequacy of wind power
The plan dramatically to cut the combustion of fossil fuels was
accepted at the 2015 Paris Conference. The instinctive reac-
tion around the world has been to revert to ‘renewables’, the
sources of energy delivered intermittently by the power of
the Sun. Unfortunately this power, attenuated by the huge
distance that it must travel to reach the Earth, is extremely
weak. That is why, before the advent of the Industrial Revo-
lution, it was unable to provide the energy to sustain even a
small global population with an acceptable standard of living.
Today, modern technology is deployed to harvest these
weak sources of energy. Vast ‘farms’ that monopolise the natu-
ral environment are built, to the detriment of other creatures.
Developments are made regardless of the damage wrought.
Hydro-electric schemes, enormous turbines and square miles
of solar panels are constructed, despite being unreliable and
ineffective; even unnecessary.1
In particular, the generation of electricity by wind tells a
disappointing story. The political enthusiasm and the inves-
tor hype are not supported by the evidence, even for offshore
wind, which can be deployed out of sight of the infamous My
Back Yard. What does such evidence actually say?
That the wind fluctuates is common knowledge. But
these fluctuations are grossly magnified to an extent that is
not immediately obvious – and has nothing to do with the
technology of the wind turbine. The energy of the wind is that
of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy
is ½Mv2, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass
of air reaching each square metre of the area swept by the
turbine blade in a second is M = ρv, where ρ is the density of
air: about 1.2 kg per cubic metre. So, the maximum power that
the turbine can deliver is ½ρv3 watts per square metre.
If the wind speed is 10 metres per second (about 20 mph)
the power is 600 watts per square metre at 100% efficiency.2
That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200
million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square metres
of turbine swept area – that should be quite unacceptable to
those who care about birds and to other environmentalists.
But the performance of wind is much worse than that, as
a look at the simple formula shows. Because the power carried
by the wind depends on the third power of the wind speed, if
the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a
factor of 8. Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the pow-
er delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to
be turned off for its own protection. This is not related to the
technology of the turbine, which can harvest no more than
the power that reaches the area swept by its blades.
My wife’s relatives in Denmark are going to have to deal with this inconvenient truth. They bought the wind farm hoax a long time ago. I don’t bother telling them they are wrong. They have to justify living in that place and this is part of it.
Here is a listing of the scares throughout history of climate disaster, the end of oil and population bombs. All the same scare predictions that never come true, but are meant to scam money. I like the one about running out of gas decades ago. Click on it for fun and to know they are lying.
Now the meme’s.
This next one is for Tim, who said the tide rising is our major problem around 2010, dipstick.
And here are your hero’s Tim. Don’t try so hard to be a wanker.
Ah, a real climate disaster, but it doesn’t fit the narrative of Man and the USA being bad guys.
More for Tim O’Reilly and Tom Raftery
Even more for evidence for Tim and Tom, who said both tides are rising and that Climate Science is hard when I asked him for facts. It’s only hard if it’s your religion and you ignore both the truth and science. Oh look, the tide is the same as it was 1620. Must be that AGW that doesn’t change anything.
Here’s one for the EV lovers.