Create a scare or panic, then profit from it before the sheep and under educated figure it out.
This fraud has both the climate scam and the leader of fake and biased news, the NY Times in it. When I had to work with New Yorker’s at IBM, they worshiped the Times both for what it said and how we treated it in the land of public relations. My co-worker Tom Belz would quote anti-Bush stuff as well as global warming panic from this bible. I’d laugh it off by telling him it was from the NYT and everyone knew they were lying. The anti-Bush (or anti-truth) rhetoric stopped with the revelation that he graduated both from Harvard and Yale. They couldn’t understand that one of their own wasn’t (then) part of the left cabal.
Then, I had to deal with the zealots like Greenmonk and Internet Trolls like Tim O’Reilly who were sure that then named global warming was the greatest problem in the world and that tides were rising.
A little history provides the facts I knew back then. It was all a lie. While the facts are now it place, I knew they couldn’t predict the weather next week, let alone decades from now.
Many of those beaches are along the East Coast. However, back in 1995, the New York Times ran a story with “experts” genuinely concerned those beaches would be gone in 25 years.
The article covered the assessment conducted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
According to draft sections of the new forecast, some of the predicted effects of climate change may now be emerging for the first time or with increasing clarity. The possible early effects include these:
*A continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100. This, say the scientists, would inundate parts of many heavily populated river deltas and the cities on them, making them uninhabitable, and would destroy many beaches around the world. At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. They are already disappearing at an average of 2 to 3 feet a year.
Yet, somehow, East Coast beaches remain. Sadly, marine mammals are routinely washing up along the coastal shores, and one of the concerns is that their deaths can be attributed to climate change “solutions.
(Plymouth Rock, the same tide level as 1620)
In addition to these dire predictions being entirely wrong, chasing after solutions to nonexistent problems is turning out to be expensive: Trillion dollars.
No one said that combating climate change would be cheap. Still, a report released during the COP27 climate talks made for a sobering reminder. The report, commissioned by Britain and Egypt as the past and current hosts of the UN summit, said that developing countries alone need a combined $1trn a year in external funding to meet the goals set out in their Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs (the climate action plan set out in the Paris Agreement).
This funding, in addition to the countries’ own expenditure, is needed for things like cutting emissions, dealing with deadly disasters and restoring nature. In one encouraging development, it was reported on November 11th that America and Japan would provide Indonesia with at least $15bn to help retire some coal-fired power stations early.
Time, talent, and treasure is squandered on bad policy built on “narrative science.”
Meanwhile, some recent studies shed light that on the Earth’s past that show the climate has long been in flux.
Researchers from Aarhus University, in collaboration with Stockholm University and the United States Geological Survey, recently published a report on their findings related to samples from the previously inaccessible region north of Greenland. Their findings indicated Arctic sea ice in this region melted away during summer months around 10,000 years ago.
The researchers have used data from the Early Holocene period to predict when the sea ice will melt today. During this time period, summer temperatures in the Arctic were higher than today. Although this was caused by natural climate variability opposed to the human-induced warming, it still is a natural laboratory for studying the fate of this region in the immediate future.
And while the authors argue their study confirms the need to be climate extremists, I assert that their data show man’s impact on the global climate isn’t panic-worthy. In fact, humanity would do better to focus efforts and resources on dealing with local pollution problems and perhaps exploring nuclear energy options.
The experience with Covid should have taught us not to trust global “experts” who offer simple solutions to complex issues. This should be doubly true with the “climate crisis,” especially as the long-term projections made nearly 30 years ago have proven to be wrong.
The good news: The East Coast beaches are still here. The bad news: So is the climate hysteria.
Lord Monkton has been a shining star on the truth of the climate issue. Here is what he delivers as damning evidence.
I know people who worship the climate as their religion and wouldn’t believe the truth were it this clear. I marvel at how far some will go to be wrong. SMH
The true economic, social, and political cost of the measures proposed by governments (in the West only) to destroy their nations’ businesses and jobs and to impoverish every household is becoming ever more visible. At last, therefore, a few brave souls in the scientific and academic communities are beginning to question what I shall call — with more than a little justification — the Communist Party line on climate change.
