“… the ideological vision has failed. We need to acknowledge that …”
Italy Seeks Reversal of EU’s 2035 Combustion Engine Ban
By Alberto BrambillaSeptember 07, 2024 at 11:45AM EDT
Bloomberg) — Italian officials said the European Union’s plan to ban sales of new internal combustion engines from 2035 should be reviewed.
“The ban must be changed,” Energy Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin said on the sidelines of the Ambrosetti Forum in Cernobbio, on the shores of Italy’s Lake Como, on Saturday.
Pichetto Fratin called the decision by the EU “absurd,” and dictated by an “ideological vision” along with a state-controlled approach to policy-making within the bloc. The plan needs changing in order to reflect different market realities amid the European auto industry’s slowdown, he added.
Industry Minister Adolfo Urso also backed a change, urging the incoming European Commission to anticipate the review of the plan to early 2025, from 2026. “In an uncertain landscape which is affecting German automotive industry, clarity is needed to not let the European industry collapse,” Urso said in Cernobbio.
These greentards are delusional. Carbon and petroleum are not the danger they claim, nor is electricity the panacea they propose
Volvo has announced it will be getting rid of its plan to sell only fully electric cars by 2030.
The auto manufacturer announced on Wednesday, that it is now aiming for 90-100% of its global sales to be either pure electric or plug-in hybrid at that point.
The Swedish company said this will “allow for a limited number of mild hybrid models to be sold, if needed.”
The latest move by Volvo comes after Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have both previously announced a shift in their respective EV strategies.
“An electric car provides a superior driving experience and increases possibilities for using advanced technologies that improve the overall customer experience,” Jim Rowan, CEO of Volvo Cars, said on Wednesday in the written statement.
“However, it is clear that the transition to electrification will not be linear, and customers and markets are moving at different speeds of adoption,” he continued.
I post this as I listen to Ford losing $5.5 billion on EV’s as they transition to hybrid because no one wants them. They’d rather have a ground shaking V-8 with a straight exhaust in their truck or a real Mustang, but no. Ford Loses $44,000 On Every EV Sells As It Switches To Hybrids
Now this:
We are often told that wind and solar, if not cheaper, are at least cost competitive with fossil fuels. Dead wrong! Wind or solar costs around five times more per megawatt hour compared to, for example, natural gas.
We are told that wind and solar will save us from a climate catastrophe. If there is a looming climate catastrophe, the only thing that will save us is nuclear power. Wind and solar are incredibly expensive methods of reducing CO2 emissions. The more wind and solar you build, the cost of removing CO2 increases disproportionately.
The U.S. has wasted $1.5 trillion on wind and solar and for that money only a little more than 10% of our electricity comes from wind and solar.
Fossil fuels are not dirty. Modern natural gas or coal plants are environmentally pristine. CO2 is not a pollutant, but an aerial plant food that is greening the Earth. CO2 makes plants grow faster with less water.
Wind or solar electricity is not worth what it costs to create it. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That is a generally accepted economic principle.
If the government requires a utility to purchase some amount of electricity at some price, that is not a free market. That is central planning. Central planning has a role, but it rarely works as well as the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Central planning creates unexpected twists and turns and often results in low productivity.
More on the lies they’ve been telling us about Green energy and the Green New Deal nonsense
As Steely Dan might say, the things that pass for knowledge today, I can’t understand. It’s all lies, falsehoods, and misdirection on tap, served fresh 24/7/365.
Lie #1:Joe Biden was a great president, a dedicated public servant who put country first and stepped aside so that Kamala Harris’s brilliance could save our democracy.
Well, that’s five lies all tied up in one bundle! Joe Biden is easily the worst president in my lifetime, possibly ever. He and his family got rich, not by serving anyone, but by grifting on his various political offices. Slow Joe also didn’t step aside; he was kicked to the curb by his Democrat comrades after it became clear he was going to lose in November. And so now we have Kamala Harris, who was chosen as V.P. simply because she possesses ovaries and dark pigmentation. And for the one millionth time, America is a republic — if we can keep it — not a democracy.
Lie #2:Man-made climate change will make the Earth unlivable for humans in (pick one) 5, 10, 39, or 5,000 years.
Ha, ha! If you think our Creator would allow us, His/Her/Zey’s most ambitious, creative, and intelligent organism, to destroy our beautiful terrarium, then you’re either a fool or an atheist, possibly both. Our most brilliant minds can’t predict tomorrow’s weather with precision, our weather records extend a mere blip into the nearly five billion years of the planet’s estimated existence, and the only reason the scam’s called “climate change” is because leftists gave up on “global warming” when the Earth inconsiderately stopped warming.
Lie #3:Democrats love black people.
Where to start with this one? The president who ended slavery in America was a Republican. It was the Democrat party who championed Jim Crow laws. It’s Democrats who’ve historically come up with all kinds of handouts and special programs for blacks, not because they love them, but because they think African-Americans simply can’t cut it on a level playing field. Folks, that’s racism of the highest order.
And Democrats just love killing unborn babies, a statistically telling percentage of whom are black.
Lie #4:Diversity is our strength.
Nope, sorry, uniformity is our strength. A team that’s chosen based on merit alone, and who plays according to one set of values and with a single goal in mind, always wins. But don’t take my word for it; ask any recent champions of the almost three-quarters African-American NBA. If diversity is strength, then the NBA is arguably one of the weakest b-ball leagues on the planet.
As usual, any climate talk is just alarmism based on models that will never budge the thermometer, but will open the wallets of the under educated.
Here goes:
The science of climate change often is presented in complicated language that speaks of computer models and the theoretical inputs and outputs thereof and concludes that the globe is on the verge of “boiling.” Well, leave it to three physicists — steeped in calculus and such arcane matters as the behavior of molecules and the nuclear charge of atoms — to simplify the analysis and arrive at a much less alarming determination.
“Straightforward calculations … show that eliminating U.S. CO2 emissions by the year 2050 would avoid a temperature increase of 0.0084 degrees Celsius,” states a brief paper authored by Drs. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Happer, Princeton University; and William A. van Wijngaarden, York University, Toronto. On the Fahrenheit scale, the value of averted warming is 0.015 degrees.
In short, the amount of warming averted by eliminating CO2 emissions in the United States would be too small to measure. The paper bolsters the position of those who argue that a changing climate is the product of natural forces, that human-induced carbon dioxide emissions can have only a minuscule effect on global temperature, and that CO2 is a valuable plant food and not a pollutant.
Rather than using theoretical assumptions about various factors that are fed into computers, the paper’s calculation relies almost exclusively on “observable data” that are widely accepted and publicly available, says Dr. Happer.
“This is something anybody with a calculator can figure out,” said the scientist, who may be best known for his contribution to a laser-based technology for destroying incoming ballistic missiles as part of the so-called Star Wars program of the 1980s.
The data needed for the math are the number of years until 2050, the amount of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere, which scientists regularly measure, and the current concentration of atmospheric CO2, which is approximately 427 parts per million as of June 2024.
The only assumed datapoint is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2 increases. The paper uses a value almost the same as one commonly used “before global-warming alarmism became fashionable.” Even if the value is quadrupled to a number favored by the politically driven Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the amount of warming averted still is only 0.034 degrees Celsius.
Yet they waste billions on “renewable energy” that hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of supplying us with what we need.
Among the great mythologies of recent years, one stands out above the rest, is that the world is in a “great energy transition.” Actually, the world IS in a dramatic energy transition. But it isn’t the one the Left wants it to be.
Despite hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars thrown at wind and solar power, we still get less than 10% of our energy from green sources. The needle really hasn’t moved at all over the past two decades. The more the government spends, the less we get per taxpayer dollar thrown at it. That’s the very definition of a falling stock.
The REAL energy transition is toward natural gas. A few weeks ago, the price of natural gas fell below $2 per MMBTU, the lowest price level for energy, after adjusting for inflation, in 20 years and probably ever in the history of mankind. Just a few years ago, the price in real dollars was four times higher.
More
It’s a shell game to move money into the pockets of the insiders. It will never work and economically it isn’t feasible. Natural gas makes us energy independent, but we can’t have that now can we (with liberals in charge)
By now, almost everyone knows that “the world is warming”, and has been told over and over by the mainstream media that it is due to man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally but not limited to carbon dioxide (CO2). This claim is largely due to the efforts of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I quote extensively from this reference below, in brackets […]:
[The Club of Rome was a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked. The Club of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. They noted that “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that…the threat of global warming…would fit the bill…the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Not surprisingly, their study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’: “We are unanimously convinced that rapid, radical redressment of the present unbalanced and dangerously deteriorating world situation is the primary task facing mankind…Concerted international measures and joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent…This supreme effort is…founded on a basic change of values and goals at individual, national, and world levels…”(Arvid’s bold italics)
Fires in EVs are particularly dangerous because they burn at very high temperatures, usually emit toxic gases and are difficult to extinguish. EV drivers and passengers have been killed in such fires. [Sources: multiple media reports and video recordings of incidents]
Most instrumentation in EVs is via large touch-screen systems that are not in the driver’s eye line (i.e. they must look sideways). Many are also touchscreens, which means that certain information must be read and then a hand taken off the steering wheel to select some option. These are a serious distraction for drivers. [Source: Advertising for certain EVs]
Driver stress in EVs is far higher than ICE cars. Will they reach their target recharging station? Will it be operating when they arrive? Maybe they’ll even put themselves in discomfort by turning off the air-conditioning to try to get to the recharge point, but that might threaten their health on very cold or very hot days. [Source: Logical consequence of other points mentioned below.]
Public recharging stations are often not manned and even a fast charge typically takes around 40 minutes. This situation can put personal safety at risk, especially if recharging late at night. [Source: personal experience provides anecdotal evidence]
EV owners can have little confidence that their vehicle will be available to respond to an emergency at any time of day even over a relatively short distance. [Source: logical consequence of battery drainage and patterns of recharging.]
Most EVs can accelerate much faster than ICE cars. This is a threat to the safety of drivers and the public. [Source: data on EV performance]
The greater acceleration and greater mass mean greater tyre wear. EVs don’t emit CO2 but they cause much greater emission of rubber particulates, which are dangerous to human health. [Source: anecdotal evidence of tyre degradation]
The greater mass of EVs compared to ICE vehicles means that in a collision between the two types of vehicles, the ICE vehicle is going to suffer more damage, which means an increased safety risk for ICE drivers. [Source: Logical consequence based on physics]
The cars are very quiet, which poses a problem for the blind or visually impaired who rely on vehicle noise, or more correctly its absence, to indicate when it’s safe to cross a road. [Source: Logical consequence of cars being very quiet.]
Tests in the USA have shown that conventional guard rails along road sides will not stop an EV because these cars have greater mass than ICE cars and therefore greater momentum. EVs with batteries position very low tend to spear under the guard rail while EVs with higher batteries just push through the rail.
Financial, Fire, Weight, Insurance, and a bunch of other issues for Owners
We still have some cows in Cowhampshire, so this will be of interest to farmers, farm advocates, livestock enthusiasts, food security folks, and anyone looking for another opportunity to debunk climate cultists about emissions from tasty animals. And the best part is that you can be cultists, and this might actually make sense to you. Circle of life, closed system, and all of that.
German manufacturing firms are considering scaling back production or relocating operations as the high cost of energy in the renewable-committed nation cuts into their profits, according to a new survey.
The German “2024 Energy Transition Barometer,” which was published by the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, surveyed firms employing 500 people or more.
“The trust of the German economy in energy policy has been severely damaged. Policy makers have failed to show companies that they can have reliable and affordable energy supply,” said Achim Dercks, the association’s deputy managing director, according to OilPrice.com.
A report in May from the Federation of German Industries concluded that Germany had lost a decade’s worth of growth in production since before the outbreak of the pandemic in 2019.
BlackRock began renaming environmental, social and governance (ESG) earlier this year. It’s now calling it “transition investing.”
The company recently updated its climate and decarbonization stewardship guidelines. The document makes no mention of ESG, but it shows in many ways, the world’s largest investment manager with $10 trillion in assets under management is still pursuing many of the same goals.
As always, woke ruins everything it touches. Blackrock owned the building that the Trump shooter was on and gave Thomas Crooks support. Get woke and go broke.
Now there will be less electricity for cars and other things that shouldn’t be electrified. For the rest of us, we’ll just get a bigger power bill for our houses.
Tech companies are increasingly looking to nuclear energy to meet their evolving power needs, potentially at the expense of grid reliability and ordinary American ratepayers, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The owners of about one in every three American nuclear plants are negotiating with technology firms to reach deals in which the plants would sell tech companies nuclear-generated electricity to operate their power-hungry data centers, key infrastructure that the tech firms need to support the artificial intelligence (AI) boom, according to the WSJ. The trend could divert reliable energy generation away from the rest of the power grid at a time when grid watchdogs are warning of longer-term reliability problems as electricity demand is expected to grow rapidly in the coming years due to the proliferation of data centers, electric vehicles (EVs), advanced manufacturing facilities and more.
For example, Amazon Web Services (AWS) is close to reaching an agreement with Constellation Energy to buy electricity from an East Coast nuclear plant, and AWS also spent $650 million on a nuclear-powered data center in Pennsylvania earlier this year, according to the WSJ. The Pennsylvania data center can receive enough electricity to keep the lights on in hundreds of thousands of households, and its purchase spurred tech sector interest in similar deals that allow companies to buy power directly from plants without needing to spend much on additional grid infrastructure to access that electricity.
Data centers may end up accounting for as much as 9% of all power consumption in America by 2030, according to the WSJ, and some officials — such as Pennsylvania Consumer Advocate Patrick Cicero — are concerned that the tech sector’s union with nuclear energy could hurt ordinary consumers by driving up prices and commanding a large share of the nation’s reliable carbon-free power.
More sheep have woken up I suppose. There is no good reason or argument for them in their current configuration. They are expensive, hard to charge (compared to an ICE), cost more to insure and are limited in range. I’m not going to get into the socialistic forks in the road like the government kill switch because it just isn’t a very good product yet. There isn’t enough electricity for what they have planned along with AI and all of the restrictions on energy sources
Most buyers thought they were helping the environment or being progressive or tech savvy. I’ve got news for you. This isn’t the answer you were looking for, just money thrown away to feel or look good.
So now we have buyers remorse.
My wife’s nephew in Europe is a big show off with these. For being an engineer, he hasn’t thought this one through, but I’ll always think of him as a jag off. It’s easy to be smart when the pool of people in your country is only 5 million, but then he didn’t think through that either.
Nearly half of American electric vehicle (EV) owners want to buy an internal combustion engine model the next time they buy a car, according to a new study from McKinsey and Company, a leading consulting firm.
Approximately 46% of Americans who own an EV want to go back to a standard vehicle for their next purchase, citing issues like inadequate charging infrastructure and affordability, according to McKinsey’s study, which was obtained and reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The study’s findings further suggest that the Biden administration’s EV push is struggling to land with American consumers, after 46% of respondents indicated that they are unlikely or very unlikely to purchase an EV in a June poll conducted by The Associated Press and the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute.
Moreover, 58% of Americans are very likely to keep their current cars for longer, and 44% are likely to postpone a possible switch to EVs, McKinsey’s study found. Consumers’ concerns about EV charging infrastructure are notable given the slow rollout of the Biden administration’s $7.5 billion public EV charger program, which has so far led to the construction of only a handful of chargers in nearly three years.
In a statement published on the OPEC website Thursday, Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais said the concept of “peak oil demand” is nowhere to be seen in the cartel’s projections for future global crude oil demand.
“[A]s we look to the future it is the very versatility of oil that ensures that we do not see peak oil demand on the horizon,” Al Ghais said.
“Just as peak oil supply has never transpired, predictions of peak oil demand are following a similar trend.”
In my own research, I have been able to trace predictions for the world reaching so-called “peak oil” all the way back to the 1880s.
From that distant beginning through around 2010, peak oil theory was always about the world having somehow reached a peak in crude oil supply as all the big reserves had supposedly already been discovered.
For about 125 years, constant advances in technology and a creative and innovative industry invariably proved such pronouncements wrong, often laughably so.
With the ramping-up of the climate alarmist movement in the first decade of this century, narratives surrounding this always-wrong theory began to shift over to the demand side of the equation. Some anti-oil-and-gas activist groups even adopted the theory as a means of promoting the equally silly notion that the world’s remaining oil resources could simply be left in the ground as demand for them would soon be overwhelmed by rising demand for alternatives.
A decade later, that theory has also been proven laughably wrong, despite the “investment” of many trillions of dollars in debt-funded subsidies.
OPEC’s statement stands in stark contrast to the projection by the International Energy Agency that the world will somehow achieve peak oil demand by 2030. Al Ghais alludes to this preposterous notion, calling it a “dangerous commentary, especially for consumers,” that “will only lead to energy volatility on a potentially unprecedented scale.”
Should we worry more about the cost of energy than a very small rise in temperature over 100 years? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge via email. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Al Ghais’ statement comes in the wake of revised oil-demand growth projections from the IEA and OPEC, along with Goldman Sachs and the US Energy Information Administration for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025. Where the IEA revised its 2024 projection downward to 1 million barrels per day for 2024, even it projects a more robust 1.5 million bpd in growth for 2025.
The EIA raised its own growth estimate for 2024 from a very conservative 900,000 bpd to 1.1 million bpd.
Goldman Sachs comes in at a stronger 2024 estimate of 1.25 million bpd, based on strong global economic growth. The bank cites robust growth in jet fuel, petrochemical-driven LPG and naphtha, and gasoline and diesel demand as key drivers of this growth.
What is the reason for the discrepancy between the ambitious goal and the disastrous reality? The Washington Free Beacon obtained internal memos from the Department of Transportation and interviewed those responsible for overseeing the project’s implementation to find out.
It turns out that the administration’s own “Diversity—Equity—Inclusion” initiatives are stalling EV Charging Station construction.
Shortly after taking office, the president signed an executive order mandating that the beneficiaries of 40 percent of all federal climate and environmental programs should come from “underserved communities.” The order also established the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which monitors agencies such as the Department of Transportation to ensure the “voices, perspectives, and lived realities of communities with environmental justice concerns are heard in the White House and reflected in federal policies, investments, and decisions.”
