We still have some cows in Cowhampshire, so this will be of interest to farmers, farm advocates, livestock enthusiasts, food security folks, and anyone looking for another opportunity to debunk climate cultists about emissions from tasty animals. And the best part is that you can be cultists, and this might actually make sense to you. Circle of life, closed system, and all of that.
In a statement published on the OPEC website Thursday, Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais said the concept of “peak oil demand” is nowhere to be seen in the cartel’s projections for future global crude oil demand.
“[A]s we look to the future it is the very versatility of oil that ensures that we do not see peak oil demand on the horizon,” Al Ghais said.
“Just as peak oil supply has never transpired, predictions of peak oil demand are following a similar trend.”
In my own research, I have been able to trace predictions for the world reaching so-called “peak oil” all the way back to the 1880s.
From that distant beginning through around 2010, peak oil theory was always about the world having somehow reached a peak in crude oil supply as all the big reserves had supposedly already been discovered.
For about 125 years, constant advances in technology and a creative and innovative industry invariably proved such pronouncements wrong, often laughably so.
With the ramping-up of the climate alarmist movement in the first decade of this century, narratives surrounding this always-wrong theory began to shift over to the demand side of the equation. Some anti-oil-and-gas activist groups even adopted the theory as a means of promoting the equally silly notion that the world’s remaining oil resources could simply be left in the ground as demand for them would soon be overwhelmed by rising demand for alternatives.
A decade later, that theory has also been proven laughably wrong, despite the “investment” of many trillions of dollars in debt-funded subsidies.
OPEC’s statement stands in stark contrast to the projection by the International Energy Agency that the world will somehow achieve peak oil demand by 2030. Al Ghais alludes to this preposterous notion, calling it a “dangerous commentary, especially for consumers,” that “will only lead to energy volatility on a potentially unprecedented scale.”
Should we worry more about the cost of energy than a very small rise in temperature over 100 years? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge via email. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Al Ghais’ statement comes in the wake of revised oil-demand growth projections from the IEA and OPEC, along with Goldman Sachs and the US Energy Information Administration for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025. Where the IEA revised its 2024 projection downward to 1 million barrels per day for 2024, even it projects a more robust 1.5 million bpd in growth for 2025.
The EIA raised its own growth estimate for 2024 from a very conservative 900,000 bpd to 1.1 million bpd.
Goldman Sachs comes in at a stronger 2024 estimate of 1.25 million bpd, based on strong global economic growth. The bank cites robust growth in jet fuel, petrochemical-driven LPG and naphtha, and gasoline and diesel demand as key drivers of this growth.
Looking back through history, there have always been doomsday prophets, folk who say the world is coming to an end. Are modern-day activists not just the current version of this?
I look at some of the facts – CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere; humans are responsible for just 3% of CO2; Britain is responsible for just 1% of the world’s CO2 output – and I think “really“? Will us de-carbonising really make a difference to the Earth’s climate?
I have listened to some top scientists who say CO2 does not drive global warming; that CO2 in the atmosphere is a good or vital thing; that many other things, like the Sun and the clouds and the oceans, are more responsible for the Earth’s temperature.
I note that most of the loudest climate activists are socialists and on the Left. Are they not just using this movement to push their dreams of a deindustrialised socialist utopia? And I also note the crossover between green activists and BLM ones, gender ones, pro-Hamas ones, none of whom I like or agree with.
As an amateur psychologist, I know that humans are susceptible to manias. I also know that humans tend to focus on tiny slivers of time and on tiny slivers of geographical place when forming ideas and opinions. We are also extremely malleable and easily fooled, as was demonstrated in 2020 and 2021.
I have looked into the implications of Net Zero. It is incredibly expensive. It will vastly reduce living standards and hinder economic growth. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I know that economic growth has led to higher living standards, which has made people both safer and more environmentally aware.
Net Zero will also lead to significant diminishment of personal freedom, and it even threatens democracy, as people are told they must do certain things and they must not do other things, and they may even be restricted in speaking out on climate matters.
What will be the worst things that will happen if the doomsayers are correct? A rise in temperature? Where? Siberia? Singapore? Stockholm? What is the ideal temperature? For how long? Will this utopia be forever maintained? I’m suspicious of utopias; the communists sought utopias.
If one consequence of climate change is rising sea levels, would it not be better to spend money building more sea defences to protect our land? Like the Dutch did.
It’s a narrative heavily pushed by the Guardian. I dislike the Guardian. I believe it’s been wrong on most issues through my life – socialism, immigration, race, the EU, gender, lockdowns and so on. Probably it’s wrong about climate issues too?
I am suspicious of the amount of money that green activists and subsidised green industries make. And 40 years ago the greenies were saying the Earth was going to get too cold. Much of what they said would happen by now has not happened. Also, I trust ‘experts’ much less now, after they lied about the efficacy of lockdowns, masks and the ‘vaccines’.
I like sunshine. I prefer being warm to being cold. It makes me feel better. It’s more fun. It saves on heating bills. It saves on clothes. It makes people happier. Far few people die of the heat than they do the cold.
On May 16th, 2013, Barack Obama famously tweeted that “97% of Scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Every word of this tweet was a lie. The 97% Consensus figure came from a May 15th, 2013 study by John Cook – which Obama linked to in his tweet. If 97% of scientists really thought “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” that would be quite troubling. But nowhere in the study was anything said about global warming being dangerous.
Additionally, while the 97% figure was widely quoted, the criteria by which Cook achieved his figure was totally lacking in scientific clarity – or honesty. To be counted as affirming the global warming consensus question, scientists only needed to agree that “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent”. That’s it. If, as a scientist, you agreed that human activity had some portion – any portion – of responsibility for global warming you were included in the 97% consensus. We’re shocked the figure wasn’t 100% based on the actual questions.
The reason “the experts” are always “baffled” is because the narratives they are paid to push—from “Covid”, to “safe and effective”, to “anthropogenic climate change”—are not only wrong, but outright lies.
The reason "the experts" are always "baffled" is because the narratives they are paid to push—from "Covid", to "safe and effective", to "anthropogenic climate change"—are not only wrong, but outright lies. pic.twitter.com/prEpKcJEv5
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 21, 2024
Vaccines against cow farts. Throwing money away instead of focusing on the real causes of climate activity other than blaming fake gasses and insignificant human behavior as the answer for everything.
The last time I wrote about cow farts, it was a warning that the Environmental Protection Agency was likely to use methane emissions as an excuse to target our livestock herds in the globalist War on Meat.
Of course, I am frequently covering the topic of vaccines.
Today, I have a chance to blend two of my favorite topics into one post. A start-up company has raised over $26 million to produce a vaccine to reduce methane emissions from cattle.
ArkeaBio’s vaccine will provide an innovative, cost-effective, and scalable solution to reduce the world’s livestock methane emissions, which currently generate the equivalent of 3 Billion Tonnes of CO2 annually and represent 6% of annual Greenhouse gas emissions. “Reducing methane emissions from the agricultural sector is one of the most pressing challenges in today’s fight against climate change,” said Chris Rivest, Chairman of the Board at ArkeaBio and partner at Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
“ArkeaBio’s approach using innovative vaccine technologies will create effective and massively scalable solutions to reduce on-farm methane emissions, leaving them well-positioned to redefine the agricultural landscape in the years to come.”
One of the firms investing is Breakthrough Energy Ventures, which was founded by Bill Gates in 2015. It pitched in $12 million.
The audacity of this guy is endless. They are pretty much saying they are going to waste the cash and solve nothing other than lining their pockets with taxpayers money.
Squeezing the global economy dry to solve a fake problem.
The $13.6 trillion question: how do we pay for the green transition?
The public sector will have to provide about 30 per cent of climate finance globally, and the heat is building on governments to come up with ways of doing that.
…
The bill will be immense. If average global temperature rises are to be limited in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, climate finance globally will need to increase to about $US9 trillion ($13.6 trillion) a year globally by 2030, up from just under $US1.3 trillion in 2021-22, according to a report last year from the Climate Policy Initiative.
…
Former US presidential candidate John Kerry, who stepped down from his role as the US special climate envoy in March, puts the challenge of meeting this bluntly: “We don’t have the money.”
The 80-year-old is now planning to turn his attention to climate finance to prepare for the phaseout of fossil fuels. “We have to put in place more rapidly the funding mechanisms that are going to actually fuel this transition at the pace it needs to be,” he says.
To do that, governments around the world are weighing up options from wealth taxes to levies on shipping. The US is planning to fund the IRA by raising $US300 billion over the decade by requiring large corporations to pay a 15 per cent minimum tax on their profits, as well as through a stock buyback tax, among other measures.
John Kerry Pushes Massive Tax Rises to Meet the $13.6 trillion Climate Finance Challenge
Home prices across the nation are back up near a record high. That makes this a particularly bad time for the Biden administration to have rolled out its new “green” energy mandates, which will add $31,000 to the cost of a new home.
The mandates are being pushed through the Department of Housing and Urban Development and while they technically won’t apply to all homes, all homebuilders will effectively be forced to comply with them.
The Biden administration doesn’t deny this higher upfront cost. It simply claims it’ll pay for itself via lower energy bills. Unfortunately, the break-even point is 90 years.
So if a young couple buys one of these new green energy homes and has a child one year later, the regulatory costs still won’t have paid for themselves in that child’s lifetime, let alone the life of the couple who bought the home.
HUD argues that homebuilders will be able to get tax credits via the Inflation Reduction Act to offset some of these costs, with those savings hopefully passed along to homebuyers. However, this is not a real reduction in costs; it’s merely passing the buck to taxpayers. Instead of a homebuyer’s bearing the full freight of these green energy mandates, some of the cost will be passed on to taxpayers, including renters.
This is just the latest example of how failed public policies are creating a two-tiered society in America, where an entire generation of Americans will likely never be able to afford their own homes.
Debunking another lie told by climate scam artists.
The last time carbon dioxide was as low as today was in the Carboniferous, when the vast Karoo Ice Age lasted 95 million years. CO2 sustains life & provides oxygen for all living things on land & sea. The steady loss of CO2 over millennia is the greatest threat to life on earth. pic.twitter.com/FZAcezCggc
If you follow patterns like I do, you’ll recognize this to be like Covid, made up lies by the government to control citizens and launder money.
They count on the gullibility and under education of a large portion of the population, then spring a made up story on them. All they while, they are doing it in the name of the benefit of the population. I’ve got news for you, when they say this, it only benefits them.
Read and weep:
“Climate change” is tied as the last priority for Americans, a recent Gallup poll found, marking another year that the issue remains the least important priority.
Global warming is now dubbed “climate change.”
Because the earth does not consistently warm, they changed the term to “climate change,” which justifies their claims regardless of whether the earth warms or cools.
GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX
(Data source: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Credit: NASA/GISS)
Gallup found it is tied for the nation’s last priority:
It goes on to talk about nature as a religion, other words for worshiping the creation instead of the creator. It’s just more lies from the same source that started with the apple and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Even before our first surface stations report in 2009, The Heartland Institute led the way in reporting on problems with the surface temperature record.