Three devastating equations have emerged, each of which calls fundamentally into question the imagined (and imaginary) basis for the economic hara-kiri by which the West is throwing away its gentle and beneficent global hegemony. Power and wealth are passing inexorably from the democracies of the West to the communist-led tyrannies of the East.
However, the three equations stand firmly in the way. It is these three equations — simple enough to be explained here for the general reader, yet devastating enough utterly to destroy the official climate change narrative — that will soon lay low the enemies of prosperity, democracy, and liberty who have, until now, gotten away with undermining the West, no less from within than from without, by their childishly apocalyptic climate change narrative.
The first of these equations was presented to you here a few months ago. Therefore, I shall summarize that discussion briefly. The equation comes in two versions: the wrong version, on the basis of which the climate science establishment felt improperly confident that unabated emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmless greenhouse gases would soon bring about Thermageddon, and the corrected version, which shows that IPCC’s predictions of large and dangerous global warming are false and without scientific foundation.
The system-gain factor is the variable by which the predicted 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 in the air is multiplied to obtain the predicted final warming by doubled CO2 after taking account of feedback response, a knock-on, additional warming signal driven by and proportional to the direct or reference signal.
The erroneous version of the equation neglects what engineers call the base signal, the 260 K direct sunshine temperature. Climate scientists call this the emission temperature. It is the temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.
The 29 K total greenhouse effect is the sum of 8 K direct warming by natural greenhouse gases, 1 K direct warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and 20 K total feedback response.
Multiply the 1.2 K direct doubled-CO2 warming by the erroneous system-gain factor 3.2 to get climatologists’ 3.85 K final doubled-CO2 warming. Sure enough, the average final or equilibrium doubled-CO2 warming predicted by the general-circulation models in the sixth and latest generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is 3.85 K.
But the corrected system-gain factor bears in mind — as climatologists in this crucial respect do not — that the sun is shining and that, therefore, the dominant 260 K sunshine temperature must be included in the corrected equation. Therefore, the system-gain factor is not 29 / 9, or 3.2, but (260 + 29) / (260 + 9), or just 1.1. Then the final warming to be expected in response to the 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 is not 3.85 K, but more like 1.3 K, which is small, harmless, and net-beneficial.
Climate scientists made their error when they borrowed the physics of feedback from a branch of engineering physics known as control theory. They did not understand what they had borrowed. When I pointed out their grave error to the world’s most eminent climatologist, he said he did not believe that the feedback processes in the climate (chiefly the extra water vapor — itself a greenhouse gas — that the air can hold as it is directly warmed by the non-condensing greenhouse gases) would respond to the sunshine temperature.
So I asked him how the inanimate feedback processes in the climate knew that at any given moment, such as the present, they should not respond in the slightest to the 260 K sunshine temperature but should respond violently and extremely to the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, I said. He had no answer to my question. He shuffled off, looking baffled.
It was hitherto unnoticed that feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (the only one that really matters — all the others broadly self-cancel) necessarily respond to the entire 269 K input signal or reference temperature. Therefore (I shall not show the working for this, but trust me), just 0.01 unit of increase in feedback strength would add as much as 1 K to the final warming by doubled CO2. But it is entirely impossible to measure feedback strength directly by any method, and certainly not to a precision of only a few hundredths of a unit.
Therefore, after correction of climate scientists’ error, no method of deriving predictions of anthropogenic global warming that is based on feedback analysis — as just about all of the current official predictions are — is capable of producing predictions that are any better than mere guesswork.
The IPCC, not realizing this even though it has been told about the error, bases very nearly all of its predictions upon feedback analysis. Its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report mentions “feedback” more than 1,100 times, its 2021 Sixth Assessment Report more than 2,600 times. In short, the IPCC’s entire analysis of the “how much warming” question is meaningless and valueless.
How could so crass a mistake have been made? The answer is that when the climatologists asked the control theorists how to calculate feedback response, they were told that they should base the calculation only on the gain signal (in the climate, the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases) and on the 20 K feedback response. Control theorists do things this way because in typical control-theoretic applications, such as electronic long-distance telephone circuits or factory control processes, the feedback response signal is 10 to 100 times larger than any other signal in the circuit. Therefore, neglecting the base signal usually makes no significant difference to the calculation, so they neglect it.