In order to qualify for a grant, applicants must “demonstrate how meaningful public involvement, inclusive of disadvantaged communities, will occur throughout a project’s life cycle.” What “public involvement” means is unclear. But the Department of Transportation notes it should involve “intentional outreach to underserved communities.”
That outreach, the Department of Transportation states, can take the form of “games and contests,” “visual preference surveys,” or “neighborhood block parties” so long as the grant recipient provides “multilingual staff or interpreters to interact with community members who use languages other than English.”
“This all just slows down construction,” says Jim Meigs, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who focuses on federal regulation.
The DEI mandates are also hindering the implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan measure designed to enhance U.S. semiconductor supply chains and support private-sector investment in domestic research and manufacturing.
America’s dirtiest beach revealed: Beautiful coast is making dozens sick due to river pumping in raw sewage in what’s been branded a ‘portable toilet’
California is home to three of the most polluted beaches in the country, according to a new report.
The Surfrider Foundation tested thousands of water samples across the nation, with Imperial Beach in San Diego coming out as the worst.
As part of the group’s survey, they also found that 64 percent of the 567 sites tested had at least one sample with unsafe bacteria levels.
A quarter of the samples came from sites in California, with three beaches in The Golden State among the ten most polluted.
Every sample recovered from Imperial Beach turned up bacteria counts that exceeded the state’s health standard for recreational waters.
More than 100 billion gallons of untreated wastewater have flowed through Mexico ‘s Tijuana River and into the Pacific Ocean, eventually reaching the coastal town
I find this hilarious that the green washing of everything gets exposed for it’s triviality compared to creature comforts. If it was real, they’d actually do something effective.
More than three thousand Olympians are expected to bring portable air-conditioning units to the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris this summer, derailing France’s efforts to go green by not providing AC in the Athletes’ Village, The Washington Post reported Thursday.
The International Olympic Committee’s decision to substitute air-conditioning for a less reliable but more environmentally friendly geothermal cooling system is central to their strategy to cut the carbon footprint of the Paris Games by half, Reuters reported. However, many visiting nations, concerned lack of AC will result in reduced sleep and poor athletic performance, are opting to import portable AC units, according to the Washington Post.
Looking back through history, there have always been doomsday prophets, folk who say the world is coming to an end. Are modern-day activists not just the current version of this?
I look at some of the facts – CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere; humans are responsible for just 3% of CO2; Britain is responsible for just 1% of the world’s CO2 output – and I think “really“? Will us de-carbonising really make a difference to the Earth’s climate?
I have listened to some top scientists who say CO2 does not drive global warming; that CO2 in the atmosphere is a good or vital thing; that many other things, like the Sun and the clouds and the oceans, are more responsible for the Earth’s temperature.
I note that most of the loudest climate activists are socialists and on the Left. Are they not just using this movement to push their dreams of a deindustrialised socialist utopia? And I also note the crossover between green activists and BLM ones, gender ones, pro-Hamas ones, none of whom I like or agree with.
As an amateur psychologist, I know that humans are susceptible to manias. I also know that humans tend to focus on tiny slivers of time and on tiny slivers of geographical place when forming ideas and opinions. We are also extremely malleable and easily fooled, as was demonstrated in 2020 and 2021.
I have looked into the implications of Net Zero. It is incredibly expensive. It will vastly reduce living standards and hinder economic growth. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I know that economic growth has led to higher living standards, which has made people both safer and more environmentally aware.
Net Zero will also lead to significant diminishment of personal freedom, and it even threatens democracy, as people are told they must do certain things and they must not do other things, and they may even be restricted in speaking out on climate matters.
What will be the worst things that will happen if the doomsayers are correct? A rise in temperature? Where? Siberia? Singapore? Stockholm? What is the ideal temperature? For how long? Will this utopia be forever maintained? I’m suspicious of utopias; the communists sought utopias.
If one consequence of climate change is rising sea levels, would it not be better to spend money building more sea defences to protect our land? Like the Dutch did.
It’s a narrative heavily pushed by the Guardian. I dislike the Guardian. I believe it’s been wrong on most issues through my life – socialism, immigration, race, the EU, gender, lockdowns and so on. Probably it’s wrong about climate issues too?
I am suspicious of the amount of money that green activists and subsidised green industries make. And 40 years ago the greenies were saying the Earth was going to get too cold. Much of what they said would happen by now has not happened. Also, I trust ‘experts’ much less now, after they lied about the efficacy of lockdowns, masks and the ‘vaccines’.
I like sunshine. I prefer being warm to being cold. It makes me feel better. It’s more fun. It saves on heating bills. It saves on clothes. It makes people happier. Far few people die of the heat than they do the cold.
On May 16th, 2013, Barack Obama famously tweeted that “97% of Scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Every word of this tweet was a lie. The 97% Consensus figure came from a May 15th, 2013 study by John Cook – which Obama linked to in his tweet. If 97% of scientists really thought “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” that would be quite troubling. But nowhere in the study was anything said about global warming being dangerous.
Additionally, while the 97% figure was widely quoted, the criteria by which Cook achieved his figure was totally lacking in scientific clarity – or honesty. To be counted as affirming the global warming consensus question, scientists only needed to agree that “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent”. That’s it. If, as a scientist, you agreed that human activity had some portion – any portion – of responsibility for global warming you were included in the 97% consensus. We’re shocked the figure wasn’t 100% based on the actual questions.
The reason “the experts” are always “baffled” is because the narratives they are paid to push—from “Covid”, to “safe and effective”, to “anthropogenic climate change”—are not only wrong, but outright lies.
The reason "the experts" are always "baffled" is because the narratives they are paid to push—from "Covid", to "safe and effective", to "anthropogenic climate change"—are not only wrong, but outright lies. pic.twitter.com/prEpKcJEv5
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 21, 2024
Vaccines against cow farts. Throwing money away instead of focusing on the real causes of climate activity other than blaming fake gasses and insignificant human behavior as the answer for everything.
The last time I wrote about cow farts, it was a warning that the Environmental Protection Agency was likely to use methane emissions as an excuse to target our livestock herds in the globalist War on Meat.
Of course, I am frequently covering the topic of vaccines.
Today, I have a chance to blend two of my favorite topics into one post. A start-up company has raised over $26 million to produce a vaccine to reduce methane emissions from cattle.
ArkeaBio’s vaccine will provide an innovative, cost-effective, and scalable solution to reduce the world’s livestock methane emissions, which currently generate the equivalent of 3 Billion Tonnes of CO2 annually and represent 6% of annual Greenhouse gas emissions. “Reducing methane emissions from the agricultural sector is one of the most pressing challenges in today’s fight against climate change,” said Chris Rivest, Chairman of the Board at ArkeaBio and partner at Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
“ArkeaBio’s approach using innovative vaccine technologies will create effective and massively scalable solutions to reduce on-farm methane emissions, leaving them well-positioned to redefine the agricultural landscape in the years to come.”
One of the firms investing is Breakthrough Energy Ventures, which was founded by Bill Gates in 2015. It pitched in $12 million.
The audacity of this guy is endless. They are pretty much saying they are going to waste the cash and solve nothing other than lining their pockets with taxpayers money.
Squeezing the global economy dry to solve a fake problem.
The $13.6 trillion question: how do we pay for the green transition?
The public sector will have to provide about 30 per cent of climate finance globally, and the heat is building on governments to come up with ways of doing that.
…
The bill will be immense. If average global temperature rises are to be limited in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, climate finance globally will need to increase to about $US9 trillion ($13.6 trillion) a year globally by 2030, up from just under $US1.3 trillion in 2021-22, according to a report last year from the Climate Policy Initiative.
…
Former US presidential candidate John Kerry, who stepped down from his role as the US special climate envoy in March, puts the challenge of meeting this bluntly: “We don’t have the money.”
The 80-year-old is now planning to turn his attention to climate finance to prepare for the phaseout of fossil fuels. “We have to put in place more rapidly the funding mechanisms that are going to actually fuel this transition at the pace it needs to be,” he says.
To do that, governments around the world are weighing up options from wealth taxes to levies on shipping. The US is planning to fund the IRA by raising $US300 billion over the decade by requiring large corporations to pay a 15 per cent minimum tax on their profits, as well as through a stock buyback tax, among other measures.
John Kerry Pushes Massive Tax Rises to Meet the $13.6 trillion Climate Finance Challenge
Home prices across the nation are back up near a record high. That makes this a particularly bad time for the Biden administration to have rolled out its new “green” energy mandates, which will add $31,000 to the cost of a new home.
The mandates are being pushed through the Department of Housing and Urban Development and while they technically won’t apply to all homes, all homebuilders will effectively be forced to comply with them.
The Biden administration doesn’t deny this higher upfront cost. It simply claims it’ll pay for itself via lower energy bills. Unfortunately, the break-even point is 90 years.
So if a young couple buys one of these new green energy homes and has a child one year later, the regulatory costs still won’t have paid for themselves in that child’s lifetime, let alone the life of the couple who bought the home.
HUD argues that homebuilders will be able to get tax credits via the Inflation Reduction Act to offset some of these costs, with those savings hopefully passed along to homebuyers. However, this is not a real reduction in costs; it’s merely passing the buck to taxpayers. Instead of a homebuyer’s bearing the full freight of these green energy mandates, some of the cost will be passed on to taxpayers, including renters.
This is just the latest example of how failed public policies are creating a two-tiered society in America, where an entire generation of Americans will likely never be able to afford their own homes.
Debunking another lie told by climate scam artists.
The last time carbon dioxide was as low as today was in the Carboniferous, when the vast Karoo Ice Age lasted 95 million years. CO2 sustains life & provides oxygen for all living things on land & sea. The steady loss of CO2 over millennia is the greatest threat to life on earth. pic.twitter.com/FZAcezCggc
I’ve already posted today that EV’s are not a solution to anything. My wife’s relatives in a Scandinavian country have them, but they continue be on the side of wrong for just about anything. I’ve learned to go against what they choose and I’m usually on the right side of most things. They are proud of their decisions and have no idea that they are so far from the truth.
(ZeroHedge)—Ten years ago this week, we posted one of out most viral stories, highlighting the over-capacity in the auto industry: “Where the World’s Unsold Cars Go To Die,” which highlighted the ‘endgame’ of automakers’ ‘channel stuffing’ efforts to disguise the sudden lack of demand for all the exciting new models that they had forecast would boom to the moon…
Due to China’s overcapacity in production – as it aims to capture a quarter of the European electric vehicle market – the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge are inundated.
You probably need to see it to appreciate the challenges the automobile industry faces in transitioning to electricity. You also need to come here to understand how the Chinese industry’s overcapacity has flooded the European market. That morning, as the sun unexpectedly lit up the maze of highways leading to this remote arm of the port of Antwerp, Belgium, a huge cargo ship from the Norwegian company Höegh Autoliners unloaded thousands of cars at one of the terminals of International Car Operators (ICO), a subsidiary of the Japanese group Nippon Yusen Kaisha.
Imported vehicles are seriously piling up at European ports, turning them into “car parks.” Automakers are distributors are struggling with a slowdown in car sales as well as logistical bottlenecks that make it hard to alleviate the buildup of new, unsold vehicles.
Some Chinese brand EVs had been sitting in European ports for up to 18 months, while some ports had asked importers to provide proof of onward transport, according to industry executives. One car logistics expert said many of the unloaded vehicles were simply staying in the ports until they were sold to distributors or end users.
“It’s chaos,” said another person who had been briefed on the situation.
If you search the site for EVs or Electric Vehicles, you’ll find every reason not to buy one, and thankfully, we’re not the only ones pointing it out. EV sales are lousy in the US, which has to be why Democrat states are looking to ban gas-powered cars.
They want you on an EV bus, a bicycle, walking, or better yet – living on an urban heat island confined to quarters. If you live under that yoke, here’s a reminder of why you need to make a change politically – if you still can.
EVs have a short shelf life compared to other vehicles. Whatever the battery warranty is, that’s it. It’s over. No one is going to buy it used; it is almost worthless as a trade-in. Given how much shorter this life span can be compared to a more affordable combustion engine vehicle (assuming you didn’t crash your EV and have to scrap it sooner), you will need another car. If you are an EV-tard, that’ll mean another whole-vehicle carbon footprint before its time and a repeat of what you just went through.
If you buy a used EV and the car is over five years old (Don’t do it!), You can expect to spend two to three times its value to replace the battery pack, which has been losing range rapidly since you bought it. You might get a few years out of it.
In other words, never buy a used EV. Just don’t do it. Here’s an example of the problem and why internal combustion engine vehicles are irreplaceable (disregarding the reality that EV trucks, tractors, and other heavy equipment will never be EV on this technology)
It’s a cult purchase for those who are good sheep or socialists that think somehow they are helping the environment while young children are digging up Cobalt for their batteries half way around the world.
Plus, the sound of a V-8 or a V-12 is a dick hardener for those of us who have a pair and know how a car should sound.
If you follow patterns like I do, you’ll recognize this to be like Covid, made up lies by the government to control citizens and launder money.
They count on the gullibility and under education of a large portion of the population, then spring a made up story on them. All they while, they are doing it in the name of the benefit of the population. I’ve got news for you, when they say this, it only benefits them.
Read and weep:
“Climate change” is tied as the last priority for Americans, a recent Gallup poll found, marking another year that the issue remains the least important priority.
Global warming is now dubbed “climate change.”
Because the earth does not consistently warm, they changed the term to “climate change,” which justifies their claims regardless of whether the earth warms or cools.
GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX
(Data source: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Credit: NASA/GISS)
Gallup found it is tied for the nation’s last priority:
It goes on to talk about nature as a religion, other words for worshiping the creation instead of the creator. It’s just more lies from the same source that started with the apple and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Even before our first surface stations report in 2009, The Heartland Institute led the way in reporting on problems with the surface temperature record.
We have highlighted how the surface station record did not correspond to the temperatures recorded by global satellites and weather balloons, two alternative temperature data sources whose data sets closely track each other. Heartland has repeatedly exposed instances in both the United States and abroad where official agencies tamper with past temperature data at pristine stations, adjusting it to appear cooler than what was actually recorded, while adjusting recent temperatures upward. We were all over the adjustments made by corrupt NOAA scientists in 2015 before the Paris climate treaty negotiations—mixing data from unbiased ocean buoys with heat-biased temperature measurements taken from ships’ engine water intake inlets, which made it appear the ocean was suddenly warming faster than before.
Also, first, foremost, and most forcefully, we independently documented the serious problems with the official surface temperature record arising from the fact that the vast majority of temperature stations are poorly sited. Stations fail NOAA’s own standards for quality, unbiased stations in reporting temperatures skewed by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
My colleague, award-winning meteorologist Anthony Watts, in 2009, and then again, as a follow-up, in 2022, detailed with station location data and photographic evidence the problematic surfaces stations. Stations providing official data that were sited in locations where surrounding surfaces, structures, and equipment radiated stored heat or emitted heat directly biasing or driving the recorded temperatures higher than were recorded at stations in the same region, uncompromised by the well-known UHI (that is widely ignored by alarmists and official government agencies).
Of the sampling of hundreds of stations across the country Watts and his volunteer team documented in 2009, Watts wrote:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements …
Since the 1970s, we’ve been told CO2 is the villain that causes most climate change. NOAA obliterated that with a graph.
“The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is comparable to around 4.3 million years ago when sea level was about 75 ft higher than today, the average temp was 7 degrees F higher than in pre-industrial times, & large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra,” NOAA reports.
So, there were no people, the sea level was higher, and there were forests on the now-frozen tundra.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, the amount due to humans is 0.0012%.
This amount of CO2 will NEVER heat the Earth, EVER.
According to the geological record, there is no relationship between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature, even when 15x today's CO2 level: pic.twitter.com/Z9vMDpNlyv
If someone wished to destroy America, could he do anything more catastrophic than what we currently see and hear each day? What would an existential enemy do that we have not already done to ourselves?
Here are eleven now familiar steps to civilizational destruction:
1) Wipe out a 2,000 mile border. Allow 10-million foreign nationals to enter unlawfully. Have no audit of any; nullify all federal immigration laws. Let toxic drugs in that kill 100,000 Americans a year. Give free support for those millions who broke the law. Smear any objectors as racists and xenophobes.
2) Run up $35 trillion in national debt. Keep adding $1 trillion to it each 100 days. Defame anyone wishing to cut wild spending as cruel and inhumane.
AP Award-Winning Photograph of murdered rape victim beingtransported to Gaza for purposes of necrophilia.
3). Appease or subsidize enemies like Iran and China. Demonize allies like Israel. Allow terrorists to attack Americans without response. See Islam as either similar or superior to Christianity. Make amends to leftist governments for supposedly past toxic American international behavior. Follow the lead of international agencies like the UN, ICC, and WHO to atone forpast American neocolonial and imperialist behavior. Recede to second-tier international status, befitting American decline.
4) In a multiracial democracy, redefine identity only as one’s tribal affiliation. Ensure each identity group rivals the other for victimhood and the state spoils it confers. Redefine all political issues by race and sex oppressors and oppressed. Destroy all meritocratic standards of admission, retention, promotion, and commendation.
5) Redefine violent crime as understandable, cry-of-the-heart expressions of social justice. Ensure no bail and same-day release for arrested, repeat violent felons. Empathize with the violent killer and rapist; ignore their victims, especially if slain police-officers.
6). Emasculate the military by using non-meritocratic standards of race, gender, and sexual orientation to determine promotion and commendation. Deliberately smear as racists and insurrectionists the largest demographic in the military who in recent wars died at twice their numbers in the population—so that they leave or never join the military. Encourage retired high officers to slander their Commander-in-Chief. Cut the defense budget. Stop producing sufficient weapons, but leave billions of dollars’ worth of arms to terrorists.
7) Reinvent the justice system to indict, bankrupt, convict, jail and eliminate political opponents. Use ballot removal, impeachment, civil suits, and state and federal indictments rather than elections to defeat an opponent. Mob the homes of non-compliant Supreme Court Justices, attack them personally by name.
8) Encourage the fusion of the bureaucratic state with the electric media to form a powerful force for political audit, surveillance, censorship, and coercion. Marry the FBI to Silicon Valley and hire its contractors to warp the news and hound supposed enemies of the people.