We have highlighted how the surface station record did not correspond to the temperatures recorded by global satellites and weather balloons, two alternative temperature data sources whose data sets closely track each other. Heartland has repeatedly exposed instances in both the United States and abroad where official agencies tamper with past temperature data at pristine stations, adjusting it to appear cooler than what was actually recorded, while adjusting recent temperatures upward. We were all over the adjustments made by corrupt NOAA scientists in 2015 before the Paris climate treaty negotiations—mixing data from unbiased ocean buoys with heat-biased temperature measurements taken from ships’ engine water intake inlets, which made it appear the ocean was suddenly warming faster than before.
Also, first, foremost, and most forcefully, we independently documented the serious problems with the official surface temperature record arising from the fact that the vast majority of temperature stations are poorly sited. Stations fail NOAA’s own standards for quality, unbiased stations in reporting temperatures skewed by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
My colleague, award-winning meteorologist Anthony Watts, in 2009, and then again, as a follow-up, in 2022, detailed with station location data and photographic evidence the problematic surfaces stations. Stations providing official data that were sited in locations where surrounding surfaces, structures, and equipment radiated stored heat or emitted heat directly biasing or driving the recorded temperatures higher than were recorded at stations in the same region, uncompromised by the well-known UHI (that is widely ignored by alarmists and official government agencies).
Of the sampling of hundreds of stations across the country Watts and his volunteer team documented in 2009, Watts wrote:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements …
Since the 1970s, we’ve been told CO2 is the villain that causes most climate change. NOAA obliterated that with a graph.
“The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is comparable to around 4.3 million years ago when sea level was about 75 ft higher than today, the average temp was 7 degrees F higher than in pre-industrial times, & large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra,” NOAA reports.
So, there were no people, the sea level was higher, and there were forests on the now-frozen tundra.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, the amount due to humans is 0.0012%.
This amount of CO2 will NEVER heat the Earth, EVER.
According to the geological record, there is no relationship between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature, even when 15x today's CO2 level: pic.twitter.com/Z9vMDpNlyv
E.V.s – even the best ones – have higher maintenance and insurance costs than regular gasoline-powered vehicles, for a number of reasons: more expensive parts, more accidents, fewer qualified mechanics.
E.V.s – even the best ones – take much longer to recharge than regular gasoline-powered vehicles. A fill-up takes two to five minutes; a charge takes fifteen minutes (if all the stars align), but can take much longer, even hours, and that’s if you can find a working charging station when you need one.
E.V.s — even the best ones — pose a higher risk of being totaled by insurance companies, either after accidents, or after all the odd circumstances that cause spontaneous combustion. E.V. fires have destroyed homes, garages, even cargo ships. The battery is usually irreparable. As a result, insurance companies are increasingly determining that the damage threshold between “repair it” and “scrap it” is a lot lower for E.V.s than for other vehicles.
All this isn’t to say that E.V.s shouldn’t be a part of the mix, but they clearly ought to be viewed as another niche segment, at just a few percent, like luxury cars and convertibles….
The truth had to come out sometime. The money grubbing climatards free spending might be coming to a slow down. I doubt they’ll ever stop because of greed.
In an attempt to save the world from “climate change,” the United States government is spending trillions of dollars on multiple projects that rely on dishonest marketing tactics, money laundering schemes, insider trading and crony capitalism. At the root of the climate crisis hysteria is data FRAUD, and scientists around the world are pushing back against the climate change narrative.
Scientists detect flaws in the collection of global temperature data
Governments around the world are combating a fictional problem that is blown completely out of proportion when compared to actual issues that people face. To make matters worse, the Biden regime adheres to dogma and relies on its most recent National Climate Assessment report to argue that human activities are accelerating global warming. The policies coming out of D.C seek to restrict, control or modulate human activities at scale to save the planet from temperatures changes that are out of our control anyway.
As you read the proof that renewables is a farce, make sure to keep in mind the cost of EV’s.
American Experiment’s Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling tell you what you need to know to respond to ill-informed advocates for “green” energy. There is much more at the link, but here is an overview:
1. Renewables can’t survive on their own
The renewable energy industry is a subsidy-based industry, as wind and solar are largely dependent on lucrative state and federal subsidies. However, renewable advocates justify these perpetual subsidies by claiming thermal generators receive more subsidies than wind and solar. This assertion is not based on reality…. *** In 2022, wind and solar generators received three and eighteen times more subsidies per MWh, respectively, than natural gas, coal, and nuclear generators combined. Solar is the clear leader, receiving anywhere from $50 to $80 per MWh over the last five years, whereas wind is a distant second at $8 to $10 per MWh.
Poor solar energy! No matter how many billions the government pours down the solar rathole, no one has figured out a way to generate solar power after the sun goes down.
2. Renewables increase the cost of electricity
Renewable advocates often claim that the adoption of more wind and solar will lead to lower electricity costs, but the opposite is true. In a previous Substack, we wrote in detail about how utility companies with the largest rate increase requests in the country admit the energy transition is a major reason behind increasing electricity prices for families and businesses.
“Green” advocates fake the numbers for wind and solar by the simple expedient of only counting a fraction of their costs. This chart shows the actual cost of the various energy systems if all costs are included:
A 2022 study found that electric vehicles (EVs) which left-leaning governments in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere are pushing on the population, pollute at a rate far higher than their gasoline or diesel-powered counterparts.
The 2022 study from the U.K.-based Emissions Analytics group found that during a 1,000 mile journey, EVs release 1,850 times more pollutants into the surrounding environment than gas-powered vehicles, due to the heavier weight which eats through tires.
While many think of emissions from exhaust, tire wear plays a significant role in emitting pollutants. The synthetic rubber used to create tires include certain chemicals that get released into the air, and because EVs are significantly heavier than conventional cars due to massive lithium batteries.
Overall, EVs weigh about 30 percent more than gas-powered vehicles, and cost thousands more to make and buy. These issues are in addition to the fact that they are not suitable in colder climates (such as Canada and the northern U.S.), offer poor range and long charging times (especially in cold weather), and have batteries that take tremendous resources to make and are hard to recycle.
In these darkest days, we-the-people find ourselves subjected to increasing existential dread: On every level, we are bombarded with more and more attempts to deceive, subjugate, hack, coerce, stymie and suppress us through mind-manipulating, soul-destroying, brutal controlling systems…
All done under the ruling thumb of the tiny handfuls; the global cult dark overlords and their associates for complete worldwide domination.
However, in the midst of this onslaught, it’s easier to see the light when dragged through a dark tunnel: It’s all too easy to forget that unequivocally, there’s an ongoing exponentially increasing worldwide awakening.
Having got the profound realization that they’ve been stitched up, a swathe of these awakened human spirits, duty-bound, are sharing their enlightenment with others…
Our net zero lesson of the day is from the U.K. but it applies universally. It’s increasingly difficult for Biden and the EU to hide the true costs of net zero mandates.
Britain Boiler Tax Scandal
In the latest green fiasco, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak created a quota system that would require manufacturers to sell more heat pumps to households.
Instead of meekly complying with the regulation as happens with Biden administration EPA announcements, manufacturers let consumers know they would have to pay up whether they installed the heat pumps or not.
Manufacturers correctly dubbed the scheme a “boiler tax” and consumer outrage killed the regulation.
Most English households use natural gas to fuel the cabinet-sized boilers that provide central heating and hot water, and forcing them to adopt electric heat pumps (ultimately powered by renewable energy) is part of the government’s net-zero agenda.
An earlier proposal to ban gas-boiler sales after 2035 proved politically toxic as households balked at the cost of replacing their reliable natural-gas boilers with more expensive, untested heat pumps. So politicians resorted to subterfuge, imposing a sales quota on manufacturers. Starting in April, heat pumps would have to replace 4% of annual boiler sales or companies would pay a £3,000 fine for each “excess” natural-gas boiler they sold.
Worcester Bosch, Britain’s leading manufacturer, warned last year that the proposed quota would add up to £300 ($376) to the cost of natural-gas boilers, which retail for £1,000 and up.
A novelty is that industry fought back against the mandate. Manufacturers were transparent about passing the cost of the heat-pump fines to consumers, calling it a “boiler tax.” Mr. Sunak’s government tried to blame the companies for anticompetitive behavior. But when voters realized they’d be stuck paying for heat pumps even if they didn’t buy them, it was game over for the rule.
Biden’s Wind Tax
In the US, manufacturers have yet to stand up to idiotic Biden regulations, mostly because they have received tax incentives that hide the true costs.
For the past 35 years, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned us that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2), are causing dangerous global warming. This myth is blindly accepted — even by many of my science colleagues who know virtually nothing about climate. As a scientist, my purpose here is to help expose this fairy tale.
The global warming story is not a benign fantasy. It is seriously damaging Western economies. In January 2021, the White House ridiculously declared that “climate change is the most serious existential threat to humanity.” From there, America went from energy independence back to energy dependence. Another consequence has been the appearance of numerous companies whose goal is to “sequester CO2” as well as “sequester carbon” from our atmosphere. However, this so-called “solution” is scientifically impossible. Life on Earth is based on carbon! CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant!
Generations have been brainwashed for decades into believing this imaginary “climate crisis,” from kindergarten through college, and in mainstream media and social media. Indoctrinated young teachers feel comfortable teaching this misinformation to students. Dishonest climate scientists feel justified in spreading disinformation because they need governmental support for salaries and research.
The evidence contradicting the climate apocalypse is vast. Some comes from analysis of Greenland and Antarctica ice, in which air trapped at various depths reveals CO2 levels of past climate. Proxy records from marine sediment, dust (from erosion, wind-blown deposition of sediments), and ice cores provide a record of past sea levels, ice volume, seawater temperature, and global atmospheric temperatures.
From his seminal work while a prisoner of war during WWI, Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch explained how climate is influenced by variations in the Earth’s asymmetric orbit, axial tilt, and rotational wobble — each going through cycles lasting as long as 120,000 years.
It is widely recognized that Glacial Periods of about 95,000 years, interspersed with Interglacial Periods of approximately 25,000 years, correspond with Milankovitch Cycles. Multiple incursions of glaciers occurred during the Pleistocene, an epoch lasting from about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago, when Earth’s last Glacial Period ended. Around 24,000 years ago, present-day Lake Erie was covered with ice a mile thick.
Within each Interglacial Period, there’ve been warming periods, or “Mini-Summers.” For example, within the current Holocene Interglacial, there have been warmer periods known as the Minoan (1500–1200 B.C.), Roman (250 B.C.–A.D. 400), and Medieval (A.D. 900–1300). Our Modern Warming Period began with the waning of the Little Ice Age (1300–1850). Today’s Mini-Summer is colder so far than all previous Mini-Summers of the last 8,500 years.
How did CO2 get blamed for global warming? French physicist Joseph Fourier (1820s) proposed that energy from sunlight must be balanced by energy radiated back into space. Irish physicist John Tyndall (1850s) performed laboratory experiments on “greenhouse gases” (GHGs), including water vapor; he proposed that CO2 elicited an important effect on temperature. However, it’s impossible to do appropriate experiments — unless the roof of your laboratory is at least six miles high. Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1896) proposed that “warming is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration.” Columbia University geochemist Wallace Broecker (1975) and Columbia University adjunct professor James Hansen (1981) wrote oft-cited articles in Science magazine, both overstating the perils of CO2 causing dangerous global warming — without providing scientific proof.
