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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The election farce is ramping up. Biden will let others do the work and Trump will be all over the place with big crowds. Romney is gone, so his back stabbing stench won’t be in the chamber any longer.
Sill, we have to go through it. I wonder how corrupt it’s going to be this time.
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.
Give me a V-8 and some good regular gas any day. Read below that they are blowing up while being shipped.
In reality, they are battery powered. All the electricity is produces by oil and coal anyway. They aren’t fooling anybody but themselves. I guess they feel better about the environment by driving one, but then the climatards have been wrong all along. It’s just more bullshit they are trying to shove down our throats to make people comply. Well, we are not the borg, at least some of us.
In a tragic incident in Naples, Italy, a fatal explosion occurred involving an experimental hybrid electric car.
The vehicle was a Volkswagen Polo, a prototype used as part of a project called “Life-Save,” testing the possibility of combining an electric motor with batteries powered by solar panels in cars, a translated version of the Today Chronicle reported.
According to a report from Newsweek, the tragic accident claimed the life of researcher Maria Vittoria Prati and left trainee student Fulvio Filace with severe burns.
Both individuals were associated with the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche research institute and were traveling on the Naples ring road when the explosion took place.
Following the blast, the victims were rushed to the Antonio Cardarelli Hospital in critical condition.
Tragically, Maria Vittoria Prati succumbed to her injuries — burns that covered 90 percent of her body — on Monday.
The car involved in this incident was part of an ongoing research project on engine hybridization, undertaken by the Motor Institute of the CNR in collaboration with the University of Salerno.
Some have theorized that the explosion was due to some type of flammable material contained in the cylinders igniting; however, that has not been confirmed at this time.
Although the exact cause of the explosion has yet to be determined, hybrid and fully electric vehicles have faced safety concerns in the past, including instances of fires and explosions.
Such incidents have been observed with electric and hybrid cars, including certain Tesla models.
The incidents are becoming so common that some shipping companies are refusing to transport electric vehicles.
The dangers associated with EVs have also led to some governments taking actions to protect the public. It was reported last year that a state-owned public transport operator in Paris, France, the Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens, pulled out 149 electric buses from its fleet after two of them spontaneously exploded within the same month.
The Public Prosecutor of Naples has initiated an investigation to shed light on the circumstances surrounding Friday’s explosion, Newsweek reported.
Meanwhile, Fabio Corsaro, cousin of Filace, expressed gratitude for the support provided by the medical team and questioned the decision to expose a trainee about to graduate in mechanical engineering to potential risks.
“I believe it is essential that it be clarified why a trainee close to graduation had been designated for that position to transport evidently dangerous material together with a researcher. What is the added value for an internship offered by such an activity remains a mystery,” he said.
Corsaro emphasized the need for a comprehensive understanding of the incident and its implications, as it remains a tragic event that has disrupted the dreams and aspirations of a young individual.
While disasters like these are disheartening, they serve as reminders of the challenges that come with new technology and innovation.
Maybe I should include the Bilderburg’s, because they are just a subset of this crowd. It’s been the same throughout history. Power hungry people trying to take over the world and tell the rest what to do.
As Alicia Powe previously reported – Key leadership from companies like Microsoft, ChatGPT, and Google are convening with prime ministers, royalty, bank governors, army generals, and top US officials at the 2023 Bilderberg Meeting in Lisbon, Portugal to strategize about global affairs.
At the end of the day, they want communism for everyone, with them in charge of the state. Things haven’t changed. There is your pattern. People are evil and want power, control and money. They’ll walk all over anyone who gets in their way, unless we stop them.
From Vlad Tepes.
WHO head, Tedros explains that the only answer to Covid and other health issues is communism. He doesn’t call it that. but that’s what it is.
WHO Director Tedros Calls for Global Pandemic Accord “The end of COVID-19 as a global health emergency is not just the end of a bad dream from which we have woken. We cannot simply carry on as we did before … Chief among those lessons is that we can only face shared threats with… pic.twitter.com/x3HLYI6ibh
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.
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
I never really bought into the whole meteor’s killed the Dinosaurs business as there is too much science unexplained. Those that espouse this theory remarkably agree with the other non-confirmed theories that usually are about money (like Al Gore’s investments in companies that pollute). It’s usually a denial of science and/or religion.
Why don’t I buy it? I’d like a little more evidence, like finding the hole where it hit millions of years ago, some meteor remains and residue from the dead animals with non Earth elements for example. They can identify an animal’s sex (so far only male or female, none of the other genders), so finding out if they got hit by a meteor or the fallout would seem probable.
Story:
MCALLEN, Texas (KABB) — NASA confirmed that a 1000-pound meteor entered the atmosphere on February 15.
According to NASA, the meteor was seen at around 5:23 p.m. near McAllen, Texas. The meteor’s speed was about 27,000 miles per hour, and it had the same amount of energy as 8 tons of TNT.
Although meteorites tend to hit Earth’s atmosphere at high speeds, they slow as they travel through the atmosphere, breaking into small fragments before hitting the ground. Meteorites cool rapidly and generally are not a risk to the public.
There were no reports of injury or property damage.
“Although meteorites tend to hit Earth’s atmosphere at high speeds, they slow as they travel through the atmosphere, breaking into small fragments before hitting the ground. Meteorites cool rapidly and generally are not a risk to the public,” NASA said in a statement.
Anyone who finds these meteorites is urged to contact the Smithsonian Institution so they can be studied.
Aristotle in his Metaphysics talks about this in a round about way. It’s very interesting that he mentions facts. He is also referring to ignorance, but you need to dive a little deeper into causes….
Myth: Just a small area of solar panels plus storage can power the world.
Truth: Storing just 3 days of global energy would cost $590 trillion at @elonmusk’s current prices. And the panels would take up more space than all the world’s cities, towns, and villages combined.
I was glad to hear that the truth couldn’t be hidden behind the curtain. I was equally disturbed that the same idiots now have a new villain, clouds. Of all the nonsense.
I guess that CO2 is running out of steam because the truth that it is a plant nutrient is not the culprit. We all know the real reason for it is to grift money of the government and billionaires, or to grift it into the pockets of the politicians.