In the climate, however, it is the other way about. The base signal in the climate, the 260 K sunshine temperature, is almost 30 times the 9 K direct warming by greenhouse gases, and 13 times the feedback response. The sunshine dominates. Therefore, as common sense would in any event dictate, one cannot ignore it in carrying out the “how much warming” calculation.
The significance of this first equation, then, is that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that climatologists’ profitable but misguided whining about the rate of future global warming is based on a very large and very serious error of physics that has gone undetected until now because different scientific disciplines — here climatology and control theory — are increasingly narrow in their specialization. The climate scientists did not (and do not) understand the control theory they had borrowed, and the control theorists did not (and do not) realize what climate scientists have done with the borrowed theory. It is in this disastrous interdisciplinary compartmentalization that the climate change scare is rooted.
The truth is that one must use methods other than feedback analysis to derive estimates of future anthropogenic warming. But all such methods, which are based on observation rather than theoretical manipulation of data in climate models, show far less global warming than diagnosis of feedback strength from the models’ outputs shows.
The simplest observational method is this. The IPCC in 1990 predicted that until 2090, the world would warm by between 0.2 and 0.5 K/decade, with a midrange estimate of 0.3 K/decade (i.e., 2 to 5 K per century equivalent, with a best estimate of 3 K). Likewise, now as then, the IPCC predicts that final warming in response to doubled CO2 in the air will be 2 to 5 K, with a best estimate of 3 K. However, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which maintains the most accurate and up-to-date satellite temperature record, since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 there has only been 0.136 K warming per decade.
This slow warming is equivalent to less than 1.4 K per century or, per CO2 doubling, well below the lower bound of the IPCC’s range of predictions, and less than half its midrange prediction.
Note how close that 1.36 K is to the 1.3 K we obtained by correcting official climatology’s error of feedback analysis. A more elaborate method, known as the energy-budget method, also shows about 1.3 K warming per century or per CO2 doubling, with a range of 1 to 2 K. The first equation, then, powerfully suggests that our sins of emission have not caused and will not cause a problem, crisis, emergency, or apocalypse.
But let us pretend, just for the sake of argument, that climatologists had not perpetrated their elementary error and that, therefore, there might, after all, be an impending cataclysm. In that case, what can we do about it? The second of our three equations demonstrates that the currently favored method of Saving the Planet — replacing coal and gas generation with windmills and solar panels — will make little or no difference to global temperature.
Our second equation says excess generation E by wind and solar power in a given grid is the difference between the installed nameplate capacity N of wind and solar in that grid (their output in ideal weather) and the total mean hourly demand D for electricity from that grid.
Obvious though this equation seems, grid operators and governments are, as far as we can discover, wholly unaware of it. But by rights it ought to signal the E = N — D of any further costly destruction of the countryside and the oceans, the birds, bees and bats, the whales and dolphins by ugly solar panels and wind turbines.
Douglas Pollock, the Chilean engineer who discovered the equation, has investigated several Western national grids and has plotted the results on the graph below.
The United States could, if it wished, add more wind and solar power to its grid, but the cost would be enormous and the CO2 emissions abated surprisingly small, because coal and gas-fired backup generation must be kept running at wasteful spinning reserve at all times in case the wind drops and the sun goes down.
However, the seven countries listed as already exceeding the fundamental hourly-demand limit on wind and solar capacity will not reduce CO2 emissions at all if they try installing any more wind and solar power. All they will do is to drive up the cost of electricity, which is already eight times greater in the West than in China or India, where the expansion of the world’s cheapest form of electricity — coal-fired power — is continuing rapidly.
This second of our equations also puts an E = N — D to the notion that replacing real autos with electric buggies at twice the capital and running costs will reduce emissions. It won’t, because in most Western countries, wind and solar power are already at or above their Pollock limit, so that the power for the buggies will have to come from coal and gas, at least until the soi-disant “Greens” abandon their sullen opposition to the peaceful use of nuclear power.
The Traffic-Light Tendency — the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds — are opposed to coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation. Yet wind and solar power, which they favor, cannot keep the lights on 24/7; are cripplingly expensive; are cruel to landscape, seascape, and wildlife; and, though their exceptionally low energy density, do more environmental damage per MWh generated than any other form of power.