9.) Make war on affordable gasoline and natural gas. Substitute inefficient, unreliable, and expensive wind and solar power, even as energy prices bankrupt the middle class.
10.) Marry late, but preferably not at all. Consider males toxic, especially boys. Have no children, or as few as possible. Otherwise, assure children they are entitled, and must be sheltered. Raise them to have grievances against past generations and current norms.
11.) Turn world-class universities into indoctrination centers. Suspend the Bill of Rights on campuses. Train youth to graduate despising their own culture and civilization. Recruit foreign students from hostile nations to subsidize campus commissarbloat. Replace the curriculum with therapeutic propaganda. Ban the SAT/ACT and do not evaluate high school GPAs. Ensure merit does not select the student body. Charge tuition higher than the rate of inflation. Bill the government when students default on their loans.
So why are those controlling Biden using him to advance much of such a destructive agenda that would end America as we know it?
1) They are delusional and think their socialist and globalist agendas are working and will save us.
2) They are raging nihilists who do not like the U.S. and deliberately want it destroyed as a service to the world. A ruined U.S. is preferable to a strong America.
3) They are Jacobin revolutionaries who are intentionally erasing the old United States as a prerequisite for creating an entirely new America that will arise from the ashes with no trace or even memory of its past.
4) They have no agenda. They are aimless fools, and utter incompetents. These bunglers just wing it day-to-day, in response to what their radical media, academic, and political masters dictate is necessary for them to retain power. They have no idea of the damage they are doing.
E.V.s – even the best ones – have higher maintenance and insurance costs than regular gasoline-powered vehicles, for a number of reasons: more expensive parts, more accidents, fewer qualified mechanics.
E.V.s – even the best ones – take much longer to recharge than regular gasoline-powered vehicles. A fill-up takes two to five minutes; a charge takes fifteen minutes (if all the stars align), but can take much longer, even hours, and that’s if you can find a working charging station when you need one.
E.V.s — even the best ones — pose a higher risk of being totaled by insurance companies, either after accidents, or after all the odd circumstances that cause spontaneous combustion. E.V. fires have destroyed homes, garages, even cargo ships. The battery is usually irreparable. As a result, insurance companies are increasingly determining that the damage threshold between “repair it” and “scrap it” is a lot lower for E.V.s than for other vehicles.
All this isn’t to say that E.V.s shouldn’t be a part of the mix, but they clearly ought to be viewed as another niche segment, at just a few percent, like luxury cars and convertibles….
Though windmills and solar panels get the headlines, the big energy topic in Washington is electric transmission. Whether it is Congress’s newfound interest in permitting reform, the U.S. Department of Energy’s new Grid Deployment Office, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) upcoming final rule on transmission planning and cost allocation, how to build and pay for long-range transmission to connect generators to customers is considered the final piece in the quest to meet net-zero goals.
Like so many issues in Washington, the need for more transmission lines is accepted without question and the costs are not considered. But for American consumers, especially low-income and elderly, as well as small businesses and energy intense manufacturers, building new transmission lines could result in much higher monthly bills and leave them on the hook for stranded assets.
Traditionally, high-voltage transmission lines, consisting of 150-foot lattice towers crossing the landscape for hundreds of miles, were planned for by local utilities to meet their customers’ energy needs and subject to approval by state public utility commissions. But public policy goals to promote renewables are changing how the grid is being developed.
Over the past few years, States established renewable energy mandates; Congress enacted over $1 trillion in taxpayer subsidies for renewable energy; and President Biden issued an executive order setting net-zero goals for electricity generation by 2035. To fulfill these policies, the grid needs new high-voltage transmission lines—lots of them—and they will be expensive.
According to the “Net-Zero America” analysis published by Princeton researchers, achieving net zero goals with 100% wind and solar by 2050 will require an additional $3.5 trillion in capital spending for new transmission lines. If net-zero goals are pursued with a mix of renewables, nuclear, and natural gas generation (which may include carbon capture), then a significant portion of this transmission investment would be unnecessary. Furthermore, a balanced resource mix of dispatchable and renewable resources would enhance grid reliability without overbuilding renewables or transmission.
The truth had to come out sometime. The money grubbing climatards free spending might be coming to a slow down. I doubt they’ll ever stop because of greed.
In an attempt to save the world from “climate change,” the United States government is spending trillions of dollars on multiple projects that rely on dishonest marketing tactics, money laundering schemes, insider trading and crony capitalism. At the root of the climate crisis hysteria is data FRAUD, and scientists around the world are pushing back against the climate change narrative.
Scientists detect flaws in the collection of global temperature data
Governments around the world are combating a fictional problem that is blown completely out of proportion when compared to actual issues that people face. To make matters worse, the Biden regime adheres to dogma and relies on its most recent National Climate Assessment report to argue that human activities are accelerating global warming. The policies coming out of D.C seek to restrict, control or modulate human activities at scale to save the planet from temperatures changes that are out of our control anyway.
A 2022 study found that electric vehicles (EVs) which left-leaning governments in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere are pushing on the population, pollute at a rate far higher than their gasoline or diesel-powered counterparts.
The 2022 study from the U.K.-based Emissions Analytics group found that during a 1,000 mile journey, EVs release 1,850 times more pollutants into the surrounding environment than gas-powered vehicles, due to the heavier weight which eats through tires.
While many think of emissions from exhaust, tire wear plays a significant role in emitting pollutants. The synthetic rubber used to create tires include certain chemicals that get released into the air, and because EVs are significantly heavier than conventional cars due to massive lithium batteries.
Overall, EVs weigh about 30 percent more than gas-powered vehicles, and cost thousands more to make and buy. These issues are in addition to the fact that they are not suitable in colder climates (such as Canada and the northern U.S.), offer poor range and long charging times (especially in cold weather), and have batteries that take tremendous resources to make and are hard to recycle.
Every time I get reminded to recycle, I show articles like this and remind the other person that it is socialist behavior and how bad it is for our health. Since I’m related by marriage to a bunch of socialists in Scandinavia, it sort of stops them from their favorite sport, trashing America.
Well, here are the facts, it doesn’t work and it’s been a first class hoax since inception.
The industry knew decades ago that recycling was never viable in the long term, and now we’re all being poisoned by its product.
Hardly any plastics can be recycled. You’d be forgiven for not knowing that, given how much messaging Americans receive about the convenience of recycling old bottles and food containers—from the weekly curbside collections to the “chasing arrows” markings on food and beverage packaging. But here’s the reality: Between 1990 and 2015, some 90 percent of plastics either ended up in a landfill, were burned, or leaked into the environment. Another recent study estimates that just 5 to 6 percent are successfully recycled.
While those numbers may surprise you, these sorts of statistics aren’t news to the companies that produce plastics. For more than 30 years, the industry knew precisely how impractical it is to recycle them, according to a new report from the Center for Climate Integrity. A trade association called the Vinyl Institute concluded in a 1986 report that “recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution” to plastics, as it merely prolongs the time until an item is disposed of.” Still, facing public backlash over the growing amount of plastics being incinerated and piling up in landfills, manufacturers and their lobbyists sold recycling as an easy solution, warding off potential legislation to ban or limit plastics.
This, of course, has echoes of Big Tobacco and Big Oil, both of which withheld crucial information from the public for decades—causing untold damage to human health and the planet, respectively. Both industries are payingdearly for it. Is Big Plastic due for a similar reckoning?
In some sense, a reckoning is already happening—just not (yet) because of the industry’s decades of alleged deception, disastrous environmental justice record, and mass proliferation of microplastics into human bloodstreams. At the beginning of this year, S&P Global found that the petrochemicals industry—responsible for producing the suite of typically oil- and gas-derived compounds known as plastics, as well as pesticides and industrial chemicals—faces uncertain prospects over the coming years. “Overall, global petrochemicals prices appear to have reached a peak in October and are forecast to grind lower into early-2024 following energy and feedstock prices lower,” the consultancy found, forecasting a “supply-drive surplus” through 2026.
Researchers tested plastic pellets from recycling plants in 13 different plants across the world. They found 491 readily identifiable organic compounds, with a further 170 tentatively identified. As you can see from the table below, they span a wide variety of chemical classes.
Color us not surprised, but another one of the Biden administration’s “visions” for forcing people to own electric vehicles isn’t working out exactly as planned.
This time it deals with supply chain logistics, with Bloomberg reporting this week that in the year and a half since passing the Inflation Reduction Act, automakers are finding out the hard way that the rigorous criteria for manufacturing batteries using materials from the United States and its free-trade allies could render them cost-inefficient compared to global competitors.
Companies like Tesla are instead taking advantage of a temporary shift in the rules to stock up with cheaper batteries from countries like China.
The Biden administration’s new rules will all but cut out China from the supply chain, however, which will make it tougher to find affordable metal suppliers.
This, in turn, will threaten President Biden’s goal to boost the domestic electric vehicle market. Bloomberg writes that mining companies and labor unions insist that without curtailing the influx of cheaper, Chinese-subsidized materials, the U.S. can’t develop a competitive EV market.
Meanwhile, the higher costs are driving automakers away from EVs. And as battery material requirements are set to double by 2027, fulfilling these mandates will be increasingly difficult, putting Biden’s ambitious EV strategy at risk.
Mercedes-Benz on Thursday walked back plans to have an all-electric line-up by 2030 as consumers decline to adopt electric vehicles (EV) at the rate automakers expected.
The company has changed its expectations to have only 50% of its sales be EVs by 2030, announcing that it will be updating its current line-up featuring the internal combustion engine into the next decade, according to Mercedes-Benz in its fourth quarter report. EV sales grew 21% year-over-year in 2023, but total car sales remained relatively the same, bucking hopes that EVs would fuel growth as the automaker pushes electric models.
Give me a deep throated V-8 or the scream of a V-12 ICE any day.
I worked in this industry and it’s been one lie after another since it began
Blacks, women and greens discover the party used them like Kleenex
In a totalitarian government, everyone is a Kleenex. Once you serve your purpose, you are disposable. Oh, the ruler may keep you around for a while, but sooner or later, everyone gets thrown away.
Democrats are showing their supporters just how disposable they are. In recent weeks, Biden has betrayed black people, women and others.
Let’s start with black people who provide one-fourth of the votes Democrats receive. That’s a lot of votes and a lot of clout. For decades, Democrats took them for granted but about 20 years ago, Democrats adopted a DEI strategy that has led to a surge of black mayors across the country and of course, Barack Obama.
All was good except Democrats sought to expand their base by opening the borders to gangbangers, drug cartels, Red China’s spies, terrorists and a few people seeking freedom and welfare. Democrats worked to let them in and sign them up.
Another group tossed overboard are women. Having cornered the market on feminists, Democrats and their LGBT subsidiary now are shunning them, dismissing them as TERFs, subhumans with a bonus hole instead of a vagina, and birthing persons instead of moms. Justice KJB refused to define a woman for fear of LGBT backlash.
Democrats now shun celebrities who dare speak out for women’s rights. Out magazine chastised Martina Navratilova for opposing having men compete in girls sports — 40 years after she dared to come out as a lesbian.
Our net zero lesson of the day is from the U.K. but it applies universally. It’s increasingly difficult for Biden and the EU to hide the true costs of net zero mandates.
Britain Boiler Tax Scandal
In the latest green fiasco, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak created a quota system that would require manufacturers to sell more heat pumps to households.
Instead of meekly complying with the regulation as happens with Biden administration EPA announcements, manufacturers let consumers know they would have to pay up whether they installed the heat pumps or not.
Manufacturers correctly dubbed the scheme a “boiler tax” and consumer outrage killed the regulation.
Most English households use natural gas to fuel the cabinet-sized boilers that provide central heating and hot water, and forcing them to adopt electric heat pumps (ultimately powered by renewable energy) is part of the government’s net-zero agenda.
An earlier proposal to ban gas-boiler sales after 2035 proved politically toxic as households balked at the cost of replacing their reliable natural-gas boilers with more expensive, untested heat pumps. So politicians resorted to subterfuge, imposing a sales quota on manufacturers. Starting in April, heat pumps would have to replace 4% of annual boiler sales or companies would pay a £3,000 fine for each “excess” natural-gas boiler they sold.
Worcester Bosch, Britain’s leading manufacturer, warned last year that the proposed quota would add up to £300 ($376) to the cost of natural-gas boilers, which retail for £1,000 and up.
A novelty is that industry fought back against the mandate. Manufacturers were transparent about passing the cost of the heat-pump fines to consumers, calling it a “boiler tax.” Mr. Sunak’s government tried to blame the companies for anticompetitive behavior. But when voters realized they’d be stuck paying for heat pumps even if they didn’t buy them, it was game over for the rule.
Biden’s Wind Tax
In the US, manufacturers have yet to stand up to idiotic Biden regulations, mostly because they have received tax incentives that hide the true costs.
When delta smelt were listed as a threatened species, the biggest cause of their population decline was identified as reduced freshwater flow into the estuary. This makes the water saltier, which leads to dehydration. This is similar to the reason humans shouldn’t drink saltwater when they’re thirsty. Because of this, a recovery plan was made that mandated increased freshwater flow for the smelt, which meant less water for agriculture.
They were willing to cause environmental damage to agriculture for a relatively unremarkable fish, all for political reasons.
Record Rain
The net is a water shortage. It was blamed on global warming, but that just shows the level of lowness they will go to in California for political gain.
Now, with the flooding that happened yesterday, there is an abundance of water, but since it’s regulated against the farmers, it will be diverted away and crops will likely suffer later in the year.
An intense, long-lasting atmospheric river is moving across California — bringing widespread power outages and the potential for mudslides and life-threatening flooding as it dumps heavy rain and snow. Follow our live coverage here. This is what’s happening:
• Rare high flood risk persists: A firehose of rain has parked over Southern California, including Los Angeles, worsening the high risk of flooding throughout Monday. Torrential rainfall and “locally catastrophic” flooding is possible in Orange County through Tuesday, according to the National Weather Service office in San Diego.
In the end, climate change will be blamed for what was government mismanagement and stupidity.
It’s just another step in the climate staircase that is built on government regulations. In fact, if they’d stop laundering money through yet another scare tactic to distract the population, there would be no water shortage since nature took care of it already.
Unfortunately, California is the canary in the coal mines of the US. This craziness needs to be stomped out and put to death before it fully infects the rest of the country.
Cities coast-to-coast grappling with broken-down e-buses that cannot be fixed ..
Between the federal government, states and municipalities, untold billions in taxpayer dollars have been spent adding electric buses to transit fleets across the U.S. in an effort to reduce carbon emissions.
However, cities from coast-to-coast are grappling with broken-down e-buses that cannot be fixed, are too expensive to fix, or they have scrapped their electric fleets altogether.
Officials in Asheville, North Carolina, recently expressed frustration that three of the five e-buses the city purchased for millions in 2018 are now sitting idle due to a combination of software issues, mechanical problems and an inability to obtain replacement parts.
Earlier this month, The Denver Gazette reported two of the four e-buses Colorado Springs’ Mountain Metropolitan Transit acquired in 2021 are not running. They cost $1.2 million a piece, mostly paid for by government grants.
Part of the problem is the manufacturer of the buses, Proterra, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August. The company, founded in 2004, rose to become the largest e-bus company in the U.S., representing nearly 40% of the market prior to going belly-up.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm sat on Proterra’s board until she joined the Biden administration
For the past 35 years, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned us that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2), are causing dangerous global warming. This myth is blindly accepted — even by many of my science colleagues who know virtually nothing about climate. As a scientist, my purpose here is to help expose this fairy tale.
The global warming story is not a benign fantasy. It is seriously damaging Western economies. In January 2021, the White House ridiculously declared that “climate change is the most serious existential threat to humanity.” From there, America went from energy independence back to energy dependence. Another consequence has been the appearance of numerous companies whose goal is to “sequester CO2” as well as “sequester carbon” from our atmosphere. However, this so-called “solution” is scientifically impossible. Life on Earth is based on carbon! CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant!
Generations have been brainwashed for decades into believing this imaginary “climate crisis,” from kindergarten through college, and in mainstream media and social media. Indoctrinated young teachers feel comfortable teaching this misinformation to students. Dishonest climate scientists feel justified in spreading disinformation because they need governmental support for salaries and research.
The evidence contradicting the climate apocalypse is vast. Some comes from analysis of Greenland and Antarctica ice, in which air trapped at various depths reveals CO2 levels of past climate. Proxy records from marine sediment, dust (from erosion, wind-blown deposition of sediments), and ice cores provide a record of past sea levels, ice volume, seawater temperature, and global atmospheric temperatures.
From his seminal work while a prisoner of war during WWI, Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch explained how climate is influenced by variations in the Earth’s asymmetric orbit, axial tilt, and rotational wobble — each going through cycles lasting as long as 120,000 years.
It is widely recognized that Glacial Periods of about 95,000 years, interspersed with Interglacial Periods of approximately 25,000 years, correspond with Milankovitch Cycles. Multiple incursions of glaciers occurred during the Pleistocene, an epoch lasting from about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago, when Earth’s last Glacial Period ended. Around 24,000 years ago, present-day Lake Erie was covered with ice a mile thick.
Within each Interglacial Period, there’ve been warming periods, or “Mini-Summers.” For example, within the current Holocene Interglacial, there have been warmer periods known as the Minoan (1500–1200 B.C.), Roman (250 B.C.–A.D. 400), and Medieval (A.D. 900–1300). Our Modern Warming Period began with the waning of the Little Ice Age (1300–1850). Today’s Mini-Summer is colder so far than all previous Mini-Summers of the last 8,500 years.
How did CO2 get blamed for global warming? French physicist Joseph Fourier (1820s) proposed that energy from sunlight must be balanced by energy radiated back into space. Irish physicist John Tyndall (1850s) performed laboratory experiments on “greenhouse gases” (GHGs), including water vapor; he proposed that CO2 elicited an important effect on temperature. However, it’s impossible to do appropriate experiments — unless the roof of your laboratory is at least six miles high. Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1896) proposed that “warming is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration.” Columbia University geochemist Wallace Broecker (1975) and Columbia University adjunct professor James Hansen (1981) wrote oft-cited articles in Science magazine, both overstating the perils of CO2 causing dangerous global warming — without providing scientific proof.