Most of Earth’s energy comes from the sun. Absorption of sunlight causes molecules of objects or surfaces to vibrate faster, increasing their temperature. This energy is then re-radiated by land and oceans as longwave, infrared radiation (heat). Princeton University physicist Will Happer defines a GHG as that which absorbs negligible incoming sunlight but captures a substantial fraction of thermal radiation as it is re-radiated from Earth’s surface and atmospheric GHGs back into space.
The gases of nitrogen, oxygen and argon — constituting 78%, 21%, and 0.93%, respectively, of the atmosphere — show negligible absorption of thermal radiation and therefore are not GHGs. Important GHGs include water (as high as 7% in humid tropics and as little as 1% in frigid climates), CO2 (0.042%, or 420 parts per million [ppm] by volume), methane (0.00017%), and nitrous oxide (0.0000334%, or 334 ppm).Water vapor (clouds) has at least a hundred times greater warming effect on Earth’s temperature than all other GHGs combined.
As atmospheric CO2 increases, its GHG effect decreases: CO2’s warming effect is 1.5°C between zero and 20 ppm, 0.3°C between 20 and 40 ppm, and 0.15°C between 40 and 60 ppm. Every doubling of atmospheric CO2 from today’s levels decreases radiation back into space by a mere 1%. For most of the past 800,000 years, Earth’s atmospheric CO2 has ranged between about 180 ppm and 320 ppm; below 150 ppm, Earth’s plants could not exist, and all life would be extinguished.
Today’s global atmospheric CO2 levels are ~420 ppm. Even at these levels, plants are “partially CO2-starved.” In fact, standard procedures for commercial greenhouse growers include elevating CO2 to 800–1200 ppm; this enhances growth and crop yield ~20–50%. As shown by satellite since 1978, increased atmospheric CO2 has helped “green” the Earth by more than 15 percent, substantially enhancing crop production.
If global atmospheric CO2 was ~280 ppm in 1750, and it’s ~420 ppm today, what’s the source of this 140-ppm increase? Scientists estimate that human-associated industrial emissions might have contributed 135 ppm — with “natural causes” accounting for the remaining 5 ppm.
In Earth’s history, the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 (6,000–9,000 ppm) occurred about 550–450 million years ago, which caused plant life to flourish. CO2 levels in older nuclear submarines routinely operated at 7,000 ppm, whereas newer subs keep CO2 in the 2,000- to 5,000-ppm range. Meanwhile, ice core data over the last 800,000 years show no correlation between global warming or cooling cycles and atmospheric CO2 levels.
CO2 in our lungs reaches 40,000–50,000 ppm, which induces us to take our next breath. Each human exhales about 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day, which means Earth’s 8 billion people produce daily 18.4 billion pounds of CO2. But humans represent only 1/40 of all CO2-excreting life on Earth. Multiplying 18.4 billion pounds by 40 gives us 736 billion pounds of CO2 per day. This approximates the overall CO2 excreted by the total animal and fungal biomass on the planet.
Daily emissions from worldwide industry in 2020 were estimated to be 16 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents. If one metric ton is 2,200 pounds, then “total industrial emissions” amount to 35,200,000,000 (35.2 billion) pounds of CO2 per day. This means that the entire animal and fungal biomass (736 billion pounds) puts out more than 20 times as much CO2 as all industrial emissions (35.2 billion pounds)!
Can any clear-thinking person comprehend the facts above and still create a company with idiotic plans to “sequester CO2” or “sequester carbon”? Scientifically, “net zero” and “carbon footprint” are meaningless terms. There is no “climate crisis.”
If you try to find these facts on the web, good luck! Out of every 10 hits on any climate topic, you’ll be lucky to find one or two sites with truthful scientific data.
The door of a nearby classroom displays a poster of Abraham Lincoln with the caption: “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.” It is advice that our 16th president surely would have offered — had he lived to see the rise of this global warming quasi-religion.
Interestingly, it turns out Big Government has no interest in the carbon footprint of any of the politically connected. This report about the US State Department not bothering to calculate carbon emissions despite an order to do so was published this summer.
The State Department didn’t keep tabs on the carbon pollution associated with flying hundreds of federal officials to the last two global climate summits, the Government Accountability Office said in a report made public Thursday.
Failing to do so ran afoul of a 2021 executive order by President Joe Biden that directed agencies to track the greenhouse gas emissions their operations produce, including official air travel, GAO said.
The report was requested by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who have all criticized the administration’s climate policies.
“Americans are tired of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who don’t practice what they preach when it comes to protecting the environment,” Capito said in an email to POLITICO’s E&E News.
It will be interesting to see how many other challengers Kerry and the rest of the billionaire class at Davos experience in this year’s session.
In his speech at Davos, Kerry indicates he is clearly worried about the climate scam being dismantled if former President Donald Trump gets reelected. He assures everyone that “the marketplace” has been so saturated with climate nonsense that Trump won’t be able to hit the reverse button.
The first joke or fantasy here is that Benedict Arnold/John Kerry is stepping down to help Biden’s re-election campaign. They either have given up or are throwing a hail Mary to resort to using him.
Next, the obvious that the sane people really know, more evidence that the climate is fine and the whole climate emergency is just a political distraction (and money laundering)
One of the things to remember about climate change madness is that it has all the scientific validity of the flat earth theory or the ancient medical belief in humors. That is to say, it’s a sealed universe driven by self-reinforcing faith and fantasy without any serious reality attached. The last two days have brought two new examples of the delusions and outright lies that drive the climate change narrative.
On the delusion side, we have Axios’s horror that the earth is within 1.5 degrees of the global warming limit set at the Paris Climate Accords, paired with its assurance that (and I’m quoting more accurately than Claudine Gay ever would), “The climate of 2023 was the hottest seen in at least 125,000 years…” (Emphasis mine.)
There are a couple of obvious problems with that article.
First, the Paris Climate Accords was a political agreement aimed at keeping the U.S. economy flat while other nations, which burn filthy coal, were unfettered. Let’s just say that I don’t take its “limits” seriously—although, of course, the climate changistas do.
Second, and this is the more important one, it’s nonsense to pretend we know to a “half-a-degree Celsius” how hot it was 125,000 years ago. Humans began keeping temperature records in the mid-19th century. Everything before that is guesswork. Some of it is scientifically detailed guesswork based upon ice core samples and tree rings, but it’s still estimates without precision.
If I didn’t need any more proof that the Climate crap we get is a scam, there’s the following. It’s just a scare tactic to grift money out of people dumb enough to give it, in this case Bloomberg, SMH. It’s just another wedge issue from those trying to distract us from the abject failure of the current administration.
As one digests Rupert Darwall’s latest report for the RealClear Foundation, the well-known quote from Spanish philosopher George Santayana might ring through the mind: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Anyone looking to combat the activists pushing a ‘net zero’ agenda here in the U.S. would be wise to read Darwall’s piece, entitled “The Folly of Climate Leadership.”
The analysis tells the story of Great Britain heeding the cries for decarbonization, starting when Parliament wrote an 80% decrease in emissions target into law in 2008. They raised it to 100% – or “net zero” – in 2019. The results have clearly been catastrophic.
Since decarbonization efforts commenced, Britain’s economy has grown at half the rate as it did from 1990-2008. According to a research study from noted British economic historian Nicholas Crafts, that’s the second-worst period of British peacetime growth since 1780.
In addition to the economic malaise, British energy prices have skyrocketed, and Britons are now concerned with how to survive the effect of those costs on their wallets, as they look to heat and power their homes and businesses, travel for work and pleasure and live life as best they can.
The differences between British energy costs and those here in the U.S. are staggering: Britons paid an average of $228 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity generated from coal in 2022, whereas Americans paid an average of $27 per MWh. For natural gas, 2022 saw Britons paying $251 per MWh, versus American consumers averaging $61 per MWh for their power.
Darwall’s report also highlights the effects of unchecked and anti-market driven government investment in ‘green’ energy on grid reliability, as intermittent production from wind and solar – coupled with a lack of utility-grade energy storage – dropped electricity generated per gigawatt of capacity falling 28% since 2009.
The same arguments that have crippled Britain’s economy are now being used by the Biden Administration here at home, with zealots in Cabinet-level positions – including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, and EPA Director Michael Regan – pushing the message from their bully pulpits.
The recent – and completely misnamed – Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress provided the zealots with nearly $400 billion to dole out to supportive organizations and start-ups to jump-start our nation’s push for ‘net zero.’ Those dollars – doled out with few oversights or performance metrics attached in many cases – have produced very few wins in the last year, unless a win is measured in keeping political cronies happy and rich.
Consider: wind energy projects in Nebraska, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey were scrapped last year, even after untold millions of federal dollars went to their developers. Over 100 solar companies went bankrupt, and solar projects from California to Florida were shuttered in the middle of their development. Battery storage – a key component to offsetting the intermittency of wind and solar – also saw projects stalled, along with at least one lawsuit filed against a storage company when its solution failed.
Despite the perils of ‘green’ energy dependence shown throughout Europe, the eco-left continues to double down on ridding America of traditional energy sources. Supporting those efforts are ideologue billionaires, who continue to fund net-zero initiatives.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has given well over $1 billion of his personal wealth to the Sierra Club to fund its “Beyond Coal” and “Beyond Carbon” campaigns. Designed to rid the U.S. of every coal-fired power plant by 2030, the Sierra Club/Bloomberg partnership has succeeded in shutting down nearly two-thirds of the plants to-date, with most of the remaining in rural locations, including my home state of Alaska, where alternatives to existing coal plants in the state’s interior don’t readily exist. Without coal, countless Alaskans would have their livelihoods – and very lives – threatened during our long, dark and sub-zero-temperature winters.
With activists entrenched in government bureaucracy, zealots running government agencies and rich men (and women) funding these efforts, only those educated in historical failures of decarbonization – and willing to stand up and fight back against the climate warriors – stand a chance of helping stem the attacks. Darwall’s study should be required reading for anyone looking to build a fortress in their state against job-killing, family-harming decarbonization efforts.
Cause of Climate Change? It Isn’t Carbon Dioxide, Expert Says:
The Earth’s rotation around the sun affects the planet’s temperature, says Soon, a visiting fellow on the Science Advisory Committee of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Glaciers, for example, “melted away because the sun started to get … brighter and provided more solar energy to the climate system,” according to Soon.
Throughout his career, Soon, a former researcher with the Center for Astrophysics-Harvard & Smithsonian, says he has sought to pursue the facts surrounding shifts in the climate because “science is not about belief.”
“Science is about data,” he said.
Many people think that it is “rising carbon dioxide that is the main factor … that affects climate change, and that is wholly untrue,” Soon says. “That is such a distorted view that I think it needs to be corrected.”
Someone should shut up Kerry and Biden also. It would stop the waste of money (laundering) on this, but then it doesn’t fit the climate narrative does it.
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.
The COP 28 climate confab opened today in Dubai. Some 70,000 true believers in the energy transition are said to be gathering. And not one of them appears to be either willing or able to do the simple arithmetic that shows that this can’t possibly work.