Our tax dollars have been at work with NASA for the last 20+ years putting satellites in orbit to detect and measure the “CO2 effect” on Global Warming, GW. After 20 years, the CERES satellite (and others) has discovered that cloud reduction is the major effect on GW for those 20 years. Two papers published in 2021 reach this conclusion, Dübal and Vahrenholt, (2) and. Loeb, Gregory et al (3) These new papers do claim some sign of CO2 effect (and other greenhouse gases) on GW; but the papers show the dominate effect on GW for those 20 years was the cloud reduction effect (albedo reduction- warming). This paper will show that the observed cloud reduction will account for all the GW in those 20 years and back to 1975, leaving no GW left over for the CO2 effect on GW. Cloud reduction is albedo reduction, (albedo: color of the earth, black, 0.0, is hot and white, 1.0, is cool). Another recently published paper (2021) by Goode et al (4) measuring earth’s albedo from moon shine also reports the same reduction in albedo as the CERES data of both Dübal and Loeb: one can only conclude that for 20 years of data the albedo change is real. Why is albedo change important? Because the IPCC theory of CO2 effect on GW assumes that the earth’s albedo has been constant (or not changed much) and CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) thru Radiative Forcing effect GW. The resent satellite data says this is not true. Cloud cover changes are best documented at “Climate and Clouds”(5) with links to the data source at “Climate Explorer” (6). “Climate and Clouds” conclude that cloud change only accounts for 25% of the GW. This paper will show an improved analysis of “Climate and Clouds” data agrees with the CERES data of Dübal and Loeb that cloud reduction is accounting for most if not all of the warming over CERES’s 20 years. Figures 1 and 2 show a graphic representation of what Dübal and Loeb observed in the CERES data and what was expected from IPCC Radiative Forcing, RF, theory. The shape (slopes) of the observed and expected are entirely different but the increase in the missing energy (Earths Energy Imbalance, EEI) is the same. The missing energy, EEI, is used to warm the earth though the energy balance equation:
And more that there is no climate emergency, (only a money emergency):
Before I start the post, let’s put the real crux of this on the table. It is a false crisis that was generated on wrong data to get money. I worked in this field and know the players and the facts. It is about stuffing their pockets and distracting the attention from the real problems. It is a go to for everything.
There is no better evidence than COP27 that did nothing to pretend to solve the supposed crisis. It was a bunch of elites in private planes who voted to move money from rich nations to poor. The reality is they are moving the money into their own pockets. They penalize the weak who will pay, and dismiss those who are the worst polluters as they get money under the table for that also.
“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.
It has been 12 years since the intellectual scandal erupted called Climategate. Each anniversary inspires recollections and regurgitation of salient quotations. These quotations speak for themselves; attempts of climate alarmists to parse the words and meaning distracts from what was said in real-time private conversations.
And the scandal got worse after the fact when, according to Paul Stephens, “virtually the entire climate science community tried to pretend that nothing was wrong.” Whitewash exonerations by the educational institutions involved and scientific organizations– was a blow to scholarship and standards as well. The standard of fair, objective, transparent research was sacrificed to a politically correct narrative about the qualitative connection between CO2 forcing and temperature (see Wiki).
Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (2010) was a rare mainstream-of-sorts look at the scandal. Michael Mann is the bad actor, despite his I-am-the-victim take in his account, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars(2012). [1]
Background:
On November 19, 2009, a whistle-blower or hacker downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University (United Kingdom). Posted on a Russian server, these documents were soon accessed by websites around the world to trigger the exposé.
These e-mails were part of confidential communications between top climate scientists in the UK, the United States, and other nations over a 15-year period. The scientists involved had developed surface temperature data sets and promoted the “Hockey Stick” global temperature curve, as well as having wrtten/edited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical-science assessment reports.
Branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole, the emails provided insight into practices that range from bad professionalism to fraudulent science. Bias, data manipulation, dodging freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process were uncovered.
There is a lot more at the link above, but here are some salient facts.
Man-Made Warming Controversy
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
—Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“Keith’s [Briffa] series…differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003
“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004.
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
—Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009.
Let me end with some actual Climate facts:
That extreme cold has hit the South Pole this month.
That the South Pole had record cold temperatures in the six-month winter of 2020-2021
That 2022 was a relatively mild hurricane period, just like the ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit.
That we had extreme cold weather in the U.S this month along with record snow in the Northeast.
That the Arctic icecaps have been expanding the last ten years, contrary to predictions that the ice would be gone by now.
That the coral reef off Australia is growing with a vengeance
That wildfires were down 80% from the last five-year average.
After 150 years of exponential growth of crude oil and coal use, and rapid growth in the population and all the other components we are told cause warming, the dire predictions have all been false.
The temperature is only up one to two degrees after a Little Ice Age ended in 1860 and the Earth now has a temperature similar to over 1,000 years ago in the Medieval Warming Period.
“Green” policies are destroying the natural environment and changing local weather. This is part of a futile U.N. scheme claiming to improve the climate of the world.
All green energy degrades its environment.
Take wind power. Wind turbines steal energy from the atmosphere and must affect local weather. Turbines are always placed on the highest ground and along ridges to catch more wind. Natural hills already affect local weather by causing more rain along the ridge and a rain shadow farther downwind. Wind turbines enhance this rain shadow effect by robbing the wind of its ability to take moisture and rain into the drier interior. Promoting more inland desertification is not green.
Wind turbines and solar panels soon wear out and have to be replaced. Some have already reached their use-by date. Most of this “green” debris cannot be recycled. To calmly bury that complex toxic waste of plastics, metals, steel, and concrete is not green at all. Soon chemicals will be leaking into the groundwater and water supply dams.
Manufacture, erection, and final disposal of green energy generators uses more energy than they can produce over their short lives. Their whole-of-life net energy production is negative, and their net emissions are also negative.
Greens also worship biomass energy like wood. This is the fuel that cavemen used for warmth, cooking meat, and repelling wild animals. Primitive people like the British still burn wood for power generation, but too much of the energy is consumed in collecting, drying, chipping, and transporting this low-energy fuel from distant forests to power station boilers.
NEXT, IF THEY WEREN’T SO HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT IT
The BBC Defends Special People Flying Private Jets to COP27
There has been criticism on social media of delegates arriving at the COP27 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
The day before the conference began, hundreds of environmental activists stopped private jets leaving Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, by sitting in front of their wheels and riding around the airfield on bicycles.
…
What is the carbon footprint of private jet travel?
…
Emissions per kilometre travelled are significantly worse than any other form of transport.
Climate models can’t be validated on initiatialisation due to lack of data and a chaotic initial state.
Model resolutions are too low to represent many climate factors.
Many of the forcing factors are parameterised as they can’t be calculated by the models.
Uncertainties in the parameterisation process mean that there is no unique solution to the history matching.
Numerical dispersion beyond the history matching phase results in a large divergence in the models.
The IPCC refuses to discard models that don’t match the observed data in the prediction phase – which is almost all of them.
The question now is, do you have the confidence to invest trillions of dollars and reduce standards of living for billions of people, to stop climate model predicted global warming or should we just adapt to the natural changes as we always have?
IT FIGURES AL GORE WOULD BE BEGGING FOR MONEY WITH ANOTHER SCAM
The 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) of elite globalists is now gathering in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, to decide how to best use ginned-up climate crisis narratives to extract wealth and power from the United States are redistribute it . . . mainly among themselves.
Former Vice President Al Gore is at the event, touting his newest pet project and trying to regain relevancy. He joined with Google’s nonprofit arm to back the nanny-state Climate TRACE project. The goal is use a satellite database to track “individual emitters” of life-essential carbon dioxide and other gases.