Most of Earth’s energy comes from the sun. Absorption of sunlight causes molecules of objects or surfaces to vibrate faster, increasing their temperature. This energy is then re-radiated by land and oceans as longwave, infrared radiation (heat). Princeton University physicist Will Happer defines a GHG as that which absorbs negligible incoming sunlight but captures a substantial fraction of thermal radiation as it is re-radiated from Earth’s surface and atmospheric GHGs back into space.
The gases of nitrogen, oxygen and argon — constituting 78%, 21%, and 0.93%, respectively, of the atmosphere — show negligible absorption of thermal radiation and therefore are not GHGs. Important GHGs include water (as high as 7% in humid tropics and as little as 1% in frigid climates), CO2 (0.042%, or 420 parts per million [ppm] by volume), methane (0.00017%), and nitrous oxide (0.0000334%, or 334 ppm).Water vapor (clouds) has at least a hundred times greater warming effect on Earth’s temperature than all other GHGs combined.
As atmospheric CO2 increases, its GHG effect decreases: CO2’s warming effect is 1.5°C between zero and 20 ppm, 0.3°C between 20 and 40 ppm, and 0.15°C between 40 and 60 ppm. Every doubling of atmospheric CO2 from today’s levels decreases radiation back into space by a mere 1%. For most of the past 800,000 years, Earth’s atmospheric CO2 has ranged between about 180 ppm and 320 ppm; below 150 ppm, Earth’s plants could not exist, and all life would be extinguished.
Today’s global atmospheric CO2 levels are ~420 ppm. Even at these levels, plants are “partially CO2-starved.” In fact, standard procedures for commercial greenhouse growers include elevating CO2 to 800–1200 ppm; this enhances growth and crop yield ~20–50%. As shown by satellite since 1978, increased atmospheric CO2 has helped “green” the Earth by more than 15 percent, substantially enhancing crop production.
If global atmospheric CO2 was ~280 ppm in 1750, and it’s ~420 ppm today, what’s the source of this 140-ppm increase? Scientists estimate that human-associated industrial emissions might have contributed 135 ppm — with “natural causes” accounting for the remaining 5 ppm.
In Earth’s history, the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 (6,000–9,000 ppm) occurred about 550–450 million years ago, which caused plant life to flourish. CO2 levels in older nuclear submarines routinely operated at 7,000 ppm, whereas newer subs keep CO2 in the 2,000- to 5,000-ppm range. Meanwhile, ice core data over the last 800,000 years show no correlation between global warming or cooling cycles and atmospheric CO2 levels.
CO2 in our lungs reaches 40,000–50,000 ppm, which induces us to take our next breath. Each human exhales about 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day, which means Earth’s 8 billion people produce daily 18.4 billion pounds of CO2. But humans represent only 1/40 of all CO2-excreting life on Earth. Multiplying 18.4 billion pounds by 40 gives us 736 billion pounds of CO2 per day. This approximates the overall CO2 excreted by the total animal and fungal biomass on the planet.
Daily emissions from worldwide industry in 2020 were estimated to be 16 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents. If one metric ton is 2,200 pounds, then “total industrial emissions” amount to 35,200,000,000 (35.2 billion) pounds of CO2 per day. This means that the entire animal and fungal biomass (736 billion pounds) puts out more than 20 times as much CO2 as all industrial emissions (35.2 billion pounds)!
Can any clear-thinking person comprehend the facts above and still create a company with idiotic plans to “sequester CO2” or “sequester carbon”? Scientifically, “net zero” and “carbon footprint” are meaningless terms. There is no “climate crisis.”
If you try to find these facts on the web, good luck! Out of every 10 hits on any climate topic, you’ll be lucky to find one or two sites with truthful scientific data.
The door of a nearby classroom displays a poster of Abraham Lincoln with the caption: “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.” It is advice that our 16th president surely would have offered — had he lived to see the rise of this global warming quasi-religion.
Burn baby burn, disco inferno. The arctic freeze proves that they can’t hold a charge in the cold. Ford lost 4.4 billion on EV production because no one wanted them, or could afford them.
Now, we know why we can’t afford to own them.
Electric vehicles (EVs) appear to have caused multiple fires at manufacturing factories in recent months, sparking a reminder about EV safety.
Most recently, the Detroit Fire Department responded to a three-alarm fire involving lithium-ion batteries at General Motors’ Factory Zero last month, according to Detroit Free Press.
“Our initial investigation indicates a forklift accidentally punctured a container with battery materials, causing the fire,” Tara Stewart Kuhnen, GM spokeswoman, said in an email Wednesday.
The newspaper also reported another fire at the property in October that involved an autonomous electric car. It states the fire department’s report mentions a battery fire.
However, Kuhnen told the newspaper that a non-battery-related component caused the second fire.
Outside Detroit, the Auburn Hills Fire Department responded to a November fire at Chrysler’s Tech Center.
Multiple media reports say Chrysler’s fire involved an EV as well.
Interestingly, it turns out Big Government has no interest in the carbon footprint of any of the politically connected. This report about the US State Department not bothering to calculate carbon emissions despite an order to do so was published this summer.
The State Department didn’t keep tabs on the carbon pollution associated with flying hundreds of federal officials to the last two global climate summits, the Government Accountability Office said in a report made public Thursday.
Failing to do so ran afoul of a 2021 executive order by President Joe Biden that directed agencies to track the greenhouse gas emissions their operations produce, including official air travel, GAO said.
The report was requested by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who have all criticized the administration’s climate policies.
“Americans are tired of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who don’t practice what they preach when it comes to protecting the environment,” Capito said in an email to POLITICO’s E&E News.
It will be interesting to see how many other challengers Kerry and the rest of the billionaire class at Davos experience in this year’s session.
In his speech at Davos, Kerry indicates he is clearly worried about the climate scam being dismantled if former President Donald Trump gets reelected. He assures everyone that “the marketplace” has been so saturated with climate nonsense that Trump won’t be able to hit the reverse button.
Heating homes this winter using natural gas is estimated to cut down energy costs by more than 40 percent compared to electricity, according to a recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Blue flames rise from the burner of a natural gas stove in Orange, Calif., June 11, 2003. (David McNew/Getty Images)
Households using electricity to heat homes are projected to pay $1,063 on average between November and March, according to a Nov. 7 winter fuels outlook report by the EIA. In comparison, households using natural gas are only expected to shell out $601.
Region-wise, the biggest difference is in the Midwest, where electric heating is expected to cost $1,213—more than double the gas cost of $581. In the Northeast, gas heating is projected to be cheaper by $704, in the South by $507, and in the West by $417.
Natural gas heating is also cheaper compared to other alternative energy sources such as propane and heating oil, which are expected to cost $1,343 and $1,851 respectively.
High heating costs borne by households using electricity come as the Biden administration is pushing an electrification agenda.
The administration is already imposing several restrictions on the use of gas-powered appliances. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced new efficiency standards for residential gas furnaces, pool pumps, battery chargers, dehumidifiers, ceiling fans, incandescent light bulbs, and gas stoves that would severely curtail their use.
Secondly, the Biden administration is offering rebates on the use of electric appliances in homes. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act set aside $8.8 billion in rebates for home energy efficiency and electrification projects.
In a June 2 interview with The Epoch Times, O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, said the Biden administration’s push for electrification of home appliances is bad news for Americans.
“That will make it so that nearly the majority of the current products on the market don’t meet the standards and have to be redesigned or removed from the market,” he said.
“Everyday things that people actually want are going to get more expensive or disappear, and the products that will be available will be more expensive but not better. People are going to wonder why life is worse.”
If I didn’t need any more proof that the Climate crap we get is a scam, there’s the following. It’s just a scare tactic to grift money out of people dumb enough to give it, in this case Bloomberg, SMH. It’s just another wedge issue from those trying to distract us from the abject failure of the current administration.
As one digests Rupert Darwall’s latest report for the RealClear Foundation, the well-known quote from Spanish philosopher George Santayana might ring through the mind: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Anyone looking to combat the activists pushing a ‘net zero’ agenda here in the U.S. would be wise to read Darwall’s piece, entitled “The Folly of Climate Leadership.”
The analysis tells the story of Great Britain heeding the cries for decarbonization, starting when Parliament wrote an 80% decrease in emissions target into law in 2008. They raised it to 100% – or “net zero” – in 2019. The results have clearly been catastrophic.
Since decarbonization efforts commenced, Britain’s economy has grown at half the rate as it did from 1990-2008. According to a research study from noted British economic historian Nicholas Crafts, that’s the second-worst period of British peacetime growth since 1780.
In addition to the economic malaise, British energy prices have skyrocketed, and Britons are now concerned with how to survive the effect of those costs on their wallets, as they look to heat and power their homes and businesses, travel for work and pleasure and live life as best they can.
The differences between British energy costs and those here in the U.S. are staggering: Britons paid an average of $228 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity generated from coal in 2022, whereas Americans paid an average of $27 per MWh. For natural gas, 2022 saw Britons paying $251 per MWh, versus American consumers averaging $61 per MWh for their power.
Darwall’s report also highlights the effects of unchecked and anti-market driven government investment in ‘green’ energy on grid reliability, as intermittent production from wind and solar – coupled with a lack of utility-grade energy storage – dropped electricity generated per gigawatt of capacity falling 28% since 2009.
The same arguments that have crippled Britain’s economy are now being used by the Biden Administration here at home, with zealots in Cabinet-level positions – including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, and EPA Director Michael Regan – pushing the message from their bully pulpits.
The recent – and completely misnamed – Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress provided the zealots with nearly $400 billion to dole out to supportive organizations and start-ups to jump-start our nation’s push for ‘net zero.’ Those dollars – doled out with few oversights or performance metrics attached in many cases – have produced very few wins in the last year, unless a win is measured in keeping political cronies happy and rich.
Consider: wind energy projects in Nebraska, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey were scrapped last year, even after untold millions of federal dollars went to their developers. Over 100 solar companies went bankrupt, and solar projects from California to Florida were shuttered in the middle of their development. Battery storage – a key component to offsetting the intermittency of wind and solar – also saw projects stalled, along with at least one lawsuit filed against a storage company when its solution failed.
Despite the perils of ‘green’ energy dependence shown throughout Europe, the eco-left continues to double down on ridding America of traditional energy sources. Supporting those efforts are ideologue billionaires, who continue to fund net-zero initiatives.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has given well over $1 billion of his personal wealth to the Sierra Club to fund its “Beyond Coal” and “Beyond Carbon” campaigns. Designed to rid the U.S. of every coal-fired power plant by 2030, the Sierra Club/Bloomberg partnership has succeeded in shutting down nearly two-thirds of the plants to-date, with most of the remaining in rural locations, including my home state of Alaska, where alternatives to existing coal plants in the state’s interior don’t readily exist. Without coal, countless Alaskans would have their livelihoods – and very lives – threatened during our long, dark and sub-zero-temperature winters.
With activists entrenched in government bureaucracy, zealots running government agencies and rich men (and women) funding these efforts, only those educated in historical failures of decarbonization – and willing to stand up and fight back against the climate warriors – stand a chance of helping stem the attacks. Darwall’s study should be required reading for anyone looking to build a fortress in their state against job-killing, family-harming decarbonization efforts.
Cause of Climate Change? It Isn’t Carbon Dioxide, Expert Says:
The Earth’s rotation around the sun affects the planet’s temperature, says Soon, a visiting fellow on the Science Advisory Committee of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Glaciers, for example, “melted away because the sun started to get … brighter and provided more solar energy to the climate system,” according to Soon.
Throughout his career, Soon, a former researcher with the Center for Astrophysics-Harvard & Smithsonian, says he has sought to pursue the facts surrounding shifts in the climate because “science is not about belief.”
“Science is about data,” he said.
Many people think that it is “rising carbon dioxide that is the main factor … that affects climate change, and that is wholly untrue,” Soon says. “That is such a distorted view that I think it needs to be corrected.”
Someone should shut up Kerry and Biden also. It would stop the waste of money (laundering) on this, but then it doesn’t fit the climate narrative does it.
The bullshit that is spewed from Washington, the current White House, the MSM, anyone connected to Covid and the upcoming elections, so we need to know how to figure out the truth. If you don’t want to read, the answer is usually the opposite of whatever they are trying.
If they are accusing someone of something, it is what they are doing.
The current status quo on racism for example is that only white, conservative, Christian, republican men are racist and/or can be discriminated against.
For the entire time since the Civil war, it has been the democrats, the MSM and the woke who mostly are responsible for racism and discrimination. We had almost put racial identity politics behind us until Obama and Holder divided the nation.
It makes us cringe when we hear black Americans praise Lyndon B. Johnson and talk about how he passed the Civil Rights Act and signed it into law. He was a known racist. The crazy thing is, some sources also attribute this quote to Johnson: “We will have those n-word’s voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” So while he was signing the Civil Rights Act into law with one hand, he was unapologetically spewing racist words and trying to control the black vote with the other hand.
He didn’t care about blacks.
Now, anything that is not from the left or if they don’t get their way is racist.
Joy Reid, Shiela Jackson Lee, Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters, Lewis Hamilton, Bubba Wallace, Colin Kaepernick, Don Lemon, MSNBC, CNN, Whoopi Goldberg, Lebron James, Jussie Smollet and the Squad have all cried racism, when in fact they have been the racist ones.
Joe Biden has a list a mile long of racist remarks, yet uses it when he doesn’t get his way, like the recent speech on the voting bill. He quoted Jefferson Davis, George Wallace as what we were if we didn’t support him. Davis was a democrat. Biden was friends with Robert Byrd, Grand Cleagle of the KKK.
On 2/3/2022 Biden made this racist comment:
President Joe Biden referred to blacks as “colored” during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday during Black History Month.
Biden was telling the story of seeing “colored kids” on a bus when he moved from Scranton, Pa., to Claymont, Dela.
In context: Joe Biden, George Wallace, Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis are all Democrats.
both democrats and life long compatriots
Byrd in full uniform
Never forget what Democrats, & notably @JoeBiden, did to Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen – but more… Miguel Estrada. Destroying a good man specifically because he is Hispanic. We know this to be factually true, but the beltway media elites brush it aside. #RacistDCDemocratshttps://t.co/2KKXUUsWlr
The South in the Civil War were democrats. Slave owners were mostly democrats.
I can go on with this, but the pattern is there. It is those who cry racism because is is a cheap threat to get their way. They then make false claims that if said by a white male would be called racist, therefore what they say is racist. It’s logic.
2. It’s not a socialist agenda. The hell it’s not. The current Congress is trying to fix elections so they can stay in power, are making millions on insider stock trades (both parties) and pass laws to keep one class in power to rule the others. They want to take away guns, the start of a communist movement and regulate everything. (that is why they hated Trump so much, he took away their overbearing regulatory powers)
It says right on the BLM website that they are a Marxist organization. Bernie Sanders is a communist.
3. Collusion with Russia and China. After a 3 year circus which cost the taxpayers 30+ million dollars. We found out that Trump didn’t do anything. On the other hand, Hunter Biden is on the board of Burisma and is being bought by the Russians and the Chinese. Hillary sold the rights to much of our uranium to the Russians.
His whoring and drugging is well documented, but the MSM isn’t covering a bit of it. The FBI should be all over this, but they are protecting their own.
So if they say someone else is colluding, it is who is saying it.
4. The vaccine is the only cure to Covid and that it will cure Covid.
If you go to the Danish studies, or look at the vaccine failure in Israel, you can pretty much know that the jab has nothing to do with preventing either getting or spreading Covid. It’s a cover for a power grab.
Ending Covid
They have a plan to end Covid and Donald Trump doesn’t. They campaigned on not to take a trump vax, and claimed they weren’t left with any vaccines or plans when Trump left. Biden had plenty of vaccine supply (when we thought it worked) and a Plan (Operation Warp Speed) to handle it. Fucking it up was the Biden/Harris job.
Harris said she wouldn’t trust a jab that Trump developed. Now we should get 3 shots because it is the B/H vaxx now. Talk about a flip/flop.
3. Global Warming. This is a socialist agenda that is just another scare dreamed up to scam money. The biggest bullshitter was Al Gore.
Right now, countries are shutting off fossil fuels with no back up. Solar and wind energy have failed to provide what is needed and they are closing down nuclear plants. Now, prices are skyrocketing for fuel and that is all that is working.
men and women are equal – sports will be men and co-ed
Military needs to be woke – china laughing at us. military needs to defend country. goal is to kill and protect, not dress up
We need absentee voter pickup boxes,
It’s already been determined, from research by Rodney Doyle at the Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas, that the $419.5 million Mark Zuckerberg of Meta gave the Center for Technology and Civil Life and the Center for Election Innovation and Research essentially bought the 2020 election for Joe Biden.
Now there’s evidence that was the strategy all along, that the goal of such election manipulation had been birthed years before and ultimately used by extremists.
The procedure was that Zuckerberg handed over the money and leftist activists distributed it before the election – not in a nonpartisan fashion as some have claimed – but specifically to extremists like themselves who used it for get-out-the-vote efforts specifically aimed at benefiting Biden.
A new analysis at The Federalist, by Doyle, confirms that the money was used “to manipulate the 2020 election in favor of President Joe Biden.”
January 6th was an attack on democracy
Feminists will go all Karen on the USA, white men and discrimination in America, but will ignore women’s rights around the world where the oppression really takes place.
DW reports that German farmers are enraged at proposed diesel subsidy cuts and taxes directly affecting them. They say these could cost them up to €1 billion. The government says the cuts are needed to balance the country’s 2024 budget.
Farmers from across Germany descended upon Berlin on Monday. Hundreds of tractors converged on the city’s famous Brandenburg Gate. The motto on the gate, “Too much is too much!”
Green Party Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir was among those criticizing the government’s approach. He said farmers have “no alternative” to diesel, adding “farmers are the ones who supply us with food, these cuts overburden the sector.”
Farmers in Germany dump manure in the heart of Berlin to protest against the rise in the price of agricultural diesel and the introduction of a new tax.
More than 1,500 tractors demonstrate in the city.
The German farmers are copying the French farmer protest tactics
Another day, another headline blurring the line between news story and Babylon Bee satire.