So far, no country that has made a commitment to “net zero” has officially backed off. (Argentina may soon become the first.). Things proceed as if all that is needed is to build sufficient wind and solar generation facilities, until eventually you have enough of them to meet demand. But that’s not how this works. The absurdity becomes more obvious every day. Can somebody please tell the poor people making fools of themselves in Dubai?
Let’s consider the latest from Germany. According to Statista here, Germany consumed 511.59 TWh of electricity in 2021 (latest year given, although the numbers have recently changed very little from year to year). Divide by 8760 (number of hours in a year) and you learn that Germany’s average usage of electricity is 58.3 GW. So, can you just build 58.3 GW of wind and solar generators to supply Germany with electricity?
Absolutely not. In fact, Germany already has way more wind and solar electricity generation capacity than the 58.3 GW, but can’t come anywhere near getting all its electricity from those sources. As of June 2023 Germany had 59.3 GW of generation capacity from wind turbines alone, and (as of end 2022) another 67.4 GW of generation capacity from solar panels. The total of the two is 126.7 GW — which would supply more than double Germany’s usage at noon on a sunny and breezy June 21. But, according to Clean Energy Wire here, through the first three quarters of 2023, the percent of its electricity that Germany got from wind and solar was only 52%. Capacity seemingly sufficient to supply double the usage in fact only supplies half. That’s because the supply does not come at the same time as the demand, and the wind/solar generation system provides no mechanism to shift the supply to a time to meet the demand.
And why doesn’t Germany just double the amount of its wind/solar generation, so that those sources would go from supplying 52% of usage to 100%. Because it doesn’t work that way. If they double the wind and solar generation, then on the sunny/breezy June 21 mid-day they will now have over 250 GW of electricity generation — more than 4 times what they need — so they will have to discard or give away the rest. But on a calm night in January, they will still have nothing and need full backup from some other source. Multiplying the wind/solar generation capacity by 10 or even 100 (referred to as “overbuilding”) will increase the costs of the system exponentially, but will never be enough to keep the lights on all the time. Or you can try energy storage to save up the surpluses to cover the deficits, but that also multiplies the costs of the system exponentially. For more than you will ever want to know about energy storage and its costs, read my December 2022 energy storage report, “The Energy Storage Conundrum.”
Failure theaters continue to play in Dubai during the United Nations Climate Conference of Parties (CoP28).
To begin with, getting to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was more challenging than normal for some participants…as Germany experienced a record-breaking level of snowfall for any December in recorded history.
The airport in Munich resumed limited operations Sunday morning after being closed for nearly a day because of record snowfall that disrupted transportation across the region.
About 17 inches of snow fell in parts of southern Germany on Saturday, an unusually large amount for early December, and what local news media reported was the biggest daily snowfall in Munich in December since records had been kept.
Then, he lets out the only gas that is dangerous while making specious claims.
In a desperate bid to remain relevant, former Vice President Al Gore slammed the UAE, saying its position as overseer of international negotiations on global warming this year was an abuse of public trust.
The comments, made to Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of the conference in Dubai, reflected skepticism among some delegates that COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber, head of the UAE’s national oil company ADNOC, can be an honest broker of a climate deal.
“They are abusing the public’s trust by naming the CEO of one of the largest and least responsible oil companies in the world as head of the COP,” Gore said.
But, the truth comes out anyway:
Kaboom at #COP28… conference president Sultan Al Jaber rejects climate hoax:
"I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve… pic.twitter.com/yhoJZFDytj
There is “no science” that says the world should phase out fossil fuels to curb global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the COP28 climate summit, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting report.
“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C,” Al Jaber said in an online event last month, the remarks from which the Guardian reported on December 3, days after the COP28 summit in Dubai began on November 30.
Al Jaber made those comments in response to questions from Mary Robinson, the chair of the Elders group and a former UN special envoy for climate change.
I think he’s been playing outer space too long. He was a lot better at beating Romulan’s than dealing with climate change. Hey Bill, no one has died yet and no one is going to from this hoax.
Actor William Shatner, notable for his role as Captain James T. Kirk in “Star Trek” warned that humans were “all going to die” due to the perils of climate change.
During an interview on “Good Morning Britain” on ITV, Shatner cast blame on “stupid humans” for the climate crisis and warned that humans could face extinction. Shatner expressed hope that King Charles III, who is set to give the opening speech at the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP28, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, will speak up about the climate crisis.
“He’s got to say, ‘We’re all going to die,’” Shatner said. “That’s what he should say to open up with. ‘Very quickly we’re going to die. Much sooner than we expected, we’re going to die.’”
Today’s example is Jeff Bezos. An honorable mention to Bill Gates. It’s people like this that makes me question their motives and the whole climate scam. Do as I say, not as I do.
Excerpts:
online critics torpedoed Bezos for reportedly traveling via helicopter to party on Bill Gates’ superyacht — just days before attending the COP26 climate summit in Scotland via private jet.
A spokesperson for Bezos told Observer.com at the time the billionaire used sustainable aviation fuel for his travels and pays for carbon offsets, which fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas pollution and cancel out carbon emissions generated by the trips.
Jeff Bezos — who has pledged to spend billions of dollars to help fight climate change — nonetheless owns a $500 million superyacht that generates thousands of tons of carbon emissions each year, according to a new analysis by Indiana University researchers.
The Amazon founder’s 417-foot sailing yacht “Koru,” produces an astounding minimum of 7,154 tons of greenhouse gasses annually — roughly 447 times the entire annual carbon footprint of your average American, the Indiana researchers found.
“But because they are so rich and so powerful, they feel like they are entitled [to travel in carbon-producing superyachts], whereas you and I should drive less, should eat less meat,” she said.
Boating industry experts have fawned over Koru’s “green” ability to travel via wind power, but Barros sniffed that Bezos’ three-masted goliath generates a slew of greenhouse gasses just by heating and cooling the vessel and powering the ship’s various over-the-top luxury amenities such as its sauna, pool and theater.
Bezos’ wealth insulates him from the impact of environmental crises, said Dario Kenner, author of “Carbon Inequality: The Role of the Richest in Climate Change.”
“There is an emotional and physical disconnect from the rich and climate change,” said Kenner.
“The poorest people live closest to toxic air facilities, refineries, places where pollution is dumped,” he said, explaining land is cheaper in those areas.
It’s hard to believe that the media/Government/grifter group has been able to keep the lie going this long. Dear Greta, the world didn’t end in 2023 and you have been used like every other tool the climate elitist’s have used. The truth is that it is about money and power by claiming catastrophe after catastrophe that never happen.
Let’s start with Germany, who shut down nuclear power, is cutting natural gas and coal and wonders why their energy costs are skyrocketing.
Being the media darlings has not prevented the German Greens from collapsing in the public opinion polls. 40% of green voters have taken their approval away since it peaked in popularity at 23%.
A series of unpopular, draconian policy proposals along with cronyism scandals have resulted in a body blow for Green Party popularity in Germany.
Accusations of cronyism have surfaced after a top advisor of Green Economics Minister Robert Habeck awarded state contracts to family members and other close associates.
Secretary for Climate Affairs Dr. Patrick Graichen is accused of having awarded government contracts to a research institute run by multiple members of his family. He also appointed his best man to head the German Energy Agency.
The woes for Graichen may also be compounding as “a suspicion of violations of citation rules” regarding his doctoral thesis has surfaced.
Thanks to Woosterman for those images, and 90 Miles from Tyranny for this one.
Like believing that you can live on sustainable energy while it is a ruse to launder money, like the Ukraine.
Climate Scam: Scotland’s wind turbines have been secretly using diesel generators. 🤡 pic.twitter.com/NMAvjeONMx
— Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis (@DrLoupis) May 22, 2023
And for the number one liar and grifter of this scam, the hero of Tim O’Reilly, James Governor and Tom Raftery. All people I had to deal with who spread these lies. I don’t think even they believed all of this.
Not that it’s going to stop the people who use it to grift money out of the government or have it as their religion.
A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists released a declaration this week entitled “There is No Climate Emergency,” denouncing politically-driven narratives about “imminent” climate crises.
The World Climate Declaration (WCD)—now known as CLINTEL, is a global climate intelligence group dedicated to fostering an approach to climate change grounded in science. For the statement, CLINTEL brought together a diverse group of scientists from all over the world to combat erroneous popular opinions.
A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists released a declaration this week entitled “There is No Climate Emergency,” denouncing politically-driven narratives about “imminent” climate crises.
The World Climate Declaration (WCD)—now known as CLINTEL, is a global climate intelligence group dedicated to fostering an approach to climate change grounded in science. For the statement, CLINTEL brought together a diverse group of scientists from all over the world to combat erroneous popular opinions.
Excerpt Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Funny how Lahaina, Maui just got climate change.
It’s one of the biggest hoax’s as an excuse for money grabbing since Ponzi. Don’t forget these are the same people believing and trying to get others jabbed for Covid-19.
The study, published this month and titled “Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris,” used “observational data” from coastlines, the ocean surface, and the deep ocean to conclude that the amount of plastic pouring into the oceans every year is about 500,000 metric tons. The researchers’ abstract said that “recent estimates of the oceanic input of plastic are one to two orders of magnitude larger than the amount measured floating at the surface.”
Though this may still sound like a lot, but a widely relied upon 2015 study overshot the “accepted” number by a whopping 1,600%.
Referring to the data cited from the 2015 study led by Dr. Jenna Jambeck from the University of Georgia, the new study explains that “This discrepancy could be due to overestimation of input estimates, processes removing plastic from the surface ocean or fragmentation and degradation.”
The 2015 study with the now-challenged estimate was been adopted as authoritative by a range of media outlets, environmental activists and government agencies.
Nancy Wallace, Marine Debris Program Director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), called the 2015 study “significant” in a New York Times article. Though she conceded it wasn’t an exact figure, she said it “gives us [NOAA] an idea of… where we might need to focus our efforts to affect the issue.”
To date, Dr. Jambeck’s 2015 study is listed on the NOAA website. Just the News contacted Wallace and NOAA’s media team for comment.
Other entities who accepted the 2015 data as a fact include The World Economic Forum, who said “At this rate, there will be more plastic than fish in the world’s oceans by 2050” and suggested that plastic pollutants “are adding to the climate change problem.” Other proponents of the “conventional wisdom” include UNESCO, The National Geographic Society, Time magazine, The Washington Post, as well as dozens of environmental organizations, such as “Environmental Action” and “Ocean Conservancy” all of whom have cited the “8 million metric tons of plastic pollution” figure.
Outlets like The New York Times, which propped up the 2015 study, have appeared to downplay the new number and double down on pushing a fearful narrative. “There Might Be Less Plastic in the Sea Than We Thought. But Read On,” reads their headline about the new data. “The new research might seem like good news, but the full picture is complicated: The amount of plastic in the ocean is still increasing by about 4 percent every year, according to the study,” the Times added.
Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife at the Department of The Interior, also used Jambeck’s study in his 2019 testimony before Congress, repeating that “it is believed that at least 8 million tons of plastic end up in our oceans every year, and make up 80 percent of all marine debris from surface waters to deep-sea sediments.”