Finally, I defy the satellites to gather data on China and then enact any meaningful consequence to the Chinese government when it ignores the senseless emission goals.
The U.S. is suddenly open to making rich nations pay reparations to countries suffering the ravages of climate change — but only if China ponies up, too.
The about-face comes after years of Washington serving as the bulwark of wealthy countries’ resistance to making such payments, and would set up China as the new climate bogeyman. It would also challenge Beijing’s assertion that China should still be seen as a developing nation.
Paying developing nations that suffer from climate-driven disasters and rising temperatures is one of the most contentious issues in global climate negotiations, which resume this weekend at a major conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.
China and India are way worse than any other country. This is about penalizing the West. I suppose that is the non-communist part of the world. An obvious target.
People like the idea of solar farms in the abstract, but hundreds of communities around the world are currently fighting them because they require 300-600x more land than other energy sources, produce 300x more toxic waste, and devastate critical wildlife habitats.
Many rich nations dump used solar panels and batteries on poor African nations
Other rich nations send used solar panels to “landfills where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.”
By 2035 there will be 3x more used solar panels than new ones, which will make them 4x more expensive. “The economics of solar,” wrote Harvard Business Review researchers, “would darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash.”
The gig is up on sustainable energy, even for the staunchest of supporters. Before the discussion begins on those who are having to scramble to get ready for winter, China and India are laughing. They are expanding coal mining and coal power plants and are the worlds largest polluters. Still, the weenies who bought the (money laundering) Global Warming story are going to pay the most this winter.
Despite the fanfare surrounding wind and solar, the world’s dependency on fossil fuels is increasing. Last week, Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said that the world is now “transitioning to coal.”
Saad al-Kaabi, Energy Minister of Qatar, says, “Many countries particularly in Europe which had been strong advocates of green energy and carbon-free future have made a sudden and sharp U-turn. Today, coal burning is once again on the rise reaching its highest levels since 2014.”
They are right. Global coal demand will reach an historic high in 2022, similar to 2013’s record levels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “Global coal consumption is forecast to rise by 0.7 percent in 2022 to 8 billion tons…. Coal consumption in the European Union is expected to rise by seven percent in 2022 on top of last year’s 14 percent jump.”
Coal will continue to be a sought-after energy source as “rising gas prices after 2030 will make existing coal-fired generation more economic,” the IEA says. Global energy demand will grow by 47 percent from now through 2050, and oil is expected to be the major source of energy.
Analysts are projecting “a huge gas-to-coal fuel transition in power and industrial sectors” of Europe. Yes, not gas to renewables, but gas to coal. In fact, the European Union’s coal consumption grew 16 percent year-on-year for the first half of 2022. European countries imported 7.9 million tons of thermal coal in June, more than doubling year-on-year. Annual coal imports are expected to reach 100 million tons by the end of the year, the highest since 2017.
Even in the most developed economies of the West like Germany and the UK, fossil fuels continue to dominate as the only dependable source of energy. Germany is set to become the third highest importer of Indonesian coal in 2023, ranked just below coal-guzzling China and India.
AP says, “Coal, long treated as a legacy fuel in Europe, is now helping the continent safeguard its power supply and cope with the dramatic rise in natural gas prices caused by the war.” Rather than wind or solar, it is coal that is keeping the lights on in Europe.
So the Greens lied to us about the nuclear power plant issue!
The Greens assured us again and again that it would not make sense to continue operating the nuclear power plants. We would have “no electricity problem,” said Economics Minister Robert Habeck, Environment Minister Steffi Lemke and Green Party leader Ricarda Lang, like a mantra. But that was a lie that was spread against the advice of experts: This is proven by 166 documents from the environment and economics ministries, which environment minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) had to hand over to the Die Welt am Sonntag and the Cicero on application [both are behind a paywall].
Explosive: Robert Habeck and his Federal Ministry of Economics and Climate Protection refused to hand over the documents, which they are legally obliged to do! He wanted to cover up what Welt was able to prove anyway: the Greens lied to us in the nuclear debate — and neutralized experts who wanted to tell the truth.
The files show how Habeck and company put their crude anti-nuclear ideology above the security of supply in Germany: Against the advice of their own experts. Experts in Habeck’s ministry “obviously” considered the continued operation of the remaining nuclear power plants to be the right, sensible decision — Habeck ignored them. Just like the Ministry of the Environment, which apparently let a letter from the BMWK [Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection] experts go straight into the wastepaper basket, ignoring the words of the experts as well. When the head of the “Society for Reactor Safety”, which is close to the ministry, criticized the phase-out of nuclear power, he was quickly muzzled by State Secretary for the Environment Christian Kühn (Green Party) and was no longer allowed to comment.
Ever since signing the Paris climate agreement, Vietnam has shown interest in reducing its dependency on fossil fuels, introducing in recent years a slew of measures to cut consumption.
However, in what is considered to be a major U-turn, Vietnam’s government announced last month that it will increase coal imports for the next 13 years.
Critics of fossil fuels, including most mainstream media, are out of sync with the world’s energy realities. They are consistently premature in their celebrations of the emission-reduction promises of developing nations like Vietnam only to see commitments yield to the need to meet growing energy demand with coal, oil and natural gas. Even developed economies like Germany and the UK have ditched — or suspended — grandiose plans for “carbon-free” utopias to fend off social unrest or economic collapse.
In a new strategy drafted to develop the coal sector, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade says that it will increase annual coal imports to as much as 83 million tons during 2025-35.
This decision is a marked departure from ambitious emission-reduction plans that the country seemed keen to embrace, thus delivering another blow to the international campaign against fossil fuels.
Vietnam’s consumption of coal has increased rapidly in the last decade largely to generate electricity — from 27.8 million tons in 2011 to 38.77 million tons in 2015 and 53.52 million tons in 2021. Demand for coal is projected to peak at 125-127 million tons in 2030, mainly due to growing needs in power generation and in the cement, metallurgy and chemical industries.
For countries like Vietnam, there is no option but to increase fossil fuel consumption in the coming decades. Coal, oil, and gas together represent the most affordable, dependable, and abundant source of energy. In fact, a majority of the world’s primary energy comes from these fuels.
The favored technologies of climate alarmists — wind and solar — cannot meet energy needs of large populations. What little electricity they do produce is intermittent and expensive. So, developing countries cannot reduce fossil fuel consumption without a significant compromise in power reliability and economic growth. The consequences of energy shortages due to the anti-fossil fuel stance is greater in developing countries where poverty is still rampant.
Coal consumption correlates closely to Vietnam’s growth in gross domestic product (GDP). The doubling of consumption between 2011-21 tracks with a steady increase in the rate of growth over the same period.
#NBADJT
Also, it must suck that Trump said this would happen if they relied on Russian oil.