Why, then, do the climate communists advocate wind and solar power and oppose just about everything else? They do so precisely because there is no quicker or more certain way to destroy the economies of the hated West and to end its hegemony than to destroy its energy infrastructure. For that, and not Saving the Planet, is their true objective. What they advocate makes sense when seen in that light and makes no sense otherwise.
So to our third simple but decisively powerful equation. Let us pretend not only that there may be a global warming Armageddon (though we have proven there will not be), but also that we can do something about it by the proliferation of windmills and solar panels (though we have proven that we can achieve nothing by that method except crippling our grids and vastly increasing the already prohibitive cost of electrical power, further turning the terms of trade to the advantage of the communist-led countries that are vastly increasing their coal-fired generation).
How much global warming would worldwide attainment of net zero emissions by 2050 prevent? It is a measure of the extent to which such little debate as the far left have permitted on the climate question has been stifled, and of the extent to which the objective of climate policy is political rather than scientific or existential, that this question does not seem to have been asked before.
I was in Parliament the other day, talking to a Conservative M.P. I asked him what he thought about global warming. He said, “I’m a mathematician, so I know we have to show leadership by getting to net zero emissions by 2050.”
“So,” I replied, “if the whole world followed the policy of just about all the British governing class and went to net zero emissions by 2050, how much global warming that would otherwise have occurred by that year would be prevented?”
His face was a picture. He had clearly never thought of asking that surely elementary question. When I told him the answer, he was dismayed. But the answer is not in doubt, for the necessary equation is again unchallengeably simple.
First, we need to know how much global warming would occur on present trends. Typically, one goes back at least 30 years, so let us go back to 1990, the date of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. Since then, our sins of emission have added one 30th of a unit of influence every year in a near-perfect straight line. All those trillions squandered on trying to make global warming go away have not altered that third-of-a-century-long trend one iota.
Now, if the whole world went immediately to net zero emissions today, we should be able to abate 27/30 units of our influence on the climate. But if we get there in a straight line over the next 27 years, we shall abate about half of those 0.9 units — i.e., 0.45 units.
Next, how much global warming would each unit we abate prevent? Here, as throughout, we are using official figures. The IPCC says that the warming over the next 70 years if we suddenly doubled the CO2 in the air today would be 1.8 C. This is known as the “transient doubled-CO2 response,” or TCR. And, again according to the IPCC, there is an “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF, of 3.93 units of anthropogenic influence in response to doubled CO2. Therefore, temperature change per unit of influence is 1.8 / 3.93, or 0.46 K per unit.
Multiply the 0.45 units the world would abate if all nations went to net zero by 0.46 K per unit, and the total warming prevented by global net zero emissions would be just 0.2 K.
The M.P., on being told this strikingly puny figure, said: “Oh, well, there must be a very large uncertainty in that number.”
“No,” I said, “there isn’t. The IPCC predicts up to 5 K warming this century. But even if the whole world actually got to net zero emissions, which it won’t because the communist-led nations are expanding their coal-fired capacity at a very rapid rate, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K of that warming would be prevented by 2050. The midrange estimate is 0.2 K.”
In fact, even less warming than this would be prevented. For we have used official midrange estimates to calculate the 0.2 K warming that even global net zero would prevent. But those estimates are proven to have overstated the true medium-term rate of global warming by more than double. So the true warming the world would prevent if all nations, rather than just those of the empty-headed West, were to go together to net zero would be less than 0.1 K.
Then I added the clincher. I told the M.P. that the U.K. National Grid had estimated $3.6 trillion as the cost of re-engineering the grid to meet the net zero target; that electricity generation accounts for less than a quarter of U.K. emissions; and that, therefore, the cost to the U.K. of getting to net zero by 2050 would be more than $15 trillion, or six years’ total annual GDP.
Therefore, I said, every $1 billion the world squanders on trying to get to net zero emissions by 2050 would prevent only one 16-millionth of a degree of warming. Did he, as a mathematician, consider that to be value for money?
The M.P. capitulated. “The trouble with you, Monckton,” he said, “is that you take impossible positions on everything, and you’re always right.”