And while America has been continually criticized for its role in plastic pollution, with many states passing legislation to severely restrict the use of plastic products, Manhattan Institute waste expert John Tierney says “virtually all the consumer plastics polluting the world’s oceans comes from ‘mismanaged waste’ in developing countries.”
“The Environmental Protection Agency has promoted recycling as a way to reduce carbon emissions, but its own figures show the benefits are relatively small and come almost entirely from recycling paper products and metals, not plastic,” he wrote in a New York Post op-ed, adding that rather than Americans sending plastic to a landfill, “most” of it ends up being shipped overseas to developing nations.
I tell my wife that it’s just another socialist tactic. I see 6 different containers in her home country of Denmark (which is socialist) and they clutter the streets while making the population get in line and obey.
The truth is that if you bury it, it doesn’t get micro plastics in the air and water, where it is far more dangerous. But that would be against the narrative. I could be broken down easily, but that doesn’t let people get controlled like good little commies, handcuffed to the recycling prison chain gang. They are dutiful sheep that are probably also vaxxed against Covid.
To illustrate how damaging Germany’s transition to renewable energies and the green movement have been, news is out that things are worse than we thought. Yet, don’t expect the climastalinistas to acknowledge this. Quite to the contrary, they’ll just blame all the economic troubles on the green movement going to slowly!In reality, though, slowing the economy is what they’ve wanted all along.
Drop is “much more than expected”
Blackout News here reports on how industrial production in Germany has slumped “much more than economists expected in June” and that “many experts expect this trend to continue in the coming months.”
The results are based on data from the Federal Statistical Office released last Tuesday.
Slump to continue
“Alexander Krüger of Hauck Aufhäuser Lampe Privatbank thinks many companies are even more pessimistic than they were a few weeks ago,” Blackout News adds. “Jörg Krämer of Commerzbank expects a further slump in the economy in the second half of the year.”
Germany’s high energy costs driving inflation
Much of the decline in production is due to sectors hard hit by Germany’s energy policies. One example is the automotive industry because its future is fraught with huge uncertainty as combustion engines are planned to be phased out.
High interest rates dampening construction
The construction sector has been hit hard as well as energy norms and heating regulations for homes threaten to make building even more unaffordable to many. High energy prices also have fueled inflation, which in turn has forced bank interest rates up and made home financing unattractive. Building permits issued for new homes are extremely low.
One bright spot has been the the aerospace sector. But overall the coming months continue to appear especially gloomy for Germany, Europe’s largest economy. High energy costs have also led to many companies moving operations out of the country.
According to analyst Jens-Oliver Niklasch of Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, “Industrial performance is rather weak at the moment.”
Until Germany gets back to reality with its energy policies, don’t expect improvement anytime soon. Again, this is what the climastalinistas want.
Whales and dolphins, the second most intelligent animals and the farce that is global warming is slaughtering them. Where are the animal rights activists now?
Does the climate crowd value money over life that much?
Yesterday marked the 60th known whale death on the East Coast since Dec 1, 2022. This is not normal.
The government says it’s not because of the wind industry’s high decibel pile driving & boat traffic in previously pristine waters. They’re lying. And now we have the proof. pic.twitter.com/7BcVrgz04X
Here are the top ten sign’s you might be one and are easily manipulated. Oh, and don’t be one, even if you are guilty of a couple of these.
#1) You immediately take every vaccine shot pushed by the (pharma-funded) corporate media and authoritarian government, because you naively believe they want what’s best for you. You require no evidence of safety of efficacy and you don’t read vaccine insert sheets. You take the shots solely because you are obedient.
2) You keep all your assets in fiat currency / US dollars because you think alternative assets — gold, silver, crypto — are untrustworthy… even while your US dollars are losing nearly 2% per month in purchasing power. You will hold on to dollars until the very end, when they become worthless thanks to money printing devaluation / hyperinflation.
3) You hate Donald J. Trump because your emotional state is easily manipulated by the corporate media which has conspired with the lying deep state to try to destroy Trump for years. Your emotions are fully controlled by the CIA-run corporate media and you have been programmed like a Pavlovian dog to invoke hatred at the sight of Trump.
4) You use Google as your search engine and you believe all the globalist-funded “fact checkers” on Facebook and YouTube. You believe “authoritative sources” even though they routinely and maliciously lie, and you despise the alternative media that tells the truth. You are programmed, in other words, to automatically believe official lies while rejecting obvious truth.
5) You’ve been brainwashed into thinking carbon dioxide — the molecule responsible for photosynthesis and literally all plant life on planet Earth — is a danger to the planet. And you are opposed to a warm, wet, lush, green planet because you believe a cold, dead, lifeless planet with no CO2 in the atmosphere would somehow be better. You argue for the total destruction of Earth’s atmosphere while somehow thinking you are “saving the planet.”
6) You celebrate the surveillance state because “I don’t have anything to hide,” and you gladly install Amazon spy devices in your home that listen to every conversation and control your life. You think government surveillance of private citizens is necessary for “public safety” and you gladly give up your privacy in exchange for the illusion of security. You also probably don’t mind being micro-chipped.
7) You have no idea that Joe Biden received $20 million in bribes from foreign entities because you only watch the CIA-controlled corporate media, and they aren’t reporting on the Biden crime cartel bribery scandal. You also think that cocaine in the White House somehow had nothing to do with Hunter Biden.
8) You are dumb enough to literally believe that a man can become a woman, and you think that men can get pregnant. You also think that a child can consent to have their genitals mutilated and sliced off in order to achieve “gender affirmation” status. You think the government is the appropriate place to promote the LGBT cult — a kind of twisted religion — even though you despise Christianity and would never want government to promote the Bible or wave Bible flags all over the place. But LGBT pedophile flags are perfectly okay with you because you think grooming children is “inclusive.” Beyond merely being an obedience idiot, if you worship the LGBT agenda, you are actually a member of a dangerous cult.
Biology is simple
9) You refuse to see the evil in anyone other that Donald Trump supporters or Christians, and you think that “good intentions” from those in power will always produce positive results, even if it means denying people freedom and liberty. You think nearly all criminals should be released onto the streets to be given yet another chance, and you refuse to hold anyone accountable for their criminal behavior. You naively believe that the Biden regime wants to help the American people rather than destroy America, and you are convinced that Big Pharma’s vaccines are expressions of love and healing rather than the actual depopulation bioweapons they truly are.
10) You support the tyrannical dictatorship of Ukraine while believing you are “defending freedom” even though Ukraine’s corrupt government has outlawed all opposition media and opposing political parties, creating a one-party dictatorial state. You think sending more guns to Ukraine and defending Ukraine’s borders is awesome, but you think Americans should have no guns and no border protection. That’s because you’re a compliant idiot who can hold two opposing thoughts in your head at the same time and somehow believe both of them are true.
Don’t be an obedience idiot
– Public schools and universities breed obedience idiots. If you have children or grandchildren, don’t allow them to be brainwashed in government schools. School them locally and privately instead.
– Always be suspicious of the “new thing” that suddenly trends across social media, involving millions of people changing their social media icons to something like the Ukraine flag, or the LGBT flag, or vaccine icons, etc. Every “new thing” that sweeps across the mindless masses is, almost by definition, another psy-op for obedient idiots.
– If you find yourself agreeing with your family members and friends who you’ve known to be obedience idiots, check yourself. Have you been suckered into mindless compliance on some issue? Jolt yourself awake from the hypnosis and reassert critical thinking. This will break the spell and restore your rationality.
– Nearly everything the mainstream media tells you is an engineered lie. This is why Fox News had to fire Tucker Carlson — because he was uttering too much truth for the Fox globalists to stomach. (Tucker is going to launch his own media empire, so he gets the last laugh.)
The believers in climate change worship it as their religion. They are a bunch of sheep who bought the global warming lie. Even Greta was buffaloed and thinks it’s true.
Stop right here if you don’t believe me, here is what a Nobel winning scientist said:
A renowned Nobel Prize-winning scientist has spoken out to warn the public that the “climate crisis” narrative being pushed by the global elite and their allies in the corporate media is a hoax.
Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, blasted “climate emergency” claims as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Clauser, who was also awarded the 2010 Wolf Prize in Physics, the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel, warns that misguided climate science is a hoax that is being driven by “massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.”
Here’s the truth that both the Climate leaders and those of us who are wise to them (conspiracy theorists, flat earther’s or what ever name’s they call us) know. It’s a lie.
Climate change is about money transfer to the wealthy. It’s why they all fly to the conferences on private jets and have yachts. They know the sheep (liberals) buy their bullshit and can be counted on for support. It’s why Al Gore, John Kerry, Leo DiCaprio are all rich and have huge carbon footprints. They know there is nothing bad about C02. It’s just their whipping boy.
It’s the sheep that we should make fun of. They are driving EV’s which cause more environmental damage than gas powered cars. They recycle and all the other good socialist things they are told to do. They march in line like they are told to. I bet they all got their jab too, like good little soldiers.
Anyway, steal the meme’s and enjoy.
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7. Save the planet, drive an EV
8
9.
10.
11. Not a damn one of these came true. The world didn’t end in July did it Greta?
12.
13.
And finally Greta/John Kerry/Biden, these minerals are what you build an EV battery with
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.
I’ve known this for a long time. I actually like the taste of mineral water, but realized a while back that it has C02 in it when I bought a Soda Stream. It uses C02 tanks. It’s good for the plants so good for the environment.
Now it comes out that that the climatards just figured this out. Bear in mind that Perrier and San Pelagrino have been around well before these weenies were born and there wasn’t a climate problem.
It’s the little victories that count. I find it funny every time I can do something they get upset about, especially when they are wrong. They are in it to ruin our lives and pimp us for more money.
I’ll be toasting to Al Gore when I have a glass tonight.
Now Mineral Water Has Also Become a “Climate Killer”
In the joint large-scale undertaking of an informal ideological Stasi made up of scientists, NGOs and state-related institutions to scour the entire everyday life of Germans for climate-damaging consumption habits and behavior in order to feed the results of the political decision-making process for the gradual implementation of a totalitarian climate dictatorship, no area of life and no detail is spared: The “non-profit” association “a tip:tap” recently commissioned a remarkable study on the climate damage caused by sparkling water. Somebody must have noticed that sparkling water equals carbon dioxide equals CO2 — which is essential for life (on Earth), but deemed a “climate killer” and thus as a trace gas, an alleged “environmental toxin”, for whose symbolic “reduction” Germany is wildly prepared to sacrifice its civilizational prosperity.
The result of the study followed as expected: it now also declares drinking mineral water to be a climate sin. Because: Its consumption in Germany consumes around 1.5 times as much CO2 as the entire domestic German air traffic, calculate the green flunky scientists. Even during its production, mineral water requires many more process steps than tap water because it has to be cleaned after treatment and bottled under higher standards. In addition, the production of the bottles, the transport to the supermarket and the way home from there drive emissions even further up. Overall, according to the study, mineral water produces 202.74 g of CO2 equivalents per liter — tap water, on the other hand, only 0.35 g. This means that still water performs around 586 times better than bottled mineral water.