Burying the blades of wind turbines because they can not be recycled. Very Earth friendly move by the climate crowd. They don’t tell you this part of the lie.
The Media
“Every human has four endowments—self awareness, conscience, independent will, and creative imagination. These give us the ultimate human freedom … The power to choose, to respond, to change.”
The answer to both is insignificant. No one cares about your status last week, much less ever.
Also, warming and cooling have been happening well before there were cars and people (and cows farting). It’s even starting to lose it’s ability to launder money, the real reason for climate action.
The WEF, Google and the subject of climate are three strikes against objectivity. They are well known for unfair censorship and disinformation. If you have to control the news like it was 1984, then you don’t have truth, just a Ministry of Truth.
Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the United Nations at WEF ‘Disinformation’ event: “We partnered with Google,” said Fleming, adding, “for example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.”
During the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Sustainable Development Impact Meetings last week, the unelected globalists held a panel on “Tackling Disinformation” where participants from the UN, CNN, and Brown University discussed how to best control narratives.
Fleming also highlighted that the UN worked with TikTok on a project called “Team Halo” to boost COVID messaging coming from medical and scientific communities on the Chinese-owned video sharing platform. “We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” she said.
There must be some people who are afraid of him running again. They are friends of Epstein, who didn’t kill himself. He must be a threat to their power base and them hiding the evidence and the client list at the Island.
They want power and control. We know how that eventually works out. In 2 short years, the best economy ever, for most of the world just went in the toilet.
Naturally, those currently in charge are claiming that Constitutionalists are Fascist’s. Let’s look at one of the real fascists to see. After all, politicians are doing what they say the other side is doing as they get up on the alter of high holiness.
I don’t expect the greenies who worship the earth (read money) who won’t believe it anyway, but the actual science is below. Did we have cars and jets and coal plants during the melting of the ice age? What about the fossils being discovered under conditions the opposite of what they are today?
Having been close to this (not by choice but for work), it is the scam they say it is. It’s about money, not saving the earth.
Why would they fly all those private jets to climate conferences if they were really worried?
Al Gore is the prime example. He has 3 mansions and travels on private jets.
IT’S ABOUT THE MONEY.
This year’s heat waves and subsequent droughts resulted in the hottest summer in recorded European history, according to a report by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) – an EU-funded Earth observation agency.
“We’ve not only had record August temperatures for Europe, but also for the summer, with the previous summer record only being one year old,” said Freja Vamborg, a senior scientist at the Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Of course, this ‘record’ heat in the summer has prompted activists to trot out the same old tropes that this ‘confirms climate change’ is having a catastrophic effect on the world already. With the energy crisis facing Europe, this is not a particularly comfortable topic as numerous nations abandon – albeit apparently temporarily – their green policies in favor of not letting their citizenry starve or freeze.
Given that it’s all ‘settled science’, the following RT News anchor was probably expecting a rote response to his questions about climate change.
During the 2020 Election, Biden warned Americans that it’s going to be a “dark winter”.
At the final presidential debate, Democratic nominee Joe Biden warned Americans that it’s going to be a “dark winter” and said President Trump has “no clear plan” to deal with the continuing coronavirus pandemic.
While it turns out he never had a plan for Covid, Biden is going to deliver on a fuel and food shortage that will make the prediction come true. By waging a war on fossil fuels, it is going to come true, just not about Covid-19.
After being elected and approving the Nord Stream pipeline, Russia had a death grip on the throats of most of Europe. Germany decided to ignore the warnings of the prior president about shutting down their power plants in a Green Washing campaign.
Let’s see how the predictions are coming.
First, Covid is pretty much over. Ivermectin worked and the Jab didn’t and we didn’t have a Covid Winter.
Next, the cold dark winter was really about energy. Tell the story about Climate Change to move money around based on scare tactics.
Unfortunately, they have come through.
German public broadcaster DW News reported a few of the new energy regulations:
Illuminated advertising must be switched off after 10p.m., with only a few exceptions. If advertisements serve traffic safety, they remain switched on, for example, at railroad underpasses. Street lamps also remain on, and store windows may continue to be illuminated.
Monuments and other buildings may no longer be illuminated at night. At least not for purely aesthetic reasons. However, emergency lighting will not be switched off, and illumination is permitted for cultural events and public festivals.
In public buildings, halls and corridors will generally no longer be heated, and the temperature in offices will be limited to a maximum of 19 degrees. In places where heavy physical work is performed, temperatures will be even lower in the future. However, the restrictions do not apply to social facilities such as hospitals, daycare centers, and schools, where higher air temperatures are essential for the “health of the people who spend time there,” according to the Economy Ministry.
In 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to quit nuclear energy, and run Europe’s biggest economy on solar and wind power. “Merkel, her allies say, is ready to lead Germany into an era in which wind and solar energy can replace nuclear plants,” The New York Times declared at that time.
Since these renewable energy sources were highly unreliably, Merkel’s government decided to plug the gap with Russian natural gas. Berlin invested billions in joint pipeline projects with Moscow, including the now-defunct 760-mile Nord Stream 2 pipeline that ran under the Baltic Sea.
German politicians and media scoffed at every criticism of their dealings with Russia. President Donald Trump was widely mocked in Germany for suggesting that the country was getting fatally dependent on the Kremlin for its energy requirement.
As Russia now shuts down the gas supply, President Trump’s words appear almost prophetic. The German weekly Der Spiegel notes: “Europeans, and Germans in particular, risk running out of gas in the winter if supplies through Nord Stream, the pipeline that delivers gas directly from Russia to Germany, don’t increase again.” With the remaining nuclear power plants going out of commission and no viable substitute to Russian gas, Germany faces a disaster of its own making
Next warning from a WEF Young Global Leader: ‘Up to ten difficult winters ahead’
Government officials across Europe are warning that a “difficult winter” is ahead. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum, has stated that not only this winter but also the coming years will be difficult.
“The next five to ten winters will be difficult,” said De Croo at port company ICO Terminals in Zeebrugge. “The coming months will be difficult, the coming winters will be difficult. That’s what you can expect. Hope for the best, be prepared for the worst.”
The year 2030 will dawn in eight “difficult winters”. Coincidence?
Following De Croo, French President Emmanuel Macron, also a WEF Young Global Leader and former Rothschild banker, also warned of a difficult winter and other problems ahead. “Perhaps this is the end of an era of plenty,” he said ominously.
“Our country is at a turning point. It’s going to be a difficult winter,” Macron said at his government’s first meeting after the summer break. “This could be the end of an era of abundance. From a plethora of technical products that always seemed to be available. Of wealth on land and water.”
The Spanish government also warned of bad times. “We don’t know what kind of winter is coming. The winter will be very harsh,” Defense Minister Margarita Robles said in an interview with the radio station NRE.