Now, the purpose of this unusual exercise has been to reduce the apparently complex global warming argument to just three equations so simple that they can be explained to a layman without too much difficulty, and then to explain them. In my submission, any one of these three equations, on its own, would in a rational world be more than sufficient to lead Western governments to abandon all their global warming mitigation policies at once.
The three equations together are devastating. There is no global warming problem; even if there were, our current method of addressing it will make no difference; and even if the whole world attained net zero by 2050, global temperature would barely change.
These three arguments are simple, but they are strong. It is only because the far left have captured the debate and have silenced discussions such as this that governments have allowed themselves to be fooled. Soon, that will change, whether the far left and their paymasters and instructors in the FSB and the Ministry of State Security like it or not. For the laws of physics, of economics, and of mathematics are not up for repeal.
I 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.
Of course this is not the news you’ve been fed, but then it comes from the same people who fed you lies about Covid.
The below comes from one of the finest sources of actual truth about the climate. It is the truth that comes with facts from Anthony Watts.
It took 3 years for the evidence that the jab and a lot of Covid was lying by people who wanted to get rich or control the masses. The world’s Governments, WEF, Big Pharma, MSM, Fauci, Birx and a few others come to mind here.
Now for Climate change. It’s about money. They create a crisis (the world is going to end, the ocean will cover our land, send us money) and then do the money laundering. It was FTX before that ponzi scheme took effect.
There was no consensus (the 97% was an Al Gore lie propagated by the press). COP27 was about money (I’ll get to that in a later post) and the Science is never settled. It’s because actual science has to be challenged to prove it is true.
Dr. Indur M. Goklany, has 30-plus years in federal and state governments and the private sector, during which he has written more than one hundred monographs, book chapters, and papers on topics ranging from climate change, human well-being, economic development, technological change and biotechnology to sustainable development.
He has been a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and was the first Julian Simon Fellow at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. Working for the U.S. Department of the Interior, he has represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in the negotiations leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“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.”
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.”
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.
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).
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.
When you put career politicians in charge, they work for themselves, not the people.
For a few decades, they have created a crisis, only to take credit for solving it, unless there is more money to be milked.
Science and racism are current go to words for divide people to vote. Just look at the last election and think if they brought us together or divided us with lies. Everyone is now a racist or Hitler, or both.
One of my favorite ruses is global warming. It’s been around as a money crutch for decades. Let’s look.
Almost all of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was lies to make money. Florida, the Statue of Liberty and all the Islands are still there with the same beaches. We haven’t frozen or burned to death. In fact the weather is astonishingly similar to many centuries prior.
Enough about that as people have made up their minds to be buffaloed by the fake science or to engage in real science, which is to constantly challenge the hypothesis for truth.
I’ve spent years now saying what is coming true. The Pandemic is over, but it’s been over a long time. In fact, 99.8% of the people survived it. It is another set of lies we were fed to control the people.
Remember how the end of the world happens?
If you are thirty or younger, then you have never heard your government tell you to be anything other than afraid. “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” is just some lost relic from the past. Whatever the perceived problem these last three decades — changing climate, war, HIV, bird flu, swine flu, terrorism, religious extremism, COVID, world famine — never once has the permanent ruling class running Washington, D.C., into the ground decided that the appropriate message to broadcast to the country should be an encouraging, “Don’t worry, America, we’ve got this.” It’s always the exact opposite: “Be very afraid…about everything.” The propagandists might talk about “hope” as if they have it stored in giant crates out back, but without a doubt, every tin drum labeled “hope” is just another off-brand version of “mass fear.” And in return for gobbling up the government’s free helpings of fear, Americans have been rewarded with a broken financial system, crumbling institutions, and a rotting culture so putrid that even questioning the state’s need to sexualize children is regarded as strangely “controversial.”
What is the moral of the story? The government is crying wolf to get money, power and re-elected. Unless they say the policy is to leave you alone (and even then I wouldn’t trust it), scare mongers and politicians are out for themselves, not constituents.
Seriously, you go from the leading producer and exporter to begging other countries for gas in a year. Even are you smarter than a fifth grader could figure this out.