A lonely woman in Canada has decided that she is in love with a tree. And not in a hippy tree-hugger way — no, she has declared herself an “ecosexual,” who is “erotically” attracted to this poor, unsuspecting tree.
Really.
Sonja Semyonova, 45, (not to be confused with the devout and unwilling prostitute from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment) is a self-professed “self-intimacy guide and somatic sex educator in training,” according to the New York Post.
Her enduring passion for this deciduous specimen apparently began during the COVID lockdowns in 2020 and 2021.
According to Breitbart News, after moving to Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in 2020, Semyonova’s atraction to this tree began when she noticed it during her daily walks. After walking, “near the tree five days a week for the whole winter. I noticed a connection with the tree,” she said.
During that lonely time, she had been “craving that rush of erotic energy that comes when you meet a new partner, and that is not sustainable.”
It brings tree-hugger to a new level. When I hear sustainable, I know the bullshit is about to flow. Also, never underestimate crazy in a girl. As Wirecutter says: Pyscho Chicks, we’ve all known one.
This is somewhat of a predictably tragic outcome all things considered. I remember a previous conversation on these pages when GM moved massive investment into China to build their mid-size SUV brand, Encore.
Continuing the U.S. decline of the brand, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that approximately half of all Buick dealership in the U.S. have opted to take a buyout from GM, as opposed to spending millions in retooling, restructuring and retraining their staff to accommodate the EV influx.
Most of the EV’s shoved onto the dealer lots sit idle without customers to purchase them.
California regulators on Tuesday cleared the way for widespread use of advanced filtration and treatment facilities designed to convert sewage waste into pure drinking water that can be pumped directly into systems feeding millions of household taps.
Proven technologies capable of recycling wastewater for human consumption, a concept once derided by critics as “toilet to tap,” have gained greater credence in recent years as water-conscious California faces worsening drought cycles from climate change.
More than a decade in the making, the regulations adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board represent a landmark in the quest to reclaim some of the hundreds of millions of gallons of waste discharge that flows out to sea unused each year, supporters say.
“Today heralds a new era of water reuse,” Patricia Sinicropi, executive director of the recycling trade group WateReuse California, said in a statement.
It will be difficult for these logic defying people to get any worse, but let’s look at it.
It begins……
People need to realize the Left is using the alleged “existential” threat of global warming to wage war against liberty, against the Western world’s (not China’s) economy, and against joy.
The automobile, that magnificent enhancement to human freedom and joy, is a target of the Left.
The idea that individuals should be able to go where they want when they want in their own car is anathema to the Left. It provides way too much individual liberty.
And this…….
Even the family, one of life’s greatest sources of joy and meaning, is a target of the climate change activists.
They believe that there are way too many people in the world. Kids are carbon-emitting machines. So, an increasing number of women, including married women, are choosing not to have children.
And now the coup de gras….
Now, we have another joy of life that progressives are targeting in the name of combating global warming: Christmas gifts.
Many progressives have long opposed giving Christmas gifts in the name of combating “consumerism.” (To be fair, some religious conservatives share that ascetic view.) But climate change will soon constitute the greater moral reason.
In recent years, every COP had been dominated by an angry motion from the radicals, which was ultimately defeated in the final hours. Ironically these noisy motions tend actually to inhibit progress on the big green agenda, so I welcome them.
COP 28 was no different. The basic idea was to finally mention fossil fuels in the final statement after 27 COPS did not so. Makes sense, given that burning fossil fuels are the supposed reason for the climate alarm.
Seemed simple enough, but the radicals had to go full bore on it. They demanded an agreement to actually phase out fossil fuels. Out in the sense of none. No oil, no gas, no coal, nothing.
To see how radical this phase-out stuff really is, note that the alarmist abomination called net zero does not do this. The net in net zero specifically allows for future fossil fuel emissions, provided these are offset in some way. Moreover, it allows for unlimited fossil fuel use if carbon capture can ever be made to work. Net zero is about emissions, not fuel.
Moreover, a lot of fossil fuels are used as petrochemical feedstock, which does not create CO2 emissions. As my colleague Ron Stein strenuously points out, petrochemical products are fundamental to our way of life. Phasing out fossil fuels would mean ending petrochemicals.
A lot of countries objected to this radical phase-out insistence. Some were oil and gas producers, and the radical press focused on them. But a bunch of others were countries that rightly saw fossil fuel as powering economic improvement. This humanitarian side of the argument seldom got reported.
There was an exquisite moment in the middle of all this mindless ho-ha. The moderate President of COP 28 had said there was no science supporting the need to obliterate fossil fuel use. The radicals were outraged and said so.
Greens erupt as fossil fuel ‘phaseout’ is dropped from proposed climate deal
“COP28 is now on the verge of complete failure,” former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said. But organizers of the summit in Dubai urged nations to be flexible and compromise.
COP28 climate summit President Sultan al-Jaber, who also leads the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company, claps during a session Monday in Dubai. | Rafiq Maqbool/AP
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The prospect of a deal to end fossil fuels faded on Monday in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, when organizers of the U.N. climate summit released a draft proposal that merely suggested reducing them instead.
That outcome would fall far short of the demands that environmental groups, the U.S., the European Union and vulnerable island nations had laid out before the COP28 summit in Dubai, with some activists saying the talks would be a failure if they did not call for phasing out the production of coal, oil and natural gas.
The draft “really doesn’t meet the expectations of this COP in terms of the urgently needed transition to clean sources of energy and the phaseout of fossil fuels,” U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said during a fractious, closed-door meeting late Monday night and early Tuesday, which POLITICO listened to via an unsanctioned feed.
Electric vehicles are not nearly as popular as their advocates would have had us believe, as sales are now slumping in the face of rising interest rates and a lack of so-called fast chargers. As we begin to bump up against mined mineral constraints and international relations complications, there’s no doubt the cost of making these glorified toys will continue to rise. A recent Consumer Reports publication shows that, over the last 3 model years, electric vehicles are less reliable than normal gasoline and diesel vehicles. So, several states want to ban the sale of reliable, inexpensive gas and diesel cars and force us to buy less reliable electric cars. Note well that the superior reliability of hybrids is likely down to the fact that car makers who are better known for their reliability make more hybrids. There’s nothing inherent to a hybrid that would make it more reliable than a gasoline engine vehicle.
Even our ability to travel using air travel is under the gun. A CNN op-ed recently floated the idea of limiting air travel through the use of carbon (read: sin) passports. We will be limited to traveling based on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the flight. The author wants this applied to cruise ships as well. It’s not hard to see this applied to your car as well. Of course, such rules will not apply to the super-wealthy climate grifters. They’ll be jetting all over the globe for their very important climate conferences.
And it’s not just transportation. In September, Reuters “fact checked” a claim that US cities had agreed to limit meat consumption, finding the claim false. And yet, we are told on a nearly daily basis that eliminating beef consumption is necessary to save the planet. The sin of using coal (but not apparently to create steel) has become the sin of eating a steak. What’s next? Rice? Pork?
Beginning in 2024, the German government will empower local electricity providers to limit the flow of electricity to heat pumps and electric cars. Such limits were the stuff of alleged conspiracy theories mere months ago. Now they’re a reality. Germany’s suicidal attempt to power their grid with nothing but wind and solar, killing off their own nuclear power generation over the last 20 years, has led to energy rationing. It’s not as if this is unpredictable. The unreliability of so-called renewables is common knowledge among energy experts.
It’s sensible for those who are concerned about their ability to choose where and when they travel, what they eat, and when they turn on their heaters and air conditioners to be skeptical of every single attempt to accrue more power by state and federal governments. That skepticism should turn into activism against these power grabs. Anyone who tells you these power grabs aren’t coming is telling you not to believe your own eyes.
Once again proving that this is a money laundering hoax.
The fact that these global-warming alarmists are surrounded by Earth’s deepest pools of fossil fuels makes their Hajj infinitely ironic.
Also astonishing is the nearly immeasurable impact of these people’s gyrations. They blow trillions of dollars, bludgeon human freedom, and yet do shockingly little to fix their vaunted “climate crisis.” One practically needs an electron microscope to find their promised reductions in allegedly venomous carbon dioxide or supposedly lethal temperatures.
According to #ActInTime’s Climate Clock high above Manhattan’s Union Square, humans have—at this writing—five years and 228 days until we boil to death in a cauldron of steaming carbon.
Since The End is scheduled for Saturday, July 21, 2029 (mark your calendars!), Big Government liberals offer jaw-droppingly paltry climate benefits, despite their spine-chilling predictions and unbridled interventionism.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s proposed Clean Power Plan was a diamond-encrusted specimen of do-nothingism. According to a May 2015 analysis by their own Energy Information Agency, between 2015 and 2025, the Clean Power Plan would have slashed real gross domestic product by $993 billion, or an average of $39.7 billion per year. It would have sliced real disposable income by $382 billion, or $15.3 billion annually. It also would have chopped manufacturing shipments by $1.13 trillion, or $45.4 billion per year.
The Energy Information Agency forecast a decrease of 0.035 degrees Fahrenheit. This would have cranked a thermometer from 72 degrees Fahrenheit way down to 71.965 degrees.
The COP 28 climate confab opened today in Dubai. Some 70,000 true believers in the energy transition are said to be gathering. And not one of them appears to be either willing or able to do the simple arithmetic that shows that this can’t possibly work.
So far, no country that has made a commitment to “net zero” has officially backed off. (Argentina may soon become the first.). Things proceed as if all that is needed is to build sufficient wind and solar generation facilities, until eventually you have enough of them to meet demand. But that’s not how this works. The absurdity becomes more obvious every day. Can somebody please tell the poor people making fools of themselves in Dubai?
Let’s consider the latest from Germany. According to Statista here, Germany consumed 511.59 TWh of electricity in 2021 (latest year given, although the numbers have recently changed very little from year to year). Divide by 8760 (number of hours in a year) and you learn that Germany’s average usage of electricity is 58.3 GW. So, can you just build 58.3 GW of wind and solar generators to supply Germany with electricity?
Absolutely not. In fact, Germany already has way more wind and solar electricity generation capacity than the 58.3 GW, but can’t come anywhere near getting all its electricity from those sources. As of June 2023 Germany had 59.3 GW of generation capacity from wind turbines alone, and (as of end 2022) another 67.4 GW of generation capacity from solar panels. The total of the two is 126.7 GW — which would supply more than double Germany’s usage at noon on a sunny and breezy June 21. But, according to Clean Energy Wire here, through the first three quarters of 2023, the percent of its electricity that Germany got from wind and solar was only 52%. Capacity seemingly sufficient to supply double the usage in fact only supplies half. That’s because the supply does not come at the same time as the demand, and the wind/solar generation system provides no mechanism to shift the supply to a time to meet the demand.
And why doesn’t Germany just double the amount of its wind/solar generation, so that those sources would go from supplying 52% of usage to 100%. Because it doesn’t work that way. If they double the wind and solar generation, then on the sunny/breezy June 21 mid-day they will now have over 250 GW of electricity generation — more than 4 times what they need — so they will have to discard or give away the rest. But on a calm night in January, they will still have nothing and need full backup from some other source. Multiplying the wind/solar generation capacity by 10 or even 100 (referred to as “overbuilding”) will increase the costs of the system exponentially, but will never be enough to keep the lights on all the time. Or you can try energy storage to save up the surpluses to cover the deficits, but that also multiplies the costs of the system exponentially. For more than you will ever want to know about energy storage and its costs, read my December 2022 energy storage report, “The Energy Storage Conundrum.”
Failure theaters continue to play in Dubai during the United Nations Climate Conference of Parties (CoP28).
To begin with, getting to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was more challenging than normal for some participants…as Germany experienced a record-breaking level of snowfall for any December in recorded history.
The airport in Munich resumed limited operations Sunday morning after being closed for nearly a day because of record snowfall that disrupted transportation across the region.
About 17 inches of snow fell in parts of southern Germany on Saturday, an unusually large amount for early December, and what local news media reported was the biggest daily snowfall in Munich in December since records had been kept.
Then, he lets out the only gas that is dangerous while making specious claims.
In a desperate bid to remain relevant, former Vice President Al Gore slammed the UAE, saying its position as overseer of international negotiations on global warming this year was an abuse of public trust.
The comments, made to Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of the conference in Dubai, reflected skepticism among some delegates that COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber, head of the UAE’s national oil company ADNOC, can be an honest broker of a climate deal.
“They are abusing the public’s trust by naming the CEO of one of the largest and least responsible oil companies in the world as head of the COP,” Gore said.
But, the truth comes out anyway:
Kaboom at #COP28… conference president Sultan Al Jaber rejects climate hoax:
"I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve… pic.twitter.com/yhoJZFDytj
There is “no science” that says the world should phase out fossil fuels to curb global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the COP28 climate summit, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting report.
“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C,” Al Jaber said in an online event last month, the remarks from which the Guardian reported on December 3, days after the COP28 summit in Dubai began on November 30.
Al Jaber made those comments in response to questions from Mary Robinson, the chair of the Elders group and a former UN special envoy for climate change.
His parents were related, no wonder he makes inbred comments like this. When you are insulated from the real world and have the carbon footprint of a city, this is the kind of argument you make while showing the world what a fool you really are. The King has no clothes. (see at the end of the post how he lives a hypocritical life)
“Net Zero” is a list of unrealistic goals laid out by the World Economic Forum (WEF), with backing from the United Nations (UN), that seeks to advance a globalist collectivism agenda.
Thinly veiled as environmentalism, the unachievable goals of “Net Zero” would bankrupt society and make the public dependent on an unelected corporatocratic elite.
Yesterday, King Charles III delivered a speech at the opening ceremony of COP28.
He said that “they” needed $4.5 to $5 trillion per year to drive the transformation that’s needed because of “climate change.”
“28 eight years ago I was most touched to be asked to speak at the opening of COP21 in Paris which of course culminated in the Paris agreement,” Charles III said at COP28.
The Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 during the COP21 climate conference stipulates that the increase in the global average temperature is to be kept well below 2°C above “pre-industrial levels” and that efforts are pursued to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above “pre-industrial levels.”
However, as former renewable energy manager and head of the German Wildlife Foundation Fritz Vahrenholt discovered in 2017, closer inspection of the treaty text reveals that the term “pre-industrial levels” is nowhere defined in this epochal UN document.
It could have been worse. King Charles could have ascended to his desert dais and pronounced that we had just 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. But that was the Right Charlie back in 2009, giving us the benefit of his sandwich-board scientific wisdom. These days it is all fashionable bad weather and undefined “tipping points”. The man is now King, and at COP28 he threw away his irksome politically-neutral constitutional role, wrapped himself in Guardianista pseudoscience, and punched down hard on the poor who will be forced to pay for the collectivist madness that is the Net Zero project.
King Charles is no friend of general humanity. Speaking at COP28, he said: “The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth.” As with many know-your-place elitists, he appears to abhor the impacts that humans have on the planet. He exhibits, sadly on a world stage, a snobbish distain for capitalism – what used to be dismissed in British aristocratic circles as ‘trade’. This capitalist trend over the last 200 years has harnessed the power of natural hydrocarbons to raise billions to a standard of living and health unimaginable to previous generations. In 2009, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and the “age of convenience” was over.
Not for the new British King, it need hardly be observed. He lives a life of pampered indulgence where no expense is spared to ensure his every comfort. On his accession to the throne, he added considerably to his Palace Portfolio. To spread his malevolent Net Zero fantasies, he has a fleet of cars, private planes and even a personal train at his command. He uses these to call for “transformational action” to be taken to save the planet. In his COP28 speech, he called for the restoration of nature, the need for sustainable agriculture, and co-operation between the public and private sectors.
I think he’s been playing outer space too long. He was a lot better at beating Romulan’s than dealing with climate change. Hey Bill, no one has died yet and no one is going to from this hoax.
Actor William Shatner, notable for his role as Captain James T. Kirk in “Star Trek” warned that humans were “all going to die” due to the perils of climate change.
During an interview on “Good Morning Britain” on ITV, Shatner cast blame on “stupid humans” for the climate crisis and warned that humans could face extinction. Shatner expressed hope that King Charles III, who is set to give the opening speech at the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP28, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, will speak up about the climate crisis.
“He’s got to say, ‘We’re all going to die,’” Shatner said. “That’s what he should say to open up with. ‘Very quickly we’re going to die. Much sooner than we expected, we’re going to die.’”
So we have COP28, where the global elites take private jets to an oil producing nation to both make a ton in fossil fuels and restrict the USA from producing oil, thus becoming economically sound. All the while, China and India are much greater carbon sinners. The difference is that currently, the US is the ATM of both the world and the climate liars.
What confounds me is that people have been brainwashed enough to actually believe in this money laundering hoax. Are they that under educated? It’s the same crying wolf theme every time, if you don’t send money, the world is going to end.
Can you imagine a more hilariously ignoble end to the great push to green the global economy, than for the centrepiece of the green movement to transform into a giant oil and gas market?
Dubai’s climate shambles exposed: UAE energy tsar Sultan Al Jaber secretly used COP28 talks to push his own oil and gas projects, in latest shock revelations about warming meet
The UAE’s Sultan Al Jaber used climate talks to bag oil and gas deals: report
He controversially heads both the UN’s climate meet and the UAE’s main oil firm
“The global environment crisis may demand responses that are comparatively radical…. It will call for … a Strategic Environment Initiative.” (Al Gore, 1989)
Al Gore might be the the slickest of the 70,000 expected at the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties (COP28) climate meeting in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from November 30th until December 12, 2023. Gore is the world’s #1 climate barker–and has made tens of millions of dollars from his “crisis.” He has one of the highest CO2 footprints on the globe … but he is different, you know.
So what’s new with Al Gore’s pitch? Not much. His crisis in the 1980s is still the crisis of 2023. We are in a “planetary emergency.”We are almost out of time. There is hope with a new energy future….
Mid-course correction not. Sort of like Enron, the climate crusader until its demise.
—————-
Just to document the yawns that 99 percent of the world have toward the never-ending crisis, read excerpts from his Washington Post editorial, “Earth’s Fate Is the No. 1 National Security Issue” (May 14, 1989).
The world is in a crisis–and we are ignoramuses for not seeing what is so clearly obvious (“don’t look up,” they say 34 years later). And an all-of-government (Biden’s phrase) to arrest the ‘crisis’ that only the experts and politicians can see, not us boiling frogs (as one person recently said about us uncleansed).