It’s called the “Grand Solar Minimum”. The last mini-ice age started roughly 1250 and lasted until 1850 with a few minor warming spells in between. Although I assume that the current and coming crises are staged and staged and staged some more by those fear-porn starlets that are bending over backwards to please their pimps and the fear-porn pusher and addicts of the MSM. The real problem is the world’s unbelievably high national debt. Why else was there suddenly “Corona” all over the world? No country can ever repay its debt. The current crises are then ideal for assigning blame, and the result will be a basic income for ordinary people. This will be processed digitally. There will be no more cash and nothing to be made on the side to put food on the table. Then the “Great Reset” is complete and there will only the big corporations left. The small businesses will have been destroyed, and it will be similar to China. This means we are completely at the mercy of the “elites”, who have shown that they have NONE.
With even Zoltan Pozsar warning that Europe faces an apocalypse of sorts now that the Eurussia divorce is complete and energy prices in Europe are hitting fresh daily record highs every single day – just today, German 1Year forward baseload electricity rose above €1000, or 10x where they were a year ago, before easing after European nat gas prices plunged the most since March after Germany said its gas stores are filling up faster than planned ahead of winter…
… moments ago the European Union appears to have finally realized that it faces an armed revolt this winter, or worse, when millions face freezing cold without power and heat (see “This Is Beyond Imagination”: Polish Homeowners Line Up For Days To Buy Coal Ahead Of Winter“), and announced that it was planning “urgent steps” to push down soaring power prices, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Monday.
“The skyrocketing electricity prices are now exposing, for different reasons, the limitations of our current electricity market design,” von der Leyen said in a speech at the Bled Strategic Summit in Slovenia, pointing out what has been obvious for years to those who warned repeatedly that Europe should probably not take make its energy policy based on the idiotic ravings of a self-absorbed, petulant, Scandinavian teenager (Greta T). “It was developed under completely different circumstances and completely different purposes.”
RUSSIA CUTTING OFF THE OIL, GREEN FAILS
With Russia squeezing gas deliveries, power-plant outages further sapping supply, while droughts and lack of wind make a mockery of “green” energy sources, the pressure is growing on EU leaders to act quickly or risk social unrest and political upheaval. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala is seeking backing for his price-cap plan and plans to discuss possible limits with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
“High energy prices are a Europe-wide problem that we need to tackle at European level,” Fiala said on his Twitter account. “Ahead of the EU Energy Council we want to find a way to help people and businesses that we can agree on with other European leaders.”
Czech officials are proposing to cap prices of natural gas used for power generation, Industry and Trade Minister Jozef Sikela said on Monday.
“We may open the question of emission allowances, as some other member states have done in past, that also present a major part of the total price,” Sikela said. “We may open the question of the overall market regulation, total decoupling of the prices,” adding that the bloc cannot meddle too much with the market or fuel speculation.
Amusingly, EU member states have already earmarked about 280 billion euros (or roughly the same in USD now that we are at parity) in measures such as tax cuts and subsidies to ease the pain of surging energy prices for businesses and consumers, but the aid risks being dwarfed by the scale of the crisis. In other words, the ECB will be hiking rates even as it has to inject even more liquidity into the market to enable the latest helicopter money stimulus. Governments have also started to limit energy use, banning outside lighting for buildings in Germany and lowering indoor heating temperatures, to meet the EU voluntary target of cutting gas demand by 15%.
On Saturday, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo warned that the EU can’t continue resolving the problem of sky-rocketing energy costs by cutting taxes and called for a price cap instead. Should the bloc fail to reach an agreement, Belgium will consider national measures, he told VTM television.
Summer is over. The winter is coming. So are the elections.
California has loved to stifle any form of capitalism with overbearing environmental laws has just done this:
A “catastrophic failure” killed 21,000 fish at a UC Davis research facility, the university announced Thursday.
We’ve had to listen to decades of them protecting water against farmers using it so a worthless fish (compared to what they killed) could stand in the way of irrigation.
There is enough water for the state if they would quit mismanaging it.
I could go on about them killing raptors (especially eagles) in favor of turbines, that don’t help their rolling blackouts either.
They don’t really care about the environment as stated. They want to restrict resources to control the population. They have the most private jets flying around the world (to global warming conferences) so don’t give us the argument that this is for the climate. They only care to control money, the goal of climate change anyway.
This is after they protect pet fish also:
The center has made headlines in recent years for assisting with pet fish injured in California wildfires. In 2017, 16 koi fish were rushed to CABA for care after being impacted by the Wine Country wildfires; they recovered and were returned to their grateful owner.
Now I could tie this to the 20 plus food plants that have burned creating a food shortage, something the Soviets did to starve their population, but then that would be conspiratorial. People hate it when I am right on this so I won’t say anything.
There is a pattern here by the left. Using climate issues for control. It’s there for you to see.
One of the areas hit hard by the drought is the state’s farms. This is especially troubling as we enter an era of food scarcity concerns. Commenting on the poor state handling of the drought and its impact on California agriculture, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., blasted for mishandling the problem during his time in office.
“I think Gavin Newsom has failed when it comes to water,” McCarthy, who represents a district in California’s Central Valley, said.
…[F]armers’ yields and, consequently, their businesses, are suffering, said Sam Parnagian, a third generation California Central Valley farmer. Over one-third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts are grown in California, according to the state Department of Food and Agriculture.
“You’ll go see tens of thousands of acres that used to have nuts, almonds, pistachios, and they’re just bare,” “It’s just all dust.”
This is a grave matter, especially for those who love pasta and french fries. The poor planning and negligence in accommodating agricultural needs mean a looming tomato shortage.
California leads the world in production of processing tomatoes — the variety that gets canned and used in commercial kitchens to make some of the most popular foods. The problem is the worst drought in 1,200 years is forcing farmers to grapple with a water crisis that’s undermining the crop, threatening to further push up prices from salsa to spaghetti sauce.
According to Prof. Windisch, as reported by the Bavarian Agricultural Weekly News of November 25, 2021, “The role of ruminants with regards to climate protection has up to now been overestimated by at least a factor of 3 to 4. An enormous climate contribution to climate warming has been falsely attributed to ruminants: 15 to 20%.”
That means in reality the so-called contribution is closer to just 5%.
Moreover, according to the Klimaschau, the number of ruminants in Germany has not risen, data show. In 1873, Germany had a total of 16 million ruminants. But in 2010, that number was down to 13 million.
Also, whatever methane that cows do emit ends up getting broken down in a matter of just a few years, the Klimaschau reports. Thus the system remains in equilibrium and so there’s little impact on climate.
Confirmed by the IPCC 6th Report
According to gvf Agrar: “It often goes unmentioned that the climate gases from agriculture come from balanced biogenic cycles and not from fossil fuels that transport additional CO2 into the atmosphere. This was also stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the first volume of the sixth IPCC Assessment Report.”