The cabal behind Biden pulling the strings is just like when Obama got elected. Undo everything Trump did (or Bush 43 back then) despite it’s effectiveness for us, the consumers. The people of the United States of America who the government is supposed to work for.
I wonder do they hate Trump or the people of the USA more? I’m feeling a lot of hate towards me and no one in the government cares about my existence except on tax day.
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.
DiCaprio: “I have a foundation for 20 years. I have to go to Glasgow. I got to see world leaders make some pretty big commitments, but just like in this movie, there’s a ticking clock. I think there is a global sense of anxiety that the powers that be, the private sector, the governments, are not making the transition fast enough. We literally have a nine year window.” … “Our governments, the governments of the world, must work together as a community species and we must evolve as a species to address this problem.”
I post this only to show the deepness of the pool of idiocy that is both Hollywood and the Climate hoax.
I am not denying that the weather changes, I’m just pointing out the power grab and the stench of the elites who promote it without having a clue. That clue is actual science and that we are watching their do as I say, not as I do attitude.
If you read this from time to time, sooner or later you get around to the facts I present on Climate/Global Warming and what is really behind it. If it offends you, either present me with facts how it is true (I’ll start with the movie Inconvenient (bunch of lies) Truth, or go away.
For most it is about money and control (kind of like Covid). I think Greta has been brainwashed and is being used by those who pull the strings. Knowing what I know about the autism spectrum, it is easy to do and is tragic that they’ve used her like this. They gave her a taste of fame and social media likes as a trade and there is no going back for her now.
Nevertheless, it provides me with meme material, so here it is.
This explains everything. It’s always a new scare or a threat that the world is going to end. It never does, nor do any of the predictions come through.
There isn’t enough energy for people to have their lights on with a couple of degrees of temperature change in states all but mandating EV’s.
I’ve always known that it is BS and we can’t live without petroleum products, especially the save the earth ‘tards who are totally unrealistic about the climate. Everything is a crisis that never comes true.
The fact is that electric cars and trucks are powered by petroleum created electricity.
Since Covid is petering out, the Global Power brigade is falling back on the climate to scare people for money. I wonder how much longer the dupes are going to fall for this.
The hypocrisy drips from this conference. Janet Yellon want’s 100 trillion to stop the climate from what it would do without the 100 trillion. It is about control, just like Covid was.
We’ll see if the Virginia election was the canary in the coal mine or if the lemmings will keep going along with the lies.
“The disappointment relates to the fact that Russia and—and—and including not only Russia, but China, basically didn’t show up in terms of any commitments to deal with climate change,” President Joe Biden said during a Sunday press conference. “And there’s a reason why people should be disappointed in that. I found it disappointing myself.”
In other words, they know it’s a farce and they don’t have any intentions of ruining their economy with carbon nonsense. It is a slap in the face of the elitists who are pretending that it is important in Scotland this week. Let’s not forget that Biden brought 85 cars and there were 3000 private jets taking the participants there.
Climate change can only be stopped if tens of thousands of us fly to climate conferences to be shamed by Greta Thunberg. It's the only way.
Russia and China, meanwhile, have made little strides on climate change policy, instead choosing to work against global commitments by doubling down on fossil fuel production. Russia has boosted natural gas exports, which Europe is reliant on, while China has ramped up domestic coal production to full capacity.
Climate Action Tracker, a group that analyzes global climate commitments, rated Russia’s policies as “critically insufficient” and China’s as “highly insufficient.” China and Russia both failed to outline climate proposals prior to the Climate Change Conference as many other top emitters did, The Guardian reported.
The world must “balance environmental protection and economic development, address climate change, and safeguard people’s livelihood,” Xi said in remarks to the G-20 over the weekend, according to The Guardian.
In other words, they are smart enough to blow off this farce in favor of their own economy, which is far more important that appearances. China wins this one.
Let me get this straight… you're telling me roughly 30,000 officials _flew into Scotland_ to discuss the need to reduce carbon emissions? pic.twitter.com/wfRjacjUUd
At the top, it is about money and power, not saving the planet.
The people that believe it treat it as their religion. The ones I’ve met are the real science deniers. This just confirmed it.
You can’t change the weather, it comes in cycles.