Our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this. Today’s climate pattern has existed throughout the entire history of human civilization.
That was Al Gore in 2007. According to Gore, the climate was “shiftless” for thousands of years — a paradigm of stability.
Gore’s quote was a restatement of Michael Mann’s 1998 “hockey stick.” Mann argued that the Earth’s climate held steady for all of human history (the hockey stick handle), until suddenly, in the 1900s, the temperatures increased, representing the upturned blade of the hockey stick.
How is it that the last six great ice ages started with far more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now?
Is it true, as many experts note, that temperatures drive CO2 levels, and not the other way around?
How does anthropogenic CO2 drive climate when it makes up less than 5% of total CO2 (with most coming from the oceans, volcanoes, decaying vegetation, and forest fires)?
Isn’t the sun the most important cause of climate, and what effects follow from sun spots and solar flares?
If greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the most significant drivers of climate change, then why do we focus on CO2, when water vapor (i.e., clouds) is a far more impactful GHG? (In fact, there have been a flurry of recent published studies on the effects of clouds.)
Today’s example is Jeff Bezos. An honorable mention to Bill Gates. It’s people like this that makes me question their motives and the whole climate scam. Do as I say, not as I do.
Excerpts:
online critics torpedoed Bezos for reportedly traveling via helicopter to party on Bill Gates’ superyacht — just days before attending the COP26 climate summit in Scotland via private jet.
A spokesperson for Bezos told Observer.com at the time the billionaire used sustainable aviation fuel for his travels and pays for carbon offsets, which fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas pollution and cancel out carbon emissions generated by the trips.
Jeff Bezos — who has pledged to spend billions of dollars to help fight climate change — nonetheless owns a $500 million superyacht that generates thousands of tons of carbon emissions each year, according to a new analysis by Indiana University researchers.
The Amazon founder’s 417-foot sailing yacht “Koru,” produces an astounding minimum of 7,154 tons of greenhouse gasses annually — roughly 447 times the entire annual carbon footprint of your average American, the Indiana researchers found.
“But because they are so rich and so powerful, they feel like they are entitled [to travel in carbon-producing superyachts], whereas you and I should drive less, should eat less meat,” she said.
Boating industry experts have fawned over Koru’s “green” ability to travel via wind power, but Barros sniffed that Bezos’ three-masted goliath generates a slew of greenhouse gasses just by heating and cooling the vessel and powering the ship’s various over-the-top luxury amenities such as its sauna, pool and theater.
Bezos’ wealth insulates him from the impact of environmental crises, said Dario Kenner, author of “Carbon Inequality: The Role of the Richest in Climate Change.”
“There is an emotional and physical disconnect from the rich and climate change,” said Kenner.
“The poorest people live closest to toxic air facilities, refineries, places where pollution is dumped,” he said, explaining land is cheaper in those areas.
It’s hard to believe that the media/Government/grifter group has been able to keep the lie going this long. Dear Greta, the world didn’t end in 2023 and you have been used like every other tool the climate elitist’s have used. The truth is that it is about money and power by claiming catastrophe after catastrophe that never happen.
Let’s start with Germany, who shut down nuclear power, is cutting natural gas and coal and wonders why their energy costs are skyrocketing.
Being the media darlings has not prevented the German Greens from collapsing in the public opinion polls. 40% of green voters have taken their approval away since it peaked in popularity at 23%.
A series of unpopular, draconian policy proposals along with cronyism scandals have resulted in a body blow for Green Party popularity in Germany.
Accusations of cronyism have surfaced after a top advisor of Green Economics Minister Robert Habeck awarded state contracts to family members and other close associates.
Secretary for Climate Affairs Dr. Patrick Graichen is accused of having awarded government contracts to a research institute run by multiple members of his family. He also appointed his best man to head the German Energy Agency.
The woes for Graichen may also be compounding as “a suspicion of violations of citation rules” regarding his doctoral thesis has surfaced.
Thanks to Woosterman for those images, and 90 Miles from Tyranny for this one.
Like believing that you can live on sustainable energy while it is a ruse to launder money, like the Ukraine.
Climate Scam: Scotland’s wind turbines have been secretly using diesel generators. 🤡 pic.twitter.com/NMAvjeONMx
— Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis (@DrLoupis) May 22, 2023
And for the number one liar and grifter of this scam, the hero of Tim O’Reilly, James Governor and Tom Raftery. All people I had to deal with who spread these lies. I don’t think even they believed all of this.
London is being ruined like many big European cities.
More woke BS:
As always, it is a good idea to look at what the global elites are writing and planning, often in plain sight. The PHD is the work of EAT, a non-profit, green activist operation that says it is dedicated to transforming the global food system to mitigate climate change. To pursue its aims, it has a number of partners including the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Needless to say, the show is funded by numerous foundations chanelling money, often described as philanthropic, to fund ways to control rather than gain outright ownership of the means of production. Often described as ‘stakeholder capitalism’, the money buys influence, if not effective control, over wide swathes of industry, politics, media, academia and science.
Not that it’s going to stop the people who use it to grift money out of the government or have it as their religion.
A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists released a declaration this week entitled “There is No Climate Emergency,” denouncing politically-driven narratives about “imminent” climate crises.
The World Climate Declaration (WCD)—now known as CLINTEL, is a global climate intelligence group dedicated to fostering an approach to climate change grounded in science. For the statement, CLINTEL brought together a diverse group of scientists from all over the world to combat erroneous popular opinions.
A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists released a declaration this week entitled “There is No Climate Emergency,” denouncing politically-driven narratives about “imminent” climate crises.
The World Climate Declaration (WCD)—now known as CLINTEL, is a global climate intelligence group dedicated to fostering an approach to climate change grounded in science. For the statement, CLINTEL brought together a diverse group of scientists from all over the world to combat erroneous popular opinions.
Excerpt Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Funny how Lahaina, Maui just got climate change.
It’s one of the biggest hoax’s as an excuse for money grabbing since Ponzi. Don’t forget these are the same people believing and trying to get others jabbed for Covid-19.
The study, published this month and titled “Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris,” used “observational data” from coastlines, the ocean surface, and the deep ocean to conclude that the amount of plastic pouring into the oceans every year is about 500,000 metric tons. The researchers’ abstract said that “recent estimates of the oceanic input of plastic are one to two orders of magnitude larger than the amount measured floating at the surface.”
Though this may still sound like a lot, but a widely relied upon 2015 study overshot the “accepted” number by a whopping 1,600%.
Referring to the data cited from the 2015 study led by Dr. Jenna Jambeck from the University of Georgia, the new study explains that “This discrepancy could be due to overestimation of input estimates, processes removing plastic from the surface ocean or fragmentation and degradation.”
The 2015 study with the now-challenged estimate was been adopted as authoritative by a range of media outlets, environmental activists and government agencies.
Nancy Wallace, Marine Debris Program Director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), called the 2015 study “significant” in a New York Times article. Though she conceded it wasn’t an exact figure, she said it “gives us [NOAA] an idea of… where we might need to focus our efforts to affect the issue.”
To date, Dr. Jambeck’s 2015 study is listed on the NOAA website. Just the News contacted Wallace and NOAA’s media team for comment.
Other entities who accepted the 2015 data as a fact include The World Economic Forum, who said “At this rate, there will be more plastic than fish in the world’s oceans by 2050” and suggested that plastic pollutants “are adding to the climate change problem.” Other proponents of the “conventional wisdom” include UNESCO, The National Geographic Society, Time magazine, The Washington Post, as well as dozens of environmental organizations, such as “Environmental Action” and “Ocean Conservancy” all of whom have cited the “8 million metric tons of plastic pollution” figure.
Outlets like The New York Times, which propped up the 2015 study, have appeared to downplay the new number and double down on pushing a fearful narrative. “There Might Be Less Plastic in the Sea Than We Thought. But Read On,” reads their headline about the new data. “The new research might seem like good news, but the full picture is complicated: The amount of plastic in the ocean is still increasing by about 4 percent every year, according to the study,” the Times added.
Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife at the Department of The Interior, also used Jambeck’s study in his 2019 testimony before Congress, repeating that “it is believed that at least 8 million tons of plastic end up in our oceans every year, and make up 80 percent of all marine debris from surface waters to deep-sea sediments.”
And while America has been continually criticized for its role in plastic pollution, with many states passing legislation to severely restrict the use of plastic products, Manhattan Institute waste expert John Tierney says “virtually all the consumer plastics polluting the world’s oceans comes from ‘mismanaged waste’ in developing countries.”
“The Environmental Protection Agency has promoted recycling as a way to reduce carbon emissions, but its own figures show the benefits are relatively small and come almost entirely from recycling paper products and metals, not plastic,” he wrote in a New York Post op-ed, adding that rather than Americans sending plastic to a landfill, “most” of it ends up being shipped overseas to developing nations.
I tell my wife that it’s just another socialist tactic. I see 6 different containers in her home country of Denmark (which is socialist) and they clutter the streets while making the population get in line and obey.
The truth is that if you bury it, it doesn’t get micro plastics in the air and water, where it is far more dangerous. But that would be against the narrative. I could be broken down easily, but that doesn’t let people get controlled like good little commies, handcuffed to the recycling prison chain gang. They are dutiful sheep that are probably also vaxxed against Covid.
To illustrate how damaging Germany’s transition to renewable energies and the green movement have been, news is out that things are worse than we thought. Yet, don’t expect the climastalinistas to acknowledge this. Quite to the contrary, they’ll just blame all the economic troubles on the green movement going to slowly!In reality, though, slowing the economy is what they’ve wanted all along.
Drop is “much more than expected”
Blackout News here reports on how industrial production in Germany has slumped “much more than economists expected in June” and that “many experts expect this trend to continue in the coming months.”
The results are based on data from the Federal Statistical Office released last Tuesday.
Slump to continue
“Alexander Krüger of Hauck Aufhäuser Lampe Privatbank thinks many companies are even more pessimistic than they were a few weeks ago,” Blackout News adds. “Jörg Krämer of Commerzbank expects a further slump in the economy in the second half of the year.”
Germany’s high energy costs driving inflation
Much of the decline in production is due to sectors hard hit by Germany’s energy policies. One example is the automotive industry because its future is fraught with huge uncertainty as combustion engines are planned to be phased out.
High interest rates dampening construction
The construction sector has been hit hard as well as energy norms and heating regulations for homes threaten to make building even more unaffordable to many. High energy prices also have fueled inflation, which in turn has forced bank interest rates up and made home financing unattractive. Building permits issued for new homes are extremely low.
One bright spot has been the the aerospace sector. But overall the coming months continue to appear especially gloomy for Germany, Europe’s largest economy. High energy costs have also led to many companies moving operations out of the country.
According to analyst Jens-Oliver Niklasch of Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, “Industrial performance is rather weak at the moment.”
Until Germany gets back to reality with its energy policies, don’t expect improvement anytime soon. Again, this is what the climastalinistas want.
Whales and dolphins, the second most intelligent animals and the farce that is global warming is slaughtering them. Where are the animal rights activists now?
Does the climate crowd value money over life that much?
Yesterday marked the 60th known whale death on the East Coast since Dec 1, 2022. This is not normal.
The government says it’s not because of the wind industry’s high decibel pile driving & boat traffic in previously pristine waters. They’re lying. And now we have the proof. pic.twitter.com/7BcVrgz04X
Here are the top ten sign’s you might be one and are easily manipulated. Oh, and don’t be one, even if you are guilty of a couple of these.
#1) You immediately take every vaccine shot pushed by the (pharma-funded) corporate media and authoritarian government, because you naively believe they want what’s best for you. You require no evidence of safety of efficacy and you don’t read vaccine insert sheets. You take the shots solely because you are obedient.
2) You keep all your assets in fiat currency / US dollars because you think alternative assets — gold, silver, crypto — are untrustworthy… even while your US dollars are losing nearly 2% per month in purchasing power. You will hold on to dollars until the very end, when they become worthless thanks to money printing devaluation / hyperinflation.
3) You hate Donald J. Trump because your emotional state is easily manipulated by the corporate media which has conspired with the lying deep state to try to destroy Trump for years. Your emotions are fully controlled by the CIA-run corporate media and you have been programmed like a Pavlovian dog to invoke hatred at the sight of Trump.
4) You use Google as your search engine and you believe all the globalist-funded “fact checkers” on Facebook and YouTube. You believe “authoritative sources” even though they routinely and maliciously lie, and you despise the alternative media that tells the truth. You are programmed, in other words, to automatically believe official lies while rejecting obvious truth.
5) You’ve been brainwashed into thinking carbon dioxide — the molecule responsible for photosynthesis and literally all plant life on planet Earth — is a danger to the planet. And you are opposed to a warm, wet, lush, green planet because you believe a cold, dead, lifeless planet with no CO2 in the atmosphere would somehow be better. You argue for the total destruction of Earth’s atmosphere while somehow thinking you are “saving the planet.”
6) You celebrate the surveillance state because “I don’t have anything to hide,” and you gladly install Amazon spy devices in your home that listen to every conversation and control your life. You think government surveillance of private citizens is necessary for “public safety” and you gladly give up your privacy in exchange for the illusion of security. You also probably don’t mind being micro-chipped.
7) You have no idea that Joe Biden received $20 million in bribes from foreign entities because you only watch the CIA-controlled corporate media, and they aren’t reporting on the Biden crime cartel bribery scandal. You also think that cocaine in the White House somehow had nothing to do with Hunter Biden.
8) You are dumb enough to literally believe that a man can become a woman, and you think that men can get pregnant. You also think that a child can consent to have their genitals mutilated and sliced off in order to achieve “gender affirmation” status. You think the government is the appropriate place to promote the LGBT cult — a kind of twisted religion — even though you despise Christianity and would never want government to promote the Bible or wave Bible flags all over the place. But LGBT pedophile flags are perfectly okay with you because you think grooming children is “inclusive.” Beyond merely being an obedience idiot, if you worship the LGBT agenda, you are actually a member of a dangerous cult.
Biology is simple
9) You refuse to see the evil in anyone other that Donald Trump supporters or Christians, and you think that “good intentions” from those in power will always produce positive results, even if it means denying people freedom and liberty. You think nearly all criminals should be released onto the streets to be given yet another chance, and you refuse to hold anyone accountable for their criminal behavior. You naively believe that the Biden regime wants to help the American people rather than destroy America, and you are convinced that Big Pharma’s vaccines are expressions of love and healing rather than the actual depopulation bioweapons they truly are.
10) You support the tyrannical dictatorship of Ukraine while believing you are “defending freedom” even though Ukraine’s corrupt government has outlawed all opposition media and opposing political parties, creating a one-party dictatorial state. You think sending more guns to Ukraine and defending Ukraine’s borders is awesome, but you think Americans should have no guns and no border protection. That’s because you’re a compliant idiot who can hold two opposing thoughts in your head at the same time and somehow believe both of them are true.
Don’t be an obedience idiot
– Public schools and universities breed obedience idiots. If you have children or grandchildren, don’t allow them to be brainwashed in government schools. School them locally and privately instead.
– Always be suspicious of the “new thing” that suddenly trends across social media, involving millions of people changing their social media icons to something like the Ukraine flag, or the LGBT flag, or vaccine icons, etc. Every “new thing” that sweeps across the mindless masses is, almost by definition, another psy-op for obedient idiots.
– If you find yourself agreeing with your family members and friends who you’ve known to be obedience idiots, check yourself. Have you been suckered into mindless compliance on some issue? Jolt yourself awake from the hypnosis and reassert critical thinking. This will break the spell and restore your rationality.
– Nearly everything the mainstream media tells you is an engineered lie. This is why Fox News had to fire Tucker Carlson — because he was uttering too much truth for the Fox globalists to stomach. (Tucker is going to launch his own media empire, so he gets the last laugh.)
The believers in climate change worship it as their religion. They are a bunch of sheep who bought the global warming lie. Even Greta was buffaloed and thinks it’s true.
Stop right here if you don’t believe me, here is what a Nobel winning scientist said:
A renowned Nobel Prize-winning scientist has spoken out to warn the public that the “climate crisis” narrative being pushed by the global elite and their allies in the corporate media is a hoax.
Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, blasted “climate emergency” claims as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Clauser, who was also awarded the 2010 Wolf Prize in Physics, the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel, warns that misguided climate science is a hoax that is being driven by “massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.”
Here’s the truth that both the Climate leaders and those of us who are wise to them (conspiracy theorists, flat earther’s or what ever name’s they call us) know. It’s a lie.
Climate change is about money transfer to the wealthy. It’s why they all fly to the conferences on private jets and have yachts. They know the sheep (liberals) buy their bullshit and can be counted on for support. It’s why Al Gore, John Kerry, Leo DiCaprio are all rich and have huge carbon footprints. They know there is nothing bad about C02. It’s just their whipping boy.
It’s the sheep that we should make fun of. They are driving EV’s which cause more environmental damage than gas powered cars. They recycle and all the other good socialist things they are told to do. They march in line like they are told to. I bet they all got their jab too, like good little soldiers.
Anyway, steal the meme’s and enjoy.
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7. Save the planet, drive an EV
8
9.
10.
11. Not a damn one of these came true. The world didn’t end in July did it Greta?
12.
13.
And finally Greta/John Kerry/Biden, these minerals are what you build an EV battery with
I’ve known this for a long time. I actually like the taste of mineral water, but realized a while back that it has C02 in it when I bought a Soda Stream. It uses C02 tanks. It’s good for the plants so good for the environment.
Now it comes out that that the climatards just figured this out. Bear in mind that Perrier and San Pelagrino have been around well before these weenies were born and there wasn’t a climate problem.
It’s the little victories that count. I find it funny every time I can do something they get upset about, especially when they are wrong. They are in it to ruin our lives and pimp us for more money.
I’ll be toasting to Al Gore when I have a glass tonight.