It just goes to show what a joke he has made of the Royals. The Queen may be the last good monarch. Her son is a joke to the rest of us (as is her grandson, prince sparkles).
Sure, Biden is a joke, but he’ll be gone soon. Chuckles will be King for life unless Prince William can bring some sanity to the throne.
The Queen held out as long as possible, every time he says something like this I watch her hang on a little bit longer:
“I can’t tell you how proud I am to be associated with the Royal College of Art, particularly as a result of seeing the remarkable ideas presented by many of the alumni and existing students,” Prince Charles said at the event where the prizes were given out. “May I say that it is critical because of the urgency we face in terms of the crisis confronting us in all directions and just how important is what their ideas represent in terms of finding solutions rapidly.”
But putting masks on cows? Really? Not only does it sound ridiculous, it sounds rather inhumane.
“I feel rather sorry for the cow. Animals don’t tend to like wearing stuff on their faces if they can help it and I should think the first thing they are going to try and do is scrape that thing off on a fence post and the fields will be left full of plastic masks.” said British journalist Ross Clark, who added that cows “got to be able to eat and breathe.”
Clark also noted that the device does nothing to stop methane emissions from the animals’ other end.
“When methane’s emitting from the mouth you can’t sort of cover the whole thing which is why this device has only really claimed to capture 60 percent of the methane emitted through a cow’s mouth and nothing out the rear end,” Clark stated.
Centuries of Georges, Williams, Richards and now Chuckles the 1st.
Twitter user Perry Lucas summed it up well, saying “Our future King, Prince Charles backs a face mask device for cows that catches Methane emissions in order to stop climate change. Jesus….what is he smoking? Truly are living in clown world.”
Meanwhile, many climate scientists — even climate-fanatic scientists — have dismissed the notion that a trace gas such as methane has much, if any, effect on global warming. Some climate modelers have even omitted it from their models.
Physicist Dr. Tom Sheahen points out that any effect that methane (CH4) might have is essentially canceled out by water vapor already in the atmosphere.
“The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. The amount of CH4 must increase 100-fold to make it comparable to H2O,” Sheahen notes.
It’s germane to point out that Prince Charles is a high-profile proponent of the so-called Great Reset, a plan pushed by the World Economic Forum that would have the common people move on to other sources of protein rather than livestock. Insects, for instance, are good enough for us.
The same people are proposing huge new taxes on meat, which could eventually make it unaffordable to the masses.
The extent of Arctic ice during the warmer months long has been a metric for climate-change alarmists. In 2007, Al Gore began warning the world that scientists were predicting that by 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free during the summer.
Arctic sea ice has not melted, it is the highest it’s been in 30 years, the same 30 that Al has been claiming that we’ll be ice free.
How long is it going to be before someone examines the facts? Don’t expect the media to cover the truth, look at Covid and the Election coverage. I guess they are paid to lie or be a part of the propaganda machine that is the media today.
The weather is changing, it always has. Blaming it solely on humans is just the same spew we heard from the over population crowd and the Covid Vaxx people. They can’t hide the facts forever.
Al got his $250 million from Al Jazeera, an oil producing company. That kind of exposes hypocrisy now doesn’t it? That it is at Davos and the WEF pushing kind of confirms it is about control, not facts.
Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.
Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the [energy] equivalent of one barrel of oil.
By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.
In all the Democrats’ speeches and publicly stated positions over the past several years on renewable energy, the Green New Deal, etc., there is not the slightest indication from any so-called liberal environmental “expert” or elected officeholder that they have even the dimmest awareness of any of this. Instead, Democrat politicians and their Green supporters simply spout their vacuous, predictable, totally inaccurate party lines about “saving the earth before time runs out,” or the “evils of big energy corporations.” The smart money says that not one liberal environmental proponent—elected or otherwise— has even read this report, much less is able to refute any of it in a coherent, logical manner.
Of course the Jab is killing people now, some groups more than others. The people that took it the most have the most problems. (Oh, climate change isn’t really happening except as a fund raiser for John Kerry’s private plane trips).
I doubted an Inconvenient Truth when it came out and not a prediction came through. I thought the Jab and Covid stunk just as bad and it turns out that it just as wrong and misleading. It is just as consolidated as a message we are supposed to buy in this 1984-ish scenario we live in today.
It isn’t that I’m guessing right all the time about what the government is doing, it’s the consistency of their messaging that hasn’t changed. It’s easier to see through it.
I thought yesterday, why did I decide that the Jab was bad news since the beginning? Because they pushed it on everyone despite the fact that it’s not one size fits all. The pattern has been there since Obamacare. Push it on the unsuspecting until they can’t turn back.
I’ve stopped being a sheep. I wonder if they will continue to offer this swill without thinking through it like those chanting religions. I get tired of the same thing over and over.
After no one gave a shit that they were off, combined with them not getting money for work they did in the 70’s, the two whiners quietly came back to Spotify.
It turns out that their hippie culture couldn’t override greed and capitalism. That and Joe Rogan is way more popular. So much in fact that everyone was willing to let the two Karen’s go away to keep him.
Many people also realized that they like free speech and that Rogan had some actual scientists with facts that turned out to be true about Covid and Climate Change. The two pot addled brains who thought there was someone who cared about their him or me stance gave up in less than a week.
I like Joni Mitchell’s music, but Young’s is crap since he left CSNY. I missed neither.
Now maybe if we stand up to other celebtards, woke, politicians, libtards, the LGBFJBQ+ and others that make everyone miserable, we could enjoy our lives a lot more. Assholes like Young and Mitchell don’t live in the real world. They got their asses yanked back into it quickly.
I’ve stayed away from talking about Biden, like I stayed away from Trump. I’m not going to try to change anyone’s opinion of either, nor will I change mine. Politics is poison, so I’ll talk economics instead (OK, I’ll make a few sarcastic points because, that’s why).
I do see how this problem can easily be solved.
Today, the President announced that he’s opening up the strategic oil reserve to bring down the prices. This is little more than a band aid to a problem rather than a solution. That reserve was meant for a crisis, of which we are not in right now. By crisis, I mean an attack, an actual climate disaster like a hurricane or a non man made disruption in fuel production.
When taking office, he shut down production of fossil fuels via the Keystone Pipeline, Fracking and other independent (of other countries) production of oil. All was done in the name of sustainable sources and devices like electric cars. What is not said is that the generators of electricity are fossil fuel based, even for a Tesla. Also not said is we are not ready for decades to leave oil as a base for our energy and electricity needs.
Irony, hypocrisy and sarcasm, all in one.
The cynical me steps back and looks at the executive orders signed and it seems that Biden is just against anything the previous president did. Lots of presidents do that. One of them was energy independence. Recently, he asked the Saudi’s to produce more for us, although we have the ability to be the largest producer and exporter. They thumbed their noses at us.