Inquisition and abjuration mechanisms
Extrapolated to the annual consumption in Germany, which is currently 181.4 liters per capita, and a population of over 83 million, this would add up to three million tons of CO2. Of course: an intolerable situation! The green regulators and prohibition high priests are in demand! Therefore — and in order to promote a climate-friendly way of life — the association logically calls for a switch to consumption limited solely to tap water. Support for this next plan for paternalism and restricting freedom comes from the radical left-wing ZDF [public broadcaster] dirt-slinger Jan Böhmermann: He had already taken up the issue in a typical agitprop manner and also used the opportunity to launch one of his slanderous sweeping attacks — this time against the water provider and well builder “Viva con Agua”.
Among other things, Böhmermann complained that the company not only dared to produce mineral water, but also had no workers’ council and paid its employees too poorly. According to today’s inquisition and abjuration mechanisms, ”Viva con Agua” immediately rolled over and publicly announced that they would fully support drinking more tap water in Germany in the future. The company management also bowed and submissively justified itself that the employees in the filling plant had not previously asked for the formation of a workers’ council and were paid according to the applicable industry standards. This climate of high-handed public accusations and flaunted remorse, along with a bad conscience, does not bode well: It is not impossible that the Greens will start a campaign for a mineral water ban and order the future consumption of only tap water — or better yet, collected rainwater. [And I’m pretty sure that people will have to pay for that water according to the yearly rainfall, and I’m pretty sure that Coca-Cola will be exempt from this madness, too.]
There is more at the link above, but I think you get the drift
Create a scare or panic, then profit from it before the sheep and under educated figure it out.
This fraud has both the climate scam and the leader of fake and biased news, the NY Times in it. When I had to work with New Yorker’s at IBM, they worshiped the Times both for what it said and how we treated it in the land of public relations. My co-worker Tom Belz would quote anti-Bush stuff as well as global warming panic from this bible. I’d laugh it off by telling him it was from the NYT and everyone knew they were lying. The anti-Bush (or anti-truth) rhetoric stopped with the revelation that he graduated both from Harvard and Yale. They couldn’t understand that one of their own wasn’t (then) part of the left cabal.
Then, I had to deal with the zealots like Greenmonk and Internet Trolls like Tim O’Reilly who were sure that then named global warming was the greatest problem in the world and that tides were rising.
A little history provides the facts I knew back then. It was all a lie. While the facts are now it place, I knew they couldn’t predict the weather next week, let alone decades from now.
Many of those beaches are along the East Coast. However, back in 1995, the New York Times ran a story with “experts” genuinely concerned those beaches would be gone in 25 years.
The article covered the assessment conducted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
According to draft sections of the new forecast, some of the predicted effects of climate change may now be emerging for the first time or with increasing clarity. The possible early effects include these:
*A continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100. This, say the scientists, would inundate parts of many heavily populated river deltas and the cities on them, making them uninhabitable, and would destroy many beaches around the world. At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. They are already disappearing at an average of 2 to 3 feet a year.
Yet, somehow, East Coast beaches remain. Sadly, marine mammals are routinely washing up along the coastal shores, and one of the concerns is that their deaths can be attributed to climate change “solutions.
(Plymouth Rock, the same tide level as 1620)
In addition to these dire predictions being entirely wrong, chasing after solutions to nonexistent problems is turning out to be expensive: Trillion dollars.
No one said that combating climate change would be cheap. Still, a report released during the COP27 climate talks made for a sobering reminder. The report, commissioned by Britain and Egypt as the past and current hosts of the UN summit, said that developing countries alone need a combined $1trn a year in external funding to meet the goals set out in their Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs (the climate action plan set out in the Paris Agreement).
This funding, in addition to the countries’ own expenditure, is needed for things like cutting emissions, dealing with deadly disasters and restoring nature. In one encouraging development, it was reported on November 11th that America and Japan would provide Indonesia with at least $15bn to help retire some coal-fired power stations early.
Time, talent, and treasure is squandered on bad policy built on “narrative science.”
Meanwhile, some recent studies shed light that on the Earth’s past that show the climate has long been in flux.
Researchers from Aarhus University, in collaboration with Stockholm University and the United States Geological Survey, recently published a report on their findings related to samples from the previously inaccessible region north of Greenland. Their findings indicated Arctic sea ice in this region melted away during summer months around 10,000 years ago.
The researchers have used data from the Early Holocene period to predict when the sea ice will melt today. During this time period, summer temperatures in the Arctic were higher than today. Although this was caused by natural climate variability opposed to the human-induced warming, it still is a natural laboratory for studying the fate of this region in the immediate future.
And while the authors argue their study confirms the need to be climate extremists, I assert that their data show man’s impact on the global climate isn’t panic-worthy. In fact, humanity would do better to focus efforts and resources on dealing with local pollution problems and perhaps exploring nuclear energy options.
The experience with Covid should have taught us not to trust global “experts” who offer simple solutions to complex issues. This should be doubly true with the “climate crisis,” especially as the long-term projections made nearly 30 years ago have proven to be wrong.
The good news: The East Coast beaches are still here. The bad news: So is the climate hysteria.
Lord Monkton has been a shining star on the truth of the climate issue. Here is what he delivers as damning evidence.
I know people who worship the climate as their religion and wouldn’t believe the truth were it this clear. I marvel at how far some will go to be wrong. SMH
The true economic, social, and political cost of the measures proposed by governments (in the West only) to destroy their nations’ businesses and jobs and to impoverish every household is becoming ever more visible. At last, therefore, a few brave souls in the scientific and academic communities are beginning to question what I shall call — with more than a little justification — the Communist Party line on climate change.
Three devastating equations have emerged, each of which calls fundamentally into question the imagined (and imaginary) basis for the economic hara-kiri by which the West is throwing away its gentle and beneficent global hegemony. Power and wealth are passing inexorably from the democracies of the West to the communist-led tyrannies of the East.
However, the three equations stand firmly in the way. It is these three equations — simple enough to be explained here for the general reader, yet devastating enough utterly to destroy the official climate change narrative — that will soon lay low the enemies of prosperity, democracy, and liberty who have, until now, gotten away with undermining the West, no less from within than from without, by their childishly apocalyptic climate change narrative.
The first of these equations was presented to you here a few months ago. Therefore, I shall summarize that discussion briefly. The equation comes in two versions: the wrong version, on the basis of which the climate science establishment felt improperly confident that unabated emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmless greenhouse gases would soon bring about Thermageddon, and the corrected version, which shows that IPCC’s predictions of large and dangerous global warming are false and without scientific foundation.
The system-gain factor is the variable by which the predicted 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 in the air is multiplied to obtain the predicted final warming by doubled CO2 after taking account of feedback response, a knock-on, additional warming signal driven by and proportional to the direct or reference signal.
The erroneous version of the equation neglects what engineers call the base signal, the 260 K direct sunshine temperature. Climate scientists call this the emission temperature. It is the temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.
The 29 K total greenhouse effect is the sum of 8 K direct warming by natural greenhouse gases, 1 K direct warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and 20 K total feedback response.
Multiply the 1.2 K direct doubled-CO2 warming by the erroneous system-gain factor 3.2 to get climatologists’ 3.85 K final doubled-CO2 warming. Sure enough, the average final or equilibrium doubled-CO2 warming predicted by the general-circulation models in the sixth and latest generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is 3.85 K.
But the corrected system-gain factor bears in mind — as climatologists in this crucial respect do not — that the sun is shining and that, therefore, the dominant 260 K sunshine temperature must be included in the corrected equation. Therefore, the system-gain factor is not 29 / 9, or 3.2, but (260 + 29) / (260 + 9), or just 1.1. Then the final warming to be expected in response to the 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 is not 3.85 K, but more like 1.3 K, which is small, harmless, and net-beneficial.
Climate scientists made their error when they borrowed the physics of feedback from a branch of engineering physics known as control theory. They did not understand what they had borrowed. When I pointed out their grave error to the world’s most eminent climatologist, he said he did not believe that the feedback processes in the climate (chiefly the extra water vapor — itself a greenhouse gas — that the air can hold as it is directly warmed by the non-condensing greenhouse gases) would respond to the sunshine temperature.
So I asked him how the inanimate feedback processes in the climate knew that at any given moment, such as the present, they should not respond in the slightest to the 260 K sunshine temperature but should respond violently and extremely to the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, I said. He had no answer to my question. He shuffled off, looking baffled.
It was hitherto unnoticed that feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (the only one that really matters — all the others broadly self-cancel) necessarily respond to the entire 269 K input signal or reference temperature. Therefore (I shall not show the working for this, but trust me), just 0.01 unit of increase in feedback strength would add as much as 1 K to the final warming by doubled CO2. But it is entirely impossible to measure feedback strength directly by any method, and certainly not to a precision of only a few hundredths of a unit.
Therefore, after correction of climate scientists’ error, no method of deriving predictions of anthropogenic global warming that is based on feedback analysis — as just about all of the current official predictions are — is capable of producing predictions that are any better than mere guesswork.
The IPCC, not realizing this even though it has been told about the error, bases very nearly all of its predictions upon feedback analysis. Its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report mentions “feedback” more than 1,100 times, its 2021 Sixth Assessment Report more than 2,600 times. In short, the IPCC’s entire analysis of the “how much warming” question is meaningless and valueless.
How could so crass a mistake have been made? The answer is that when the climatologists asked the control theorists how to calculate feedback response, they were told that they should base the calculation only on the gain signal (in the climate, the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases) and on the 20 K feedback response. Control theorists do things this way because in typical control-theoretic applications, such as electronic long-distance telephone circuits or factory control processes, the feedback response signal is 10 to 100 times larger than any other signal in the circuit. Therefore, neglecting the base signal usually makes no significant difference to the calculation, so they neglect it.
In the climate, however, it is the other way about. The base signal in the climate, the 260 K sunshine temperature, is almost 30 times the 9 K direct warming by greenhouse gases, and 13 times the feedback response. The sunshine dominates. Therefore, as common sense would in any event dictate, one cannot ignore it in carrying out the “how much warming” calculation.
The significance of this first equation, then, is that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that climatologists’ profitable but misguided whining about the rate of future global warming is based on a very large and very serious error of physics that has gone undetected until now because different scientific disciplines — here climatology and control theory — are increasingly narrow in their specialization. The climate scientists did not (and do not) understand the control theory they had borrowed, and the control theorists did not (and do not) realize what climate scientists have done with the borrowed theory. It is in this disastrous interdisciplinary compartmentalization that the climate change scare is rooted.
The truth is that one must use methods other than feedback analysis to derive estimates of future anthropogenic warming. But all such methods, which are based on observation rather than theoretical manipulation of data in climate models, show far less global warming than diagnosis of feedback strength from the models’ outputs shows.
The simplest observational method is this. The IPCC in 1990 predicted that until 2090, the world would warm by between 0.2 and 0.5 K/decade, with a midrange estimate of 0.3 K/decade (i.e., 2 to 5 K per century equivalent, with a best estimate of 3 K). Likewise, now as then, the IPCC predicts that final warming in response to doubled CO2 in the air will be 2 to 5 K, with a best estimate of 3 K. However, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which maintains the most accurate and up-to-date satellite temperature record, since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 there has only been 0.136 K warming per decade.