Now Mineral Water Has Also Become a “Climate Killer”
In the joint large-scale undertaking of an informal ideological Stasi made up of scientists, NGOs and state-related institutions to scour the entire everyday life of Germans for climate-damaging consumption habits and behavior in order to feed the results of the political decision-making process for the gradual implementation of a totalitarian climate dictatorship, no area of life and no detail is spared: The “non-profit” association “a tip:tap” recently commissioned a remarkable study on the climate damage caused by sparkling water. Somebody must have noticed that sparkling water equals carbon dioxide equals CO2 — which is essential for life (on Earth), but deemed a “climate killer” and thus as a trace gas, an alleged “environmental toxin”, for whose symbolic “reduction” Germany is wildly prepared to sacrifice its civilizational prosperity.
The result of the study followed as expected: it now also declares drinking mineral water to be a climate sin. Because: Its consumption in Germany consumes around 1.5 times as much CO2 as the entire domestic German air traffic, calculate the green flunky scientists. Even during its production, mineral water requires many more process steps than tap water because it has to be cleaned after treatment and bottled under higher standards. In addition, the production of the bottles, the transport to the supermarket and the way home from there drive emissions even further up. Overall, according to the study, mineral water produces 202.74 g of CO2 equivalents per liter — tap water, on the other hand, only 0.35 g. This means that still water performs around 586 times better than bottled mineral water.
Inquisition and abjuration mechanisms
Extrapolated to the annual consumption in Germany, which is currently 181.4 liters per capita, and a population of over 83 million, this would add up to three million tons of CO2. Of course: an intolerable situation! The green regulators and prohibition high priests are in demand! Therefore — and in order to promote a climate-friendly way of life — the association logically calls for a switch to consumption limited solely to tap water. Support for this next plan for paternalism and restricting freedom comes from the radical left-wing ZDF [public broadcaster] dirt-slinger Jan Böhmermann: He had already taken up the issue in a typical agitprop manner and also used the opportunity to launch one of his slanderous sweeping attacks — this time against the water provider and well builder “Viva con Agua”.
Among other things, Böhmermann complained that the company not only dared to produce mineral water, but also had no workers’ council and paid its employees too poorly. According to today’s inquisition and abjuration mechanisms, ”Viva con Agua” immediately rolled over and publicly announced that they would fully support drinking more tap water in Germany in the future. The company management also bowed and submissively justified itself that the employees in the filling plant had not previously asked for the formation of a workers’ council and were paid according to the applicable industry standards. This climate of high-handed public accusations and flaunted remorse, along with a bad conscience, does not bode well: It is not impossible that the Greens will start a campaign for a mineral water ban and order the future consumption of only tap water — or better yet, collected rainwater. [And I’m pretty sure that people will have to pay for that water according to the yearly rainfall, and I’m pretty sure that Coca-Cola will be exempt from this madness, too.]
There is more at the link above, but I think you get the drift
Create a scare or panic, then profit from it before the sheep and under educated figure it out.
This fraud has both the climate scam and the leader of fake and biased news, the NY Times in it. When I had to work with New Yorker’s at IBM, they worshiped the Times both for what it said and how we treated it in the land of public relations. My co-worker Tom Belz would quote anti-Bush stuff as well as global warming panic from this bible. I’d laugh it off by telling him it was from the NYT and everyone knew they were lying. The anti-Bush (or anti-truth) rhetoric stopped with the revelation that he graduated both from Harvard and Yale. They couldn’t understand that one of their own wasn’t (then) part of the left cabal.
Then, I had to deal with the zealots like Greenmonk and Internet Trolls like Tim O’Reilly who were sure that then named global warming was the greatest problem in the world and that tides were rising.
A little history provides the facts I knew back then. It was all a lie. While the facts are now it place, I knew they couldn’t predict the weather next week, let alone decades from now.
Many of those beaches are along the East Coast. However, back in 1995, the New York Times ran a story with “experts” genuinely concerned those beaches would be gone in 25 years.
The article covered the assessment conducted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
According to draft sections of the new forecast, some of the predicted effects of climate change may now be emerging for the first time or with increasing clarity. The possible early effects include these:
*A continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100. This, say the scientists, would inundate parts of many heavily populated river deltas and the cities on them, making them uninhabitable, and would destroy many beaches around the world. At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. They are already disappearing at an average of 2 to 3 feet a year.
Yet, somehow, East Coast beaches remain. Sadly, marine mammals are routinely washing up along the coastal shores, and one of the concerns is that their deaths can be attributed to climate change “solutions.
(Plymouth Rock, the same tide level as 1620)
In addition to these dire predictions being entirely wrong, chasing after solutions to nonexistent problems is turning out to be expensive: Trillion dollars.
No one said that combating climate change would be cheap. Still, a report released during the COP27 climate talks made for a sobering reminder. The report, commissioned by Britain and Egypt as the past and current hosts of the UN summit, said that developing countries alone need a combined $1trn a year in external funding to meet the goals set out in their Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs (the climate action plan set out in the Paris Agreement).
This funding, in addition to the countries’ own expenditure, is needed for things like cutting emissions, dealing with deadly disasters and restoring nature. In one encouraging development, it was reported on November 11th that America and Japan would provide Indonesia with at least $15bn to help retire some coal-fired power stations early.
Time, talent, and treasure is squandered on bad policy built on “narrative science.”
Meanwhile, some recent studies shed light that on the Earth’s past that show the climate has long been in flux.
Researchers from Aarhus University, in collaboration with Stockholm University and the United States Geological Survey, recently published a report on their findings related to samples from the previously inaccessible region north of Greenland. Their findings indicated Arctic sea ice in this region melted away during summer months around 10,000 years ago.
The researchers have used data from the Early Holocene period to predict when the sea ice will melt today. During this time period, summer temperatures in the Arctic were higher than today. Although this was caused by natural climate variability opposed to the human-induced warming, it still is a natural laboratory for studying the fate of this region in the immediate future.
And while the authors argue their study confirms the need to be climate extremists, I assert that their data show man’s impact on the global climate isn’t panic-worthy. In fact, humanity would do better to focus efforts and resources on dealing with local pollution problems and perhaps exploring nuclear energy options.
The experience with Covid should have taught us not to trust global “experts” who offer simple solutions to complex issues. This should be doubly true with the “climate crisis,” especially as the long-term projections made nearly 30 years ago have proven to be wrong.
The good news: The East Coast beaches are still here. The bad news: So is the climate hysteria.
Lord Monkton has been a shining star on the truth of the climate issue. Here is what he delivers as damning evidence.
I know people who worship the climate as their religion and wouldn’t believe the truth were it this clear. I marvel at how far some will go to be wrong. SMH
The true economic, social, and political cost of the measures proposed by governments (in the West only) to destroy their nations’ businesses and jobs and to impoverish every household is becoming ever more visible. At last, therefore, a few brave souls in the scientific and academic communities are beginning to question what I shall call — with more than a little justification — the Communist Party line on climate change.
Three devastating equations have emerged, each of which calls fundamentally into question the imagined (and imaginary) basis for the economic hara-kiri by which the West is throwing away its gentle and beneficent global hegemony. Power and wealth are passing inexorably from the democracies of the West to the communist-led tyrannies of the East.
However, the three equations stand firmly in the way. It is these three equations — simple enough to be explained here for the general reader, yet devastating enough utterly to destroy the official climate change narrative — that will soon lay low the enemies of prosperity, democracy, and liberty who have, until now, gotten away with undermining the West, no less from within than from without, by their childishly apocalyptic climate change narrative.
The first of these equations was presented to you here a few months ago. Therefore, I shall summarize that discussion briefly. The equation comes in two versions: the wrong version, on the basis of which the climate science establishment felt improperly confident that unabated emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmless greenhouse gases would soon bring about Thermageddon, and the corrected version, which shows that IPCC’s predictions of large and dangerous global warming are false and without scientific foundation.
The system-gain factor is the variable by which the predicted 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 in the air is multiplied to obtain the predicted final warming by doubled CO2 after taking account of feedback response, a knock-on, additional warming signal driven by and proportional to the direct or reference signal.
The erroneous version of the equation neglects what engineers call the base signal, the 260 K direct sunshine temperature. Climate scientists call this the emission temperature. It is the temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.
The 29 K total greenhouse effect is the sum of 8 K direct warming by natural greenhouse gases, 1 K direct warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and 20 K total feedback response.
Multiply the 1.2 K direct doubled-CO2 warming by the erroneous system-gain factor 3.2 to get climatologists’ 3.85 K final doubled-CO2 warming. Sure enough, the average final or equilibrium doubled-CO2 warming predicted by the general-circulation models in the sixth and latest generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is 3.85 K.
But the corrected system-gain factor bears in mind — as climatologists in this crucial respect do not — that the sun is shining and that, therefore, the dominant 260 K sunshine temperature must be included in the corrected equation. Therefore, the system-gain factor is not 29 / 9, or 3.2, but (260 + 29) / (260 + 9), or just 1.1. Then the final warming to be expected in response to the 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 is not 3.85 K, but more like 1.3 K, which is small, harmless, and net-beneficial.
Climate scientists made their error when they borrowed the physics of feedback from a branch of engineering physics known as control theory. They did not understand what they had borrowed. When I pointed out their grave error to the world’s most eminent climatologist, he said he did not believe that the feedback processes in the climate (chiefly the extra water vapor — itself a greenhouse gas — that the air can hold as it is directly warmed by the non-condensing greenhouse gases) would respond to the sunshine temperature.
So I asked him how the inanimate feedback processes in the climate knew that at any given moment, such as the present, they should not respond in the slightest to the 260 K sunshine temperature but should respond violently and extremely to the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, I said. He had no answer to my question. He shuffled off, looking baffled.
It was hitherto unnoticed that feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (the only one that really matters — all the others broadly self-cancel) necessarily respond to the entire 269 K input signal or reference temperature. Therefore (I shall not show the working for this, but trust me), just 0.01 unit of increase in feedback strength would add as much as 1 K to the final warming by doubled CO2. But it is entirely impossible to measure feedback strength directly by any method, and certainly not to a precision of only a few hundredths of a unit.
Therefore, after correction of climate scientists’ error, no method of deriving predictions of anthropogenic global warming that is based on feedback analysis — as just about all of the current official predictions are — is capable of producing predictions that are any better than mere guesswork.
The IPCC, not realizing this even though it has been told about the error, bases very nearly all of its predictions upon feedback analysis. Its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report mentions “feedback” more than 1,100 times, its 2021 Sixth Assessment Report more than 2,600 times. In short, the IPCC’s entire analysis of the “how much warming” question is meaningless and valueless.
How could so crass a mistake have been made? The answer is that when the climatologists asked the control theorists how to calculate feedback response, they were told that they should base the calculation only on the gain signal (in the climate, the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases) and on the 20 K feedback response. Control theorists do things this way because in typical control-theoretic applications, such as electronic long-distance telephone circuits or factory control processes, the feedback response signal is 10 to 100 times larger than any other signal in the circuit. Therefore, neglecting the base signal usually makes no significant difference to the calculation, so they neglect it.
In the climate, however, it is the other way about. The base signal in the climate, the 260 K sunshine temperature, is almost 30 times the 9 K direct warming by greenhouse gases, and 13 times the feedback response. The sunshine dominates. Therefore, as common sense would in any event dictate, one cannot ignore it in carrying out the “how much warming” calculation.
The significance of this first equation, then, is that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that climatologists’ profitable but misguided whining about the rate of future global warming is based on a very large and very serious error of physics that has gone undetected until now because different scientific disciplines — here climatology and control theory — are increasingly narrow in their specialization. The climate scientists did not (and do not) understand the control theory they had borrowed, and the control theorists did not (and do not) realize what climate scientists have done with the borrowed theory. It is in this disastrous interdisciplinary compartmentalization that the climate change scare is rooted.
The truth is that one must use methods other than feedback analysis to derive estimates of future anthropogenic warming. But all such methods, which are based on observation rather than theoretical manipulation of data in climate models, show far less global warming than diagnosis of feedback strength from the models’ outputs shows.
The simplest observational method is this. The IPCC in 1990 predicted that until 2090, the world would warm by between 0.2 and 0.5 K/decade, with a midrange estimate of 0.3 K/decade (i.e., 2 to 5 K per century equivalent, with a best estimate of 3 K). Likewise, now as then, the IPCC predicts that final warming in response to doubled CO2 in the air will be 2 to 5 K, with a best estimate of 3 K. However, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which maintains the most accurate and up-to-date satellite temperature record, since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 there has only been 0.136 K warming per decade.
This slow warming is equivalent to less than 1.4 K per century or, per CO2 doubling, well below the lower bound of the IPCC’s range of predictions, and less than half its midrange prediction.
Note how close that 1.36 K is to the 1.3 K we obtained by correcting official climatology’s error of feedback analysis. A more elaborate method, known as the energy-budget method, also shows about 1.3 K warming per century or per CO2 doubling, with a range of 1 to 2 K. The first equation, then, powerfully suggests that our sins of emission have not caused and will not cause a problem, crisis, emergency, or apocalypse.
But let us pretend, just for the sake of argument, that climatologists had not perpetrated their elementary error and that, therefore, there might, after all, be an impending cataclysm. In that case, what can we do about it? The second of our three equations demonstrates that the currently favored method of Saving the Planet — replacing coal and gas generation with windmills and solar panels — will make little or no difference to global temperature.
Our second equation says excess generation E by wind and solar power in a given grid is the difference between the installed nameplate capacity N of wind and solar in that grid (their output in ideal weather) and the total mean hourly demand D for electricity from that grid.
Obvious though this equation seems, grid operators and governments are, as far as we can discover, wholly unaware of it. But by rights it ought to signal the E = N — D of any further costly destruction of the countryside and the oceans, the birds, bees and bats, the whales and dolphins by ugly solar panels and wind turbines.
Douglas Pollock, the Chilean engineer who discovered the equation, has investigated several Western national grids and has plotted the results on the graph below.
The United States could, if it wished, add more wind and solar power to its grid, but the cost would be enormous and the CO2 emissions abated surprisingly small, because coal and gas-fired backup generation must be kept running at wasteful spinning reserve at all times in case the wind drops and the sun goes down.
However, the seven countries listed as already exceeding the fundamental hourly-demand limit on wind and solar capacity will not reduce CO2 emissions at all if they try installing any more wind and solar power. All they will do is to drive up the cost of electricity, which is already eight times greater in the West than in China or India, where the expansion of the world’s cheapest form of electricity — coal-fired power — is continuing rapidly.
This second of our equations also puts an E = N — D to the notion that replacing real autos with electric buggies at twice the capital and running costs will reduce emissions. It won’t, because in most Western countries, wind and solar power are already at or above their Pollock limit, so that the power for the buggies will have to come from coal and gas, at least until the soi-disant “Greens” abandon their sullen opposition to the peaceful use of nuclear power.
The Traffic-Light Tendency — the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds — are opposed to coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation. Yet wind and solar power, which they favor, cannot keep the lights on 24/7; are cripplingly expensive; are cruel to landscape, seascape, and wildlife; and, though their exceptionally low energy density, do more environmental damage per MWh generated than any other form of power.
Why, then, do the climate communists advocate wind and solar power and oppose just about everything else? They do so precisely because there is no quicker or more certain way to destroy the economies of the hated West and to end its hegemony than to destroy its energy infrastructure. For that, and not Saving the Planet, is their true objective. What they advocate makes sense when seen in that light and makes no sense otherwise.
So to our third simple but decisively powerful equation. Let us pretend not only that there may be a global warming Armageddon (though we have proven there will not be), but also that we can do something about it by the proliferation of windmills and solar panels (though we have proven that we can achieve nothing by that method except crippling our grids and vastly increasing the already prohibitive cost of electrical power, further turning the terms of trade to the advantage of the communist-led countries that are vastly increasing their coal-fired generation).
How much global warming would worldwide attainment of net zero emissions by 2050 prevent? It is a measure of the extent to which such little debate as the far left have permitted on the climate question has been stifled, and of the extent to which the objective of climate policy is political rather than scientific or existential, that this question does not seem to have been asked before.
I was in Parliament the other day, talking to a Conservative M.P. I asked him what he thought about global warming. He said, “I’m a mathematician, so I know we have to show leadership by getting to net zero emissions by 2050.”
“So,” I replied, “if the whole world followed the policy of just about all the British governing class and went to net zero emissions by 2050, how much global warming that would otherwise have occurred by that year would be prevented?”
His face was a picture. He had clearly never thought of asking that surely elementary question. When I told him the answer, he was dismayed. But the answer is not in doubt, for the necessary equation is again unchallengeably simple.
First, we need to know how much global warming would occur on present trends. Typically, one goes back at least 30 years, so let us go back to 1990, the date of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. Since then, our sins of emission have added one 30th of a unit of influence every year in a near-perfect straight line. All those trillions squandered on trying to make global warming go away have not altered that third-of-a-century-long trend one iota.
Now, if the whole world went immediately to net zero emissions today, we should be able to abate 27/30 units of our influence on the climate. But if we get there in a straight line over the next 27 years, we shall abate about half of those 0.9 units — i.e., 0.45 units.
Next, how much global warming would each unit we abate prevent? Here, as throughout, we are using official figures. The IPCC says that the warming over the next 70 years if we suddenly doubled the CO2 in the air today would be 1.8 C. This is known as the “transient doubled-CO2 response,” or TCR. And, again according to the IPCC, there is an “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF, of 3.93 units of anthropogenic influence in response to doubled CO2. Therefore, temperature change per unit of influence is 1.8 / 3.93, or 0.46 K per unit.
Multiply the 0.45 units the world would abate if all nations went to net zero by 0.46 K per unit, and the total warming prevented by global net zero emissions would be just 0.2 K.
The M.P., on being told this strikingly puny figure, said: “Oh, well, there must be a very large uncertainty in that number.”
“No,” I said, “there isn’t. The IPCC predicts up to 5 K warming this century. But even if the whole world actually got to net zero emissions, which it won’t because the communist-led nations are expanding their coal-fired capacity at a very rapid rate, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K of that warming would be prevented by 2050. The midrange estimate is 0.2 K.”
In fact, even less warming than this would be prevented. For we have used official midrange estimates to calculate the 0.2 K warming that even global net zero would prevent. But those estimates are proven to have overstated the true medium-term rate of global warming by more than double. So the true warming the world would prevent if all nations, rather than just those of the empty-headed West, were to go together to net zero would be less than 0.1 K.