To me, if you produce more, the price would go down. It seemed to work a couple of years ago and there is no reason not to have it work again. Stop the restrictions on fracking (which helped reduce our carbon footprint btw), get rid of the restrictions on fracking and get rid of the bureaucratic laws against our being energy independent and the price goes back down. It has nothing to do with production anywhere else, other than driving down the price worldwide.
It would be a step in the right direction of inflation reduction.
Tapping the strategic oil reserved leaves us with our pants down in the case of an actual emergency.
I’m pretty sure most who have an IQ above a grain of rice could see this and know I’m stating the obvious.
Do I expect this to happen? Not a chance. I lived through lines during the Carter years and expect the same to happen until production returns. It’s simple economics.
It’s time to put pettiness aside and do what is right for the people of the country. It’s not getting better than it was. Cutting fuel costs would be a good start.
I’ve posted about the scams here where they are trying to make us believe that the world is coming to an end. Some are in the list above.
Anybody with more than rice for brains can see that none of this comes true. They just move the goalposts and get the gullible to buy into whatever the scam de jour is.
Don’t be a sheep. If a politicians lips are moving, they are asking for money, they just use different words. If the media and social media support it, for sure it is a lie.
“You know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”
We all are smart at something (the converse is true about the other things). For that we grant ourselves superiority status that bleeds to other things that aren’t always our best subjects.
That led to the next saying. “Here, hold my beer”. We all know how that turns out.
It’s ok to say you don’t know about something. It ends some conversations based on competing knowledge, some of which could actually be true.
I look at the experts on what is happening in the world and wonder if some of these people have overstepped their boundaries…….Like this one:
Alina Chan, a biologist at the Silver lab at the Harvard School of Medicine
Chan is one of 18 scientists who finally admitted in the journal of Science last month that the Wuhan coronvirus likely originated in a Wuhan, China virology lab.
Chan says liberal scientists lied to the American public for months about their beliefs on the origination of the virus to not be associated with the President who was trying to save lives.
I have no dog in this fight except I don’t want it to cost tax dollars for a boondoggle like Solyndra. I’m not sure it’s ready for prime time even with the most fervent people.
After reading a post that claimed rising tides threatened the world a while back, I suggested to him that the tides fluctuate. Science plus history prove the Statue of Liberty isn’t drowning, or Florida sinking like his hero Al Gore promised. I was pointing out the obvious to no avail. I’ve rarely encountered such an elitist, who was so wrong on a subject (except Al Gore).
check it out Tim, The tides aren’t rising in 500 years. Global warming science isn’t hard if you lie. I figured it out and so did you. I’m just the one pointing out the truth you don’t want to believe.One of Al Gore’s HousesWhich came true Tim O, or James G or Tom R? You guys were nuts and wrong every time.
His argument was that climate science is hard. (It is when you only try to scare others with fake predictions and not facts to back up your position and then the scare never happens). It’s hard to defend when none of those descriptions of doom ever come true, hot or cold. The tweet below shows the Grand Tetons the same as they were 100 years ago
— William Teach2 🏴☠️ #refuseresist (@WTeach2) July 2, 2022
What is funny to me is that instead of decent discussion which I offered, I instead got an ad hominem attack on my character. It was an ill advised use of a bully pulpit as without any personal knowlege of me, I was told I was a typical Fox News watcher (I refuse to watch any news channel, especially FOX l as they all are biased in some way, read my blog and you’ll see). This is typical leftist behavior when they don’t get their way. Start saying they are racists, supremacists, Hitler, deplorable’s and so forth.
There were the other usual liberal attacks on me personally about beliefs I was accused of but don’t have, typical of when you run out of facts. I was this or that, because I wouldn’t worship Gaia and no mention of my knowledge of science and history, and especially facts. So he lied about the tides and about me. Good job there boy.
I also know that Carbon Dioxide is a nutrient for plants. That is the settled science. These idiots call it poison and wanted to tax it. Did anyone go to biology class?
The offer to talk is now rescinded because I don’t have time for Internet trolls like Tim or people who won’t get educated about what they spew. They aren’t going to believe facts and have adjusted it to fit their pre-determined outcome.
Evidence That Climate Change Is A Hoax Perpetuated By The Rich, your hero’s.
proof the rich don’t believe it either
So the Greenland Ice is growing and Florida is still there. The water around the statue is at the same level it’s been for 100 years and Tim is a troll it appears and is wrong. I’ve added at hastag for TIm, a social media terrorist.
I offer a few facts, something Tim didn’t have when castigating others on social media.
The New Pause paused last month because I was ill. Many apologies for the interruption. Now, however, it resumes – and it has lengthened from 7 years 7 months to the end of April 2022. To the end of June 2022, the New Pause is now 7 years 10 months in length:
This Pause, like its predecessor, which was an impressive 18 years 8 months (UAH), or 18 years 9 months (HadCRUT4), is, as always, not cherry-picked. It is derived from the UAH monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies as the period from the earliest month starting with which the least-squares linear-regression trend to the most recent month for which data are available does not exceed zero. Whatever the data show, I show. Or, in the immortal words of Dr Roy Spencer, speaking of his dataset, “It is what it is”. In that splendid dictum speaks all true science.
The least-squares trend, which Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia used to recommend as the simplest and most robust method of deriving global-temperature trends, takes due account of all monthly values, not merely of the starting and ending values.
It sucks when you are wrong. But the point of climate change isn’t carbon reduction (Trump reduced it more than any president), it’s controlling others and grifting money.
I feel sorry for people like him. It must suck to go through life choosing to be purposely ignorant about science. It must suck to be wrong and to not change, but when you are in that deep, there is no getting out. You’ve bought the lie hook, line and sinker.
The European Union’s parliament has decided that nuclear power and gas power from plants now qualify as “green energy.” The proposal passes the EU parliament as Russia is threatening to cut off all natural gas transit to Europe in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine.
The news was reported by Disclose TV on Wednesday morning.
JUST IN – EU Parliament declares nuclear power and gas as “green” energy.
“EU Parliament declares nuclear power and gas as ‘green’ energy,” the news account tweeted.
It was also reported by the Associated Press in a piece that reads more like an outraged editorial.
“European Union lawmakers voted Wednesday to include natural gas and nuclear in the bloc’s list of sustainable activities, backing a proposal from the EU’s executive arm that has been drawing fierce criticism from environment groups and will likely trigger legal challenges,” the AP noted.
Times are tough for teenagers to get a job. I’ve heard that unemployment is more that 20 +% for teenagers. My son has struck out getting a job, although he has put more effort into video games than looking for a job, so we started an eBay business.
It’s name is NeonDeal, Click on the name and see what he is selling, vintage fishing lures. The one in the picture is worth a few hundred dollars. Of course, I know something about it, but he built the blog and the Twitter account which you should follow and see what he is selling. He sold and shipped his first lures last week and made more money in one night than he would in a month at McDonald’s. He’s learned a valuable lesson, work for yourself and it’s good to be the boss. Michael Dell started a company called PC’s Limited out of his dorm room….It’s now call Dell Computers. Hope my son gets that kind of taste for the real green. So he’s self employed for the summer and is understanding inventory, shipping, logistics, marketing, sales, blogging and if you don’t work…you don’t get paid.