This slow warming is equivalent to less than 1.4 K per century or, per CO2 doubling, well below the lower bound of the IPCC’s range of predictions, and less than half its midrange prediction.
Note how close that 1.36 K is to the 1.3 K we obtained by correcting official climatology’s error of feedback analysis. A more elaborate method, known as the energy-budget method, also shows about 1.3 K warming per century or per CO2 doubling, with a range of 1 to 2 K. The first equation, then, powerfully suggests that our sins of emission have not caused and will not cause a problem, crisis, emergency, or apocalypse.
But let us pretend, just for the sake of argument, that climatologists had not perpetrated their elementary error and that, therefore, there might, after all, be an impending cataclysm. In that case, what can we do about it? The second of our three equations demonstrates that the currently favored method of Saving the Planet — replacing coal and gas generation with windmills and solar panels — will make little or no difference to global temperature.
Our second equation says excess generation E by wind and solar power in a given grid is the difference between the installed nameplate capacity N of wind and solar in that grid (their output in ideal weather) and the total mean hourly demand D for electricity from that grid.
Obvious though this equation seems, grid operators and governments are, as far as we can discover, wholly unaware of it. But by rights it ought to signal the E = N — D of any further costly destruction of the countryside and the oceans, the birds, bees and bats, the whales and dolphins by ugly solar panels and wind turbines.
Douglas Pollock, the Chilean engineer who discovered the equation, has investigated several Western national grids and has plotted the results on the graph below.
The United States could, if it wished, add more wind and solar power to its grid, but the cost would be enormous and the CO2 emissions abated surprisingly small, because coal and gas-fired backup generation must be kept running at wasteful spinning reserve at all times in case the wind drops and the sun goes down.
However, the seven countries listed as already exceeding the fundamental hourly-demand limit on wind and solar capacity will not reduce CO2 emissions at all if they try installing any more wind and solar power. All they will do is to drive up the cost of electricity, which is already eight times greater in the West than in China or India, where the expansion of the world’s cheapest form of electricity — coal-fired power — is continuing rapidly.
This second of our equations also puts an E = N — D to the notion that replacing real autos with electric buggies at twice the capital and running costs will reduce emissions. It won’t, because in most Western countries, wind and solar power are already at or above their Pollock limit, so that the power for the buggies will have to come from coal and gas, at least until the soi-disant “Greens” abandon their sullen opposition to the peaceful use of nuclear power.
The Traffic-Light Tendency — the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds — are opposed to coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation. Yet wind and solar power, which they favor, cannot keep the lights on 24/7; are cripplingly expensive; are cruel to landscape, seascape, and wildlife; and, though their exceptionally low energy density, do more environmental damage per MWh generated than any other form of power.
Why, then, do the climate communists advocate wind and solar power and oppose just about everything else? They do so precisely because there is no quicker or more certain way to destroy the economies of the hated West and to end its hegemony than to destroy its energy infrastructure. For that, and not Saving the Planet, is their true objective. What they advocate makes sense when seen in that light and makes no sense otherwise.
So to our third simple but decisively powerful equation. Let us pretend not only that there may be a global warming Armageddon (though we have proven there will not be), but also that we can do something about it by the proliferation of windmills and solar panels (though we have proven that we can achieve nothing by that method except crippling our grids and vastly increasing the already prohibitive cost of electrical power, further turning the terms of trade to the advantage of the communist-led countries that are vastly increasing their coal-fired generation).
How much global warming would worldwide attainment of net zero emissions by 2050 prevent? It is a measure of the extent to which such little debate as the far left have permitted on the climate question has been stifled, and of the extent to which the objective of climate policy is political rather than scientific or existential, that this question does not seem to have been asked before.
I was in Parliament the other day, talking to a Conservative M.P. I asked him what he thought about global warming. He said, “I’m a mathematician, so I know we have to show leadership by getting to net zero emissions by 2050.”
“So,” I replied, “if the whole world followed the policy of just about all the British governing class and went to net zero emissions by 2050, how much global warming that would otherwise have occurred by that year would be prevented?”
His face was a picture. He had clearly never thought of asking that surely elementary question. When I told him the answer, he was dismayed. But the answer is not in doubt, for the necessary equation is again unchallengeably simple.
First, we need to know how much global warming would occur on present trends. Typically, one goes back at least 30 years, so let us go back to 1990, the date of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. Since then, our sins of emission have added one 30th of a unit of influence every year in a near-perfect straight line. All those trillions squandered on trying to make global warming go away have not altered that third-of-a-century-long trend one iota.
Now, if the whole world went immediately to net zero emissions today, we should be able to abate 27/30 units of our influence on the climate. But if we get there in a straight line over the next 27 years, we shall abate about half of those 0.9 units — i.e., 0.45 units.
Next, how much global warming would each unit we abate prevent? Here, as throughout, we are using official figures. The IPCC says that the warming over the next 70 years if we suddenly doubled the CO2 in the air today would be 1.8 C. This is known as the “transient doubled-CO2 response,” or TCR. And, again according to the IPCC, there is an “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF, of 3.93 units of anthropogenic influence in response to doubled CO2. Therefore, temperature change per unit of influence is 1.8 / 3.93, or 0.46 K per unit.
Multiply the 0.45 units the world would abate if all nations went to net zero by 0.46 K per unit, and the total warming prevented by global net zero emissions would be just 0.2 K.
The M.P., on being told this strikingly puny figure, said: “Oh, well, there must be a very large uncertainty in that number.”
“No,” I said, “there isn’t. The IPCC predicts up to 5 K warming this century. But even if the whole world actually got to net zero emissions, which it won’t because the communist-led nations are expanding their coal-fired capacity at a very rapid rate, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K of that warming would be prevented by 2050. The midrange estimate is 0.2 K.”
In fact, even less warming than this would be prevented. For we have used official midrange estimates to calculate the 0.2 K warming that even global net zero would prevent. But those estimates are proven to have overstated the true medium-term rate of global warming by more than double. So the true warming the world would prevent if all nations, rather than just those of the empty-headed West, were to go together to net zero would be less than 0.1 K.
Then I added the clincher. I told the M.P. that the U.K. National Grid had estimated $3.6 trillion as the cost of re-engineering the grid to meet the net zero target; that electricity generation accounts for less than a quarter of U.K. emissions; and that, therefore, the cost to the U.K. of getting to net zero by 2050 would be more than $15 trillion, or six years’ total annual GDP.
Therefore, I said, every $1 billion the world squanders on trying to get to net zero emissions by 2050 would prevent only one 16-millionth of a degree of warming. Did he, as a mathematician, consider that to be value for money?
The M.P. capitulated. “The trouble with you, Monckton,” he said, “is that you take impossible positions on everything, and you’re always right.”
Now, the purpose of this unusual exercise has been to reduce the apparently complex global warming argument to just three equations so simple that they can be explained to a layman without too much difficulty, and then to explain them. In my submission, any one of these three equations, on its own, would in a rational world be more than sufficient to lead Western governments to abandon all their global warming mitigation policies at once.
The three equations together are devastating. There is no global warming problem; even if there were, our current method of addressing it will make no difference; and even if the whole world attained net zero by 2050, global temperature would barely change.
These three arguments are simple, but they are strong. It is only because the far left have captured the debate and have silenced discussions such as this that governments have allowed themselves to be fooled. Soon, that will change, whether the far left and their paymasters and instructors in the FSB and the Ministry of State Security like it or not. For the laws of physics, of economics, and of mathematics are not up for repeal.
I wonder if the rest of the world is getting tired of the MSM egging on the mentally deficient or deranged people. They gang up like the mean kids on the playground who got together to bring someone down to build themselves up.
Anyway, here is some woke crap because that is what it is. Look below for definitions from the left who try to ruin our lives with speech restrictions. Here’s your woke hint. If it’s about straight, white, christian men, it’s bad, ergo woke.
The word “woke” has become synonymous with leftism. At its core, “wokeism” is essentially a cult-like religion for the far-left, who think everything that is pro-America or pro-tradition is somehow an attack on specific, marginalized groups. “Woke” people parade throughout the nation as professional victims and make everything about them, and take narcissism to a whole new level. The Media Research Center defines the word “woke” or “wokeism” as people or ideas who are committed to the most extreme left-wing views on issues like race, gender, crime, climate, the economy, and more. Woke people think that burning down buildings is a way of peacefully protesting. Woke people believe that abortion is healthcare and that you can pick any gender you want to be. They think Antifa is a myth and that we should stop using existing, reliable, and abundant domestic sources of energy. In practice, woke people push against common-sense morals and values and promote the perpetual victimhood of groups they’ve deemed “marginalized.” While it’s evident these ideologies are nuts, the media has become obsessed with these woke ideas while vilifying traditional values and normalcy. They silence opposition through censorship or by ignoring and dismissing other people’s opinions as “racist” or “hateful.”
Trying to silence someone for their beliefs is a cross between 1984 and Communism.
Critical Race Theory = anti-white positioning, or negation of people of European descent.
WASHINGTON — Self-described “woke” Defense Department schools official Kelisa Wing, whose anti-white social media comments garnered national attention last fall, has been reassigned to an unrelated role, The Post has learned.
The Defense Department in October launched a 30-day review of Wing — the now-former education activity chief diversity equity and inclusion officer — after her Twitter posts with disparaging comments about white people resurfaced.
Marvel used to make good movies. Mimicking real life, the guys were the hero’s with support from others. There was good story telling and we liked the hero’s, faults and all. They came through for us every time. Now, this:
Naturally, Alonso was a woke quota queen who lobbied to ruin Marvel movies with homosexuality, transvestites, and outright idiocy like changing the X-Men to the “X-People,” or some such nonsense.
Anyway, it looks to me, based on the box office numbers, that Alonso was pretty successful at ruining the Marvel juggernaut. Thanks primarily to woketardery, Marvel’s box office is down, and so is the audience’s goodwill. Marvel feminized Thor, gave us a hairy man-on-man kiss in the Eternals, desexualized everyone, and introduced new characters who are no fun at all because they are too busy whining about racism, sexism, and getting misgendered.
So cut the woke crap. Look what it is doing for Bud Light, Fox News, Maybelline, Smirnoff and others.
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.
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.
Yeah, I think it’s BS like most do, just like being woke. Blaming others so you think that it will make people equal.
Woke definitions
Trying to silence someone for their beliefs is a cross between 1984 and Communism.
I wonder if the rest of the world is getting tired of the MSM egging on the mentally deficient or deranged people. They gang up like the mean kids on the playground who got together to bring someone down to build themselves up.
Critical Race Theory = anti-white positioning, or negation of people of European descent.
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
A head of risk management at Silicon Valley Bank spent considerable time spearheading multiple “woke” LGBTQ+ programs, including a “safe space” for coming out stories, as the firm catapulted toward collapse.
Jay Ersapah, the boss of Financial Risk Management at SVB’s UK branch, launched initiatives such as the company’s first month-long Pride campaign and a new blog emphasizing mental health awareness for LGBTQ+ youth.
“The phrase ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’ resonates with me,’” Ersapah was quoted as saying on the company website.