Bonus: They are hiding the past where the weather was the same as it is now. It’s a version of 1984 Newspeak.
Double Bonus: It is based on predictions that never come true, they just predict another one.
Triple Bonus: when they debunk the current cause of global warming, they change it as they do the name (note I used the first name of this nonsense).
Quadruple Bonus: Carbon Dioxide is plant food. It’s why they plant trees for an offset.
Quintuple Bonus: Almost everyone likes warmer weather and farmers grow more.
Not a Bonus: As with LinkedIn, when they don’t agree or lose the argument, they try to shut down the discussion and facts. I expect to lose readers at this point and doubt they’ll read any further, missing the point of the post.
Also not a Bonus: It is an excuse for everything from racism to global cooling.
President Joe Biden was criticized for his use of a slow moving, 85-car motorcade in Rome ahead of UN climate change conference on Sunday
It comes during Biden’s 10,000 mile return trip on Air Force One to Europe, which includes a 92-mile motorcade tour in Scotland
Air Force One and the four large jets that accompany it will generate an estimated 2.16 million pounds of carbon during the five day trip to Europe
The motorcade is centered around the president’s armored limousine, the Beast and its decoy which sports a 5-litre diesel engine and gets about 8 mpg
Each car generates around 8.75 pounds of carbon per mile driven – 10 times more than the average car
Also included in the trip are flights for his conference team, security personnel and individual planes for The Beast and Marine One helicopter
Wealthy technocrats arriving on private jets staying at luxury 5 star hotels and being chauffeured around in large entourages are about to spend the next 2 weeks lecturing us about how we need to reduce our living standards.
I won't be listening and neither should you.#COP26
Update: I just put that woke pronouns are silly. I’ll keep finding new ways to needle them for being woke.
I was very early to LinkedIn, as I was to blogging, Twitter, Facebook and others.
When I got fed up with them going woke or being so biased that I didn’t trust them, I de-platformed Twitter and Facebook.
Recently, LinkedIn stopped allowing revenue to anyone who is in their words a climate change denier. I worked in the Green and Sustainability Industry long enough to learn these things about climate and politics.
At the top, it is about money and power, not saving the planet.
The people that believe it treat it as their religion. The ones I’ve met are the real science deniers. This just confirmed it.
You can’t change the weather, it comes in cycles.
Bonus: They are hiding the past where the weather was the same as it is now. It’s a version of 1984 Newspeak.
Double Bonus: It is based on predictions that never come true, they just predict another one.
Triple Bonus: when they debunk the current cause of global warming, they change it as they do the name (note I used the first name of this nonsense).
Quadruple Bonus: Carbon Dioxide is plant food. It’s why they plant trees for an offset.
Quintuple Bonus: Almost everyone likes warmer weather and farmers grow more.
Not a Bonus: As with LinkedIn, when they don’t agree or lose the argument, they try to shut down the discussion and facts. I expect to lose readers at this point and doubt they’ll read any further, missing the point of the post.
Also not a Bonus: It is an excuse for everything from racism to global cooling.
“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell
My pronouns went from woke pronouns are silly, to ho/hum and finally they/lied, just like Al Gore and Fauci, care of Elon.
So, when I heard that LinkedIn banished one side of the conversation on anything, I changed my profile to poke fun at them. Here are some of the changes.
My education is now Faber -Knowledge is Good. I put my fraternity as Delta Tau Chi. If you don’t get this reference, you missed one of the all time funniest movies. It was also a stab at my real college that went woke. I won’t even mention them here because I banished them too. I’ve recently changed it to Sigma Epsilon Chi, Eta Pi chapter. That’s SEX fraternity, one I made up in college.
I changed my current Job to writing a sarcastic blog and not finishing several books. This is actually true. I was in their Associates Program which is for freelancers, but I’m blowing them off now.
The rest of my work life is true for now, but I don’t give enough of a tinkers damn to take LinkedIn serious now, so I’m having fun where I can.
I now want to freelance the boil of wokeness that is on the ass of regular people by elites who think they know better.
I decided I didn’t care that much about them to take them seriously. Besides, I retired because I hate the corporate nonsense. See here, here and here for the above stated wankers.
Delusions of Adequacy 