Note: I’ve edited this to accurately represent what really happened at the Green and Sustainability effort during my tenure at this job. It has died because once the fury of Green passed by, nobody cared about it. That accurately reflects the real position by everyone in the company that I worked with except the executive who got paid for running it. I don’t think he cared either once the assaignment was over because he moved on and it was dropped.
I was given a stretch assignment for Green IT at IBM this year. A stretch assignment means you get another job without the extra pay, or layoffs just happened and a person now has to do the work of 2 since they don’t want to backfill, or the powers that be don’t feel like you have enough to do so they use this as retribution. In this case it’s mostly the second one because they know I can deliver when others can’t, so they dump stuff on me frequently.
I have a lot ahead of me, thus the title of this blog post. The hardest thing about this assignment is that I know that IBM doesn’t really believe in it (and there is only a small faction of nuts in the company trying to get buy in). The entire premise is almost 100% hype for corporate responsibility and image rather than any actual product or offering. I really wasn’t given a choice whether I wanted to do it and I certainly will do my job, but as you can see in the details below, it’s hard to believe in something when it’s based on bullshit. I see through it and I know that TPTB are just being politically correct to avoid the (very small but politically damaging) social justice warrior hostage taking out there.
During the Major Analyst Conference we did in November, I had to get this nonsense into all the Smarter Planet materials to show (SJW and PC) compliance (so as to not get the Jessie Jackson-ish extortion treatment by the Al Gore crowd). It turns out to be a bunch of nonsense that is made up to try to fool the press and analysts into thinking IBM actually does something in the Green space.
It all started out with trying to be politically correct about global warming, since IBM really isn’t and has the carbon footprint of China (or Al Gore’s 2 houses and jet setting around the world). Now, everyone has started shying away from the words “global warming” once the world saw through that as a lie and ineffective, they renamed it Sustainability. That means you wrap up all the things that tangentially have something to do with being sustainable, since it is a nebulous name and concept and voila, you claim sustainability.
Once the word sustainability gets found out as a fraud as part of the global warming and money grabbing hoax, you then call it Smarter Planet or roll it up into that campaign and somehow you are politically correct, even if you aren’t really doing anything different (which IBM isn’t). We had to sell this crock to the press and analysts who wanted so badly to be able to charge extort us for pretending to buy our baloney of offering something in this space that resembled eco-friendliness. They were compliant in our scam as long as there was money.
The worst thing is having to deal with the idiots out there who buy into this Gaia religion like Tom Raftery of Greenmonk and James Governor of Redmonk and Greenmonk. Our executives in a briefing after a different Green Day analyst conference in London actually called James a wanker and Tom a whiner after the event due to their outbursts and views as they interrupted the entire day. Greenmonk has since gone dormant for lack of money, facts and believable content on climate. Their credibility was shot when they wanted a carbon tax at a dollar a pound. James told me the real truth was he wanted to make money while trying pretend that they were doing it to save the planet, making money being the operative words (see the above extortion tactics). I put the Dilbert cartoon in specifically for O’Reilly, Raftery and Governer – the 3 stooges.
The net of it is that IBM is pretending to be a player in this shell game but is a pseudo player. Fortunately, the analysts and press who are pushing it are just bully’s, but know as we all do that the evidence is not there, so they make up new stories when the lack of facts expose the wild goose chase de jour.
Too bad it is all a farce and IBM’s offering is equally a load of hogwash.
THE WORLD IS FLATTER, BUT NOT LIKE YOU THINK.
That is right, the real flat earther’s are the one’s who buy into this farce of “sustainability” like Greenmonk whose job was to suck around for money. Another dissembler Tim O’Reilly, who couldn’t defend global warming with anything other than “climate science is hard” (or I have no real facts so I’ll call you names), while condemning those who don’t believe in it wrong without any proof of his position was another nut I had to deal with. None of either’s positions are based on anything but computer climate predictions of which none have come even close. they based their position on the IPCC report. It now comes out that The IPCC; Never Has So Much Been Made Out of So Little by So Many at So Great A Cost. In other words it was a money transaction that had nothing to do with climate other than earth worshipping. Any other “climate facts” are 50 years in the future, which is an even bigger joke since real meteorologists can barely predict the weather next week. I could be convinced of global warming if there was one little thing called evidence. What I find unfathomable is the lack of backbone by IBM to stand up to this money grabbing extortion theme by these pseudo experts.
As it turns out, I had tweeted in response to Tim’s crisis about the rising tides that I didn’t believe him, but would accept his facts if he had any. Like all good climate warriors, he made ad hominem attacks on me and in a more harmless statement, said that I got all my information from Fox News (I don’t watch any news as my career with the media already told me that the press are biased). The only real facts about the state of Climate issues are found at What’s up with That unlike Tim who had no facts like all climate warriors.
As it turns out, the tides are receding Tim and here is the evidence. The waters on the island of Tuvalu (the tidal benchmark) are receding. This is one of the crisis places of the world that was supposed to be drowned along with the Statue of Liberty. So Tim, your views are biased and calling people flat-Earther’s because they don’t sign up for the pseudo science you have bought into is ridiculous, like your views.
Epilogue:
I got out of this assignment because I couldn’t lie for the company, nor lie to myself by doing something I didn’t believe in and realized was a lie. It’s lost its mojo because both the premise of Sustainability and climate change are based on predictive models that aren’t true. The fact that IBM doesn’t really do anything (other that trying to keep up with the Jones) was too much for me to take, and claim any sense of honesty. My credibility is more important than getting a paycheck for lying. I’d never make it as a politician.
I left the position right before a green conference where Al Gore was the speaker. It was the second time in my IBM career that I made a conscious decision to avoid him so as to not listen to his spew about global warming, nor be disappointed in humanity by seeing so many people being fooled by this scam based on redistribution of money to the climate warriors.
I told James that it was good that Gore wasn’t president on 9/11/2001 as he couldn’t lead a lottery winner to any bank (other than his bank account), let alone a nation in a real crisis. Being a good liberal, he was offended since he knew it was true and couldn’t defend his hero. He, like Biden and Cheney were only impeachment insurance for their respective presidents.
So having to lie to defend Climate anything, especially at IBM when I understood the facts makes it hard to be green. I’ve moved on to something I can be honest about.
The position went away as it became “under the guise of everything is sustainable” – (more lies) that we didn’t need a person babysitting it anymore. The real truth is that it didn’t develop into an issue like diversity that a company could be blackmailed into payment or bad PR due to non-compliance. It just went away as did the fake committment to global warming by my employer.
.jpg)
Delusions of Adequacy 