“As a queer person of color and a first-generation immigrant from a working-class background, there were not many role models for me to ‘see’ growing up.” (there is the announcement of “everything I touch is going to fail”)
Her efforts as the company’s European LGBTQIA+ Employee Resource Group co-chair earned her a spot on SVB’s “outstanding LGBT+ Role Model Lists 2022,” a list shared in a company post just four months before the bank was shut down by federal authorities over liquidity fears.
It’s time to stop hiring people like this and eliminate this group of initials, ESG, CRT, DEI and anything woke
In addition to instituting SVB’s first “safe space catch-up” — which encouraged employees to share their coming out stories — and serving on LGBTQ+ panels around the world, Ersapah also spent time over the last year serving as a director for Diversity Role Models and volunteering as a mentor for Migrant Leaders.
“I feel privileged to co-chair the LGBTQ+ ERG and help spread awareness of lived queer experiences, partner with charitable organizations, and above all, create a sense of community for our LGBTQ+ employees and allies.” (how do you feel about it now knowing you screwed the pooch?)
Ersapah couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
SVB was abruptly shut down Friday by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation shortly after it disclosed it had taken a $1.8 billion hit from a $21 billion fire sale of its bond holdings.
It faced a cash crunch due to surging interest rates, and a recent meltdown in the tech sector led many customers to pare their deposits.
“… SVB recognizes the significant societal, ecological and economic threats of climate change. … We enable entrepreneurs with inventions and new businesses that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and take seriously the responsibility to reduce our own. …” – SVB ESG Report 2022 Section 8
Pinkerton: Green, Woke, and Now Broke — How SVB Became the 2nd Biggest Bank Failure in U.S. History
Go Woke, Go Bust
Oh so woke, oh so green, oh so diverse Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) just went bust.
One can go to its website—still up for who knows how much longer—and see that it claimsassets of $212 billion. But as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall; and so SVB makes for the second largest bank failure in U.S. history.
…
Speaking of ‘splaining, SVB officials will need to answer a lot of questions, including, What role did wokeness play in SVB’s failure?
Another term for wokeness, of course, is ESG, which stands for environmental, social, and governance. ESG is a pertinent question, as there’s a considerable body of economic literature showing that woke investments aren’t good investments. For instance, one study by professors at the London School of Economics and Columbia University finds that:
ESG funds appear to underperform financially relative to other funds within the same asset manager and year, and to charge higher fees. Our findings suggest that socially responsible funds do not appear to follow through on proclamations of concerns for stakeholders.
Of course, it wasn’t just the woke policies of SVB which might have contributed to the disaster. One of the biggest sources of damage to Silicon Valley Bank was the bank’s mistaken belief that fixed rate securities were a safe harbour for depositor’s money.
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….
SMH. They are polluting the mouth of the Mississippi River, killing Whales with Wind Turbines and have sent more harmful chemicals into the atmosphere than any of their faux attacks on plant food.
Agriculture is Ohio’s No. 1 industry, contributing more than $93 billion to our state economy and supporting one in six jobs. Other important facts:
Almost 50 percent of the land in Ohio is classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as “prime farmland,” which is the most fertile and productive land in the country.
Ohio has the fifth highest percentage of “prime farmland” in the nation.
Ohio has lost more high-quality acres of farmland than any state other than Texas.
Ohio farmers grow more than 200 crops. Corn and soybeans are the top crops.
Ninety-one percent of Ohio farms are family farms.
First, here is the state of C02:
Experts claim it could cost $50 TRILLION to make the U.S. carbon neutral by 2050.
Q: “How much will that lower global temperatures?”
Now, a real climate disaster that is being all but ignored by the media, except to cover up the other climate issue, 400,000 gallons of oil spilled when the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up (some say by the US and Biden ordered it, we’ll see)
Green water has been reported in East Palestine. Let’s review the chemicals released and produced by burning, and the colors they will turn water upon mixing:
Vinyl Chloride (VC): Colorless water (primary product) and colorless to light yellow water (combustion product – hydrogen chloride)
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (EGMBE): Colorless water (primary product) and clear to pale yellow water (combustion product – acrolein)
Ethylhexyl Acrylate (EHAA): Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless to cloudy water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
Isobutylene (i-C4H8): Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
Butyl Acrylates: Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless to cloudy water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
None of these products produce bright green water. How could bright green water possibly have been formed?
Greta tweeted that we should commit criminal acts to protect the environment from C02 with no mention of this actual climate problem.
Greta Thunberg suggests her followers commit criminal acts to protest climate issues:
"If we look through history; if people who were advocating for example for social justice, if they only used the legal methods then we wouldn't be where we are today."pic.twitter.com/V1crsKKXG8
Many victims of the East Palestine train derailment may be too young to be familiar with the toxic tragedy of Love Canal, poster village for toxic waste dumping, corporate irresponsibility, and government fumbling.
Quite simply, Love Canal is one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history.
But that’s not the most disturbing fact.
What is worse is that it cannot be regarded as an isolated event. It could happen again–anywhere in this country — unless we move expeditiously to prevent it.
When the 1910 vision of Love Canal as a dream community went south due to technological advances and the vicissitudes of the economy, Hooker Chemical Co. turned the canal into a chemical waste dump. In 1953, Hooker covered their work with dirt and sold it to the town for a buck — but with a telling disclaimer:
May 7: Hooker Chemical sells the canal to the Niagara Falls Board of Education for $1.00 and writes into the deed a disclaimer of responsibility for future damages due to the presence of buried chemicals.”
Then, in a display of government imbecility: “The board subsequently builds a school there and sells land that is developed with residences.
Instead of trashing the USA and using the climate scam as a shell game to get rich.
It took 10,144,035 tons of Coal, 50,084,600 tons of Quartz, 11,271,150 tons of Charcoal and 5,635,575 tons of Woodchips to build this 345 acre 196,320 panel solar field in China, and that's just the metallurgical-grade silicon, not any copper, steels or plastics. #GreenEnergypic.twitter.com/Tm3IU4t9hp
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.
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.
I thought I’d wait a bit until the Queen is buried out of respect. She was probably the last of the good Royals.
Her service was almost flawless and she deserves the respect of anyone that helped the battle that was WWII.
Her only fault was marrying her 3rd cousin. Philip was a good guy (when not farting), but the kids are not the best the UK has to offer.
Let’s get Andrew and his siblings out of the way. All of them have done things that had to be swept under the rug. I’m not sure the Epstein smell (who didn’t kill himself) on the family can be cleaned off of Andrew.
They aren’t the proudest moment in UK history, but then they had George III also.
Then we get to the King. I’ll give him credit that during the funeral and burial ceremonies, he acted like one. He swatted Harry and Sparkles off to the side where they belong. He didn’t do well on 50% of his kids either. I guess that is average, except he had an Army of wet nurses for the kids. Most of us have Mom and Dad, or just one.
The problem I see is his past. Chuck is a Muslim sympathizer in a Christian (ha) nation. He worships the earth more than the creator, being a Climatard.
Nothing is forgotten on the internet now. No matter what he says as king, here is what he did as Prince.
We haven’t even posted one of the videos of Charles and his love and admiration for Islam. Charles is a leading actor in several lines of effort against classical civilization, and all rights written in the Magna Carta. He is the kind of royalty for which, the Magna Carta was actually created.
It’s a little hard to ignore praise of commies, terrorists and guys who want to take over the world, reduce the population by 90% and make us eat bugs (Klaus Schwab).
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.
Hey! Greenies! Taking good care of yourselves? Watching your diet? Exercising? Taking those probiotics to strengthen your gut biome and digestion? Well, cut it out! You’re part of the problem here.
Among the critters that metabolically produce CO2 are bacteria. As far as I can find out, every creature on Earth that has a mouth has a gut. And nearly every gut’s biome contains bacteria, some more densely populated or more varied than others. Those bacteria give off CO2 as part of simply living. That CO2 escapes the bacteria’s host’s body during the process of elimination, usually through an anal orifice.
Everything farts, though it might not have been noticed (heard, smelt, or seen wafting up from a bird’s hind end on a chilly morning) in some species yet. The animal is not the source of the excreted CO2; it’s the bacteria that live inside the animal. You, me, the cows, the crickets, all God’s creatures need to fart. Especially we humans, as we have more bacteria living inside each of us than there are dollars in our $30+ trillion national debt.
Beef cattle graze rangelands and pastureland, and enrich the soil as they go. Upfront infrastructure inputs include fence posts and wire, except on federal rangelands where often none is required. Other expenses include either gas-sipping ATVs or a few horses, saddles, and bridles for moving them. Taking them to market needs the one-time use of a truck and trailer. Crickets, on the other hand, require climate-controlled enclosed space and energy-heavy 24/7 HVAC operations from egg through carcass. No fresh air, sunlight, or free-ranging for them.
Total feed consumption, over the life of a beef animal from all sources, is about 25 lbs per pound of flesh produced. Pastured/ranged beef cattle that are finished on grain consume about 2.5 lbs of grain per lb of flesh. Grass-fed beef is becoming an increasingly popular choice and involves none of the steps involved in planting, fertilizing, watering, growing, harvesting, processing, or transporting grain for food. Crickets consume around 2 lbs of grain-based feed for every pound of cricket produced—not a significant difference from grain-finished beef, but quite a big one compared to the grass-fed.
And consider the relatively simple course of turning slaughtered beef into steaks, roasts, and hamburgers. Beef is handled, with hands, throughout the process. Crickets are washed clean, roasted, dried, chopped, and either powdered or emulsified depending on the desired product. Crickets are sometimes frozen before processing. Alternatively, they are roasted alive, ouch. Raw cricket powder sells for $40-$50 per lb.
They’ve been trying to explain away CO2, globull warming, climate change and other nonsense. I know it’s a ruse to get free government money. I know the government tactics to create a crisis and then try to solve it. This is not that. It is a money grab. Look at Al Gore selling his TV station to the Oil Producing Al Jazeera, that doesn’t believe in climate change like all of the smart people who see through this.
The reason I pick on the crickets is the WEF wants us to eat bugs.
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.
First, a festival to worship Earth, and the second of course was there was alcohol involved.
People do stupid stuff a lot. There are a lot of them who believe the nonsense that we can either kill or save the planet. That is as narcissistic belief as the people who fly private jets around the world to try and stop it, and those who believe what they say.
I’ve heard of drawing on faces of passed out people, or covering them with whatever, but burying them alive? That’s a new level of stupid for me.
FBI, CIA, New Deal, Green New Deal, Welfare, Fake impeachments, the squad, gun control Food Stamps, Covid, Election fraud, Obamacare, BLM, pronouns, woke, climate scams, vaccines, College Loans, inflation, gas prices, food shortages…….on and on and on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tim is a publisher who holds conferences and is a name in those circles. Back when I was on twitter, I mentioned to Tim that sea levels weren’t rising when he was panicking. Florida is still there along with everywhere else. I got called a troll, but when I asked for evidence, he could only come up with that climate science is hard. In other words he had no facts.
It sure is hard when you keep changing the rules and all the predictions don’t work out.
Let me point this out to Tim, you are the troll now. I told him he was just another elitist, but it turns out he is a loser also. BFYTW.
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.
Delusions of Adequacy 