Then I added the clincher. I told the M.P. that the U.K. National Grid had estimated $3.6 trillion as the cost of re-engineering the grid to meet the net zero target; that electricity generation accounts for less than a quarter of U.K. emissions; and that, therefore, the cost to the U.K. of getting to net zero by 2050 would be more than $15 trillion, or six years’ total annual GDP.
Therefore, I said, every $1 billion the world squanders on trying to get to net zero emissions by 2050 would prevent only one 16-millionth of a degree of warming. Did he, as a mathematician, consider that to be value for money?
The M.P. capitulated. “The trouble with you, Monckton,” he said, “is that you take impossible positions on everything, and you’re always right.”
Now, the purpose of this unusual exercise has been to reduce the apparently complex global warming argument to just three equations so simple that they can be explained to a layman without too much difficulty, and then to explain them. In my submission, any one of these three equations, on its own, would in a rational world be more than sufficient to lead Western governments to abandon all their global warming mitigation policies at once.
The three equations together are devastating. There is no global warming problem; even if there were, our current method of addressing it will make no difference; and even if the whole world attained net zero by 2050, global temperature would barely change.
These three arguments are simple, but they are strong. It is only because the far left have captured the debate and have silenced discussions such as this that governments have allowed themselves to be fooled. Soon, that will change, whether the far left and their paymasters and instructors in the FSB and the Ministry of State Security like it or not. For the laws of physics, of economics, and of mathematics are not up for repeal.
I don’t care (too much) about what other people are doing, even if I think it is strange until they want to force it on others (Bud Light just learned about that). You can never go anywhere without them telling you they are Vegan (or vegetarian). Like an ex of mine who won’t go away, I have to hear about how self righteous they are for eating plants. Once I got told she was a vegan, I knew she was full on crazy.
I’ve always believed we are omnivores, but can chose the ratio of meat/veggies based on personal choice.
Since they want to appear morally superior, I never miss the chance to bring facts and science into their discussion, which I will now. I wish it weren’t from Harvard, but it’s what we have right now.
Nearly 1,000 scientists from around the globe have signed a declaration encouraging the consumption of meat, slamming movements to push plant-based diets as “zealotry.”
Researchers responsible for nine new studies in the Animal Frontiers journal made a joint declaration that red meat consumption is not only safe but necessary for the nutritional health of many populations around the world.
“Livestock-derived foods provide a variety of essential nutrients and other health-promoting compounds, many of which are lacking in diets globally, even among those populations with higher incomes,” according to The Dublin Declaration. “Well-resourced individuals may be able to achieve adequate diets while heavily restricting meat, dairy and eggs. However, this approach should not be recommended for general populations, particularly not those with elevated needs, such as young children and adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, women of reproductive age, older adults, and the chronically ill.”
A November 2022 Harvard study proclaiming the benefits of plant-based diets claimed diets based on “red and processed meat had the highest environmental impact out of all food groups in participants’ diets, producing the greatest share of greenhouse gas emissions and requiring the most irrigation water, cropland, and fertilizer.”
Researchers behind The Dublin Declaration refuted this argument, saying “farmed and herded animals are irreplaceable” in keeping up a “circular flow of materials in agriculture.” Livestock are not only able to convert large amounts of inedible biomass back into the natural cycle, they also do it while simultaneously producing high-quality food fit for consumption, according to the article.
“Livestock is the millennial-long-proven method to create healthy nutrition and secure livelihoods, a wisdom deeply embedded in cultural values everywhere. Sustainable livestock will also provide solutions for the additional challenge of today, to stay within the safe operating zone of planet Earth’s boundaries, the only Earth we have,” The Dublin Declaration concludes.
Animal-based diets, or livestock systems, are “too precious,” the Declaration argues, “to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry.”
Back to me.
Besides being annoying, let’s see if anyone cares about their diet choices.
Be healthy and eat some meat, and stop ruining other people’s life at the dinner table.
Nope, no one cares other than wishing they’d stfu about it and let us enjoy steak and bacon.
We know it was created by a murderer who chopped up his girlfriend and is on Lenin’s birthday. The connection to communism is more than that coincidence.
It’s also not based on science, rather it is a religion for those worshipers (the uneducated).
They consistently fail to follow actual science and this year is no different. I’ve ranted about it as I find it so unbelievable that those who celebrate it want to show how wrong they are. Instead, I’ll link and put excerpts to the recent story about how wrong they got it on methane this time. I had to work with this crowd of ignorance when I got forced into supporting the fake green initiative. Even then I couldn’t believe how wrong they were, until I found out they did it for the money.
Here goes.
Remember all that talk about methane being the scariest greenhouse gas? The claims are behind the war on meat, rice, farts, gas stoves, fracking, and just about everything else in the known universe that improves human life.
Well, except farts. They really don’t improve human life that much, unless you have gas pains. Man, it sucks when you have gas pains.
The science behind the claims that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas is pretty straightforward, if you look at only part of the science. Methane indeed traps more heat inside the atmosphere than CO2, by a wide margin. It disperses much more quickly, with a short life in the atmosphere, but if you only consider the warming impact it indeed is quite powerful.
Yeah, well, there is a huge problem with that claim. While technically true in some abstract sense, it is much less true when you look at all the effects methane in the atmosphere has on global temperatures. In other words, it is the sort of claim that relies upon your ignorance of the multiple effects of methane gas in the atmosphere–some of which are known widely, and many of which even climate “scientists” didn’t know when they made their wild claims about doom from leaking natural gas.
"If you had said on March 15 that people were making too big a deal about the warming effects of methane, you’d have been branded a 'climate denier.' Now, you’re just following the science." https://t.co/6WYOTp4wl1
New research shows that methane is still a powerful greenhouse gas, but nothing like what is claimed regularly.
This is the sort of thing that happens all the time in climate research, where variables are viewed and modeled in isolation based upon a limited set of data, and then the “scientists” extrapolate the heck out of the limited data and come up with models that are, frankly, ridiculous.
Methane warms the Earth when the gas absorbs longwave radiation. But it also cancels out some of that effect, counterintuitively, by absorbing shortwave radiation.https://t.co/hSplNPIB87
Then they pick the most extreme outcomes from models with the worst outcomes, and call it “settled science.” It is exactly the sort of thing you see in nutrition research, for example. Creating simplistic models from limited data interpreting complex and highly interdependent systems as if they mirror the falling of a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum.
And the results, as you can see in the real world, are quite different. Bowling balls and feathers fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but once you introduce the atmosphere a feather can “fall upwards” on a breeze while the bowling ball crashes down as predicted.
Methane is a greenhouse gas with dual personalities. It heats Earth’s atmosphere 28 times as potently as carbon dioxide, gram for gram. But its absorption of the sun’s radiation high in the atmosphere also alters cloud patterns — casting a bit of shadow on its warming effect.
So rather than adding even more thermal energy to the atmosphere, as previously thought, methane’s solar absorption sets off a cascade of events that reduces its overall warming effect by about 30 percent, researchers report March 16 in Nature Geoscience.
Oops. Kinda missed that one. Oh well.
Also, you may note that key point: gram for gram. There are a lot more grams of CO2 than methane out there. Altogether the findings change the equations quite a bit, and those equations are still very simplified versions of the real world. Simplified versions that in all likelihood don’t reflect reality.
The result is “counterintuitive,” says climate scientist Robert Allen of the University of California, Riverside. It happens because of the way that methane’s shortwave absorbance affects clouds in different layers of the atmosphere, Allen and colleagues’ simulations suggest.
When methane absorbs shortwave radiation in the middle and upper troposphere, above about three kilometers, it further warms the air — leading to fewer clouds in that upper layer. And because methane absorbs shortwave radiation high up, less of that radiation penetrates down to the lower troposphere. This actually cools the lower troposphere, leading to more clouds in that layer.
These thicker low-level clouds reflect more of the sun’s shortwave radiation back out to space — meaning that less of this solar radiation reaches Earth’s surface, to be converted into longwave radiation.
One of the biggest problems with climate science, as it stands, is that it cannot explain the natural variations in the Earth’s temperatures, which have swung wildly more than anything predicted from human activity. Clearly, those natural variations need to be understood first before adding in anything that human beings do.
Not that human beings are doing nothing. We are. The scale may not be understood, but the fact itself is pretty easy to understand. We are changing the atmosphere and the reflectivity of the Earth, changing the biome, and such changes will have some effect on the climate. But any claims that we have a clear idea of what those changes will be exactly are pure bunkum. We don’t. We don’t know the scale, and we don’t know the what.
What we do know is that massive changes to the economy will have drastic impacts on human well-being, just as the vast industrialization has improved lives and extended lifespans dramatically. Tens of years have been added to lifespans, food security has been established for almost everybody, and the prospects for further improvements without industrialization of the third world drop dramatically.
And, of course, we know that every single prediction of the apocalypse has been laughably wrong.
There are two easy answers that no one wants to use. The second is the real answer in the title of this post
First, nuclear power. It’s clean, safe and as affordable as the waste of money that has occurred chasing carbon as a bogeyman. It has it’s detractors, but if the climatards were serious it would be the main source of their energy. They just want to penalize the USA and some western countries and it’s petroleum production to line their wallets. They don’t mind using other countries gas. That puts our country at a disadvantage for cost of goods produced and sold. It’s on purpose. We already saw our economic freedom between 2016 and 2020 with fracking.
Here is a recent example of one western country cutting it’s own throat, but proves that it is a cheaper solution for energy.
Germany just shut down its last nuclear power plant
Now, German energy prices are increasing by up to 45%
On top of that, Germany started importing nuclear energy from France on Saturday to cover a shortfall 🤦♀ pic.twitter.com/2kJ5YjuOd2
The wrong people are leading the the self created energy crisis and climate scam.
The real answer is fusion energy. It is self perpetuating and an endless source. Of course that would mean the end of the climate gravy train and control of the narrative that we are being assaulted with.
Here goes:
On Dec. 5, for a fraction of a second, a man-made star was created at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California. The occasion was an experiment in nuclear fusion that succeeded in doing something no fusion experiment had done before: It emitted more energy than it consumed.
The experiment amounted to a big step forward in basic science. If the technology used at NIF is developed to its full potential, it could provide a virtually endless source of energy that would be clean and inexpensive. You’d think that nuclear fusion technology would be pushed forward by billions of dollars in research and development, but you’d be wrong, because it doesn’t fit into the “climate change” industry’s mantra that any nuclear power generation has to be bad.
Nuclear fusion is what happens on and in the sun. At temperatures up to 27 million degrees Fahrenheit, the sun fuses types of hydrogen — tritium and deuterium — under enormous pressure in such a way as to produce enough heat and light to warm and illuminate our planet, which is about 93 million miles away.
One of the benefits of fusion technology is that it produces virtually no nuclear waste like a nuclear fission plant does. Moreover, the “half-life” of the “activated” materials is far shorter than those of the conventional nuclear power plant, which produces “hot” waste such as fuel rods that are radioactive for hundreds of years.
Oh, it has it’s problems, but we went from the Wright brothers to the moon in 66 years. If we were serious about the problem of replacing petroleum, then it would get solved.
For example:
First, the “target” mass of tritium and deuterium is destroyed by the fusion that takes place within it. To render the technology feasible, you have to create targets about 10 times per second, not over a period of months as they are now.
Second, fusion emits neutrons that, at this stage, have to be converted into heat and steam to power a turbine engine that will produce electricity. Along the path of research, scientists may discover how to convert neutrons into electricity more simply and directly.
Both of these problems have to be solved — as well as the “unk-unks” that are encountered — before fusion can be made into a usable technology. And that’s where the government has to come in.
But if the Government was actually interested in the energy/climate issue other than an ATM…..
Industry can only spend money on research that is paid for either by the government or by rapid transformation into profitable products. The government’s proper role is to fund research into technologies that can later be made into profitable products. It did so many times, from the development of stealth aircraft to former President Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed,” which developed the COVID vaccines in months rather than the decade or more it would normally have taken.
Fusion research will continue, but at a far slower pace than it could were it better funded. The outlook is good, but fusion won’t, at the current rate, produce practical — i.e., usable — fusion technology for at least a decade or two.
What is needed is a major research effort, such as the Manhattan Project, which produced nuclear weapons in the 1940s. But that won’t happen while President Joe Biden and his “climate change” minions govern us. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said on March 1: “As the Secretary of the Navy, I can tell you that I have made climate one of my top priorities since the first day I came into office.” Climate change is his priority rather than rebuilding our Navy, which has far fewer ships than the Chinese navy.
As always, it comes down to money. The climate change clowns are investing in reducing carbon emissions — eliminating fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum — and converting us to weather-dependent sources of energy such as wind and solar power. They won’t even consider building more nuclear power plants regardless of how safe they are. (One of my friends used to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. He often reminds me that our nuclear-powered Navy ships have had zero accidents.)
Our government wastes billions on too many idiotic ideas. They are far too many to rehearse here. If we have a new president in 2025, Biden’s priorities can be tossed aside, and those billions can be spent in productive research and development of fusion and other technologies that could make us more secure and energy independent again.
Lastly, we aren’t going to run out of petroleum reserves, and it is the cheapest and easiest source of energy. Hating it is the cheapest and easiest source of increasing bank accounts and control of the masses by tyrants.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why would you want to ride in a Ferrari when you can command such a beast around the roads? It would be like having the most beautiful girl in the world and not sleep with her.
At least the company headquartered in Maranello announced they won’t pollute the sanctity of their driving machines with this feature.
They caved to e-fuels, but the essence of the prancing horse will stay intact.
Self-driving Ferraris are not for us, Ferrari chief executive Ferrari Benedetto Vigna said Monday. “Lifestyle business is immportant for us,” Vigna said. “It allows us to expand links with our community.”
Vigna also welcomed plans to exempt cars that run on e-fuels from the European Union’s planned 2035 phase-out of new combustion engine vehicles as they will give the luxury carmaker “greater freedom” on its power systems.
COMBUSTION ENGINE EXCEPTION
The European Union and Germany have reached a deal allowing new cars powered by combustion engines (ICE) to be sold beyond the 2035 deadline, or 2036 for so-called small volume manufacturers like Ferrari, if they run on carbon-neutral e-fuels.
“The good news for us as a company is that on top of electric cars, we’ll also be able to go on with our internal combustion engines ones,” Vigna told a Reuters Newsmaker event.
“This decision is very interesting for us because it allows ICEs to go beyond 2036,” he added.
Ferrari, which is renowned for its powerful petrol engines, is already producing plug-in hybrid cars and has promised its first full-electric vehicle for 2025.
However, Ferrari, which sold over 13,200 cars in 2022, has never provided a roadmap for going all electric.
Presenting its new business plan last year, Ferrari said fully electric and hybrid models would make up 80% of those in its range by 2030, while 20% would still be powered by internal combustion engines.
“This does not change,” Vigna said. “We don’t want to tell clients which car to use. We want to make three kinds of propulsion available for them – hybrid, electric and ICE – and they will chose.”
SPENDING UNCHANGED
Vigna reassured investors that the company’s investment plans would not be affected by combustion engines getting an extended life, as Ferrari had already “embedded” this scenario in its business plan.
“The figure I gave (last year) – 4.4 billion euros ($4.7 billion) for capex in the 2022-2026 period – it’s enough for us to go ahead with electrification and also with ICEs which are compatible with e-fuels,” he said.
Vigna said Ferrari’s upcoming electric model would be “a unique car” but would not be drawn on details, adding that “keeping secret is part of the recipe.”
He added it was wrong to assume that specific forms of propulsion would match specific models in the future. Fuels are a mean to provide the performance expected from a Ferrari car, he said.
He said that the price of e-fuels, or synthetic fuels, was likely to come down as they are developed in coming years.
“They’re a new technology, and like for all new technologies they have time to become cheaper,” he said. ($1 = 0.9279 euros)
General Motors has announced the end of production for the sixth-generation Chevrolet Camaro for the 2024 model year. Another American muscle icon bites the dust — but Chevy says this isn’t the end of the road for the vehicle as we know it; we just have no idea what’s coming next. The final car will roll off the production line at the Lansing Grand River Assembly Plant in January of next year.
In the manufacturer battle, I never once pulled for a Camaro in Trans-Am, NASCAR, IMSA or any other series. I’d never buy one either. It doesn’t lower my respect for it as a good car, except for the gas war years when all cars got neutered.
I’ve followed them since 1968 because of Roger Penske and Mark Donohue. Those pony car days made for great auto’s and brand marketing. This includes the Mach 1 which I think is going away also.
One of my friends in college had the bad ass Z-28, sort of like this one.
He’s lucky he didn’t get killed on the run from Orlando to Haines City at over 100 MPH.
Not being a GM fan doesn’t mean I don’t respect it as a good car.
It’s a shame for GM to kill off such an iconic brand. Not one of the major manufacturer’s are making money on EV’s (other than Tesla) and they keep cutting their own throats with moves like this.
I’d never buy one, but you need good competitors to have a race. Chevy just took that away.
First of all, neither made a truthful statement when they staked their claims. (They lied)
For Gore, none of his predictions have come true. He made a lot of money with dire predictions, but failed to follow any scientific method to support them.
Fauci is related to Science, albeit unsuccessfully. He was tasked with creating a vaccine for AIDS and to prevent and stop the transmission of Covid-19.
Here is what Frances Bacon has to say in The Great Instauration. He is arguing that experimentation is required to overcome the fallibility of our senses.
The scientific method is roughly described as,
The scientific method is a systematic way of learning about the world around us and answering questions, involving forming a hypothesis and then testing it with an experiment.
Neither man followed that to produce repeatable results by peers.
I’ll give you that Gore was able to get other talking heads to repeat his words, but they were by unqualified politicians and media trying to ride the coat tails of his false claims.
Anyone who's ever dealt with grant bureaucracy knows that delinquent progress reports get flagged and you don't get another cent until you submit, let alone a new multimillion dollar grant. Someone at @NIH knows why EcoHealth was treated differently.@RepBradWenstrup@Jim_Jordan
Just brilliant. Fauci left speechless hearing the truth from an awake citizen. ‘If you’re having to pay people to get vaccinated something ain’t right’
Spot on. We’re dealing with the greatest public health fraud we will ever witness in our lifetime. pic.twitter.com/lPeOyuFu7u
Delusions of Adequacy 
