Tag: green hoax

Different Headlines

NHL Season Hasn’t Even Started Yet, And We Already Have Players Beating Hell Out Of Each Other

Leftist Physically Assaults, Threatens to Kill South Dakota Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Over His Support For Charlie Kirk

Ginger Activates Immune Cells

Self-Important Loser David Hogg Leaves Instructions for When He’s Assassinated by a Right-Winger – Don’t waste a good bullet on losers

State Department Warns Against Americans Traveling To 6 Nations

Visualizing The Number Of Farms In Each US State

From Unrest to Resilience: The Remarkable Turnaround Since Summer 2020

Europe

Nearly All Daily UK High Temperatures Are Set At Junk Weather Stations

Germany’s Bureaucratic State Devours 3% Of GDP

Russia Gains Another Village In Central Ukraine Oblast As Negotiations Effectively Dead

64% Of Robberies, Physical Attacks, & Sexual Assaults On Parisian Public Transport Are Committed By Foreigners

World

The Silk Road Toll: Beijing’s Debt, Deals, & Control

NASA Bans Chinese Nationals From Working On Agency Programs

How Does Japan Have Nearly 100K Centenarians?

Trump Slashes CO2 Regs Behind War on Energy

The Trump administration just dealt another blow to the anti-energy, anti-prosperity agenda pursued by the Biden administration underpinned by the man-made “climate change” hypothesis. Under the proposed repeal of previous “climate” regulations on energy production announced this month, many of the power plants targeted for destruction could remain open, and CO2 would no longer be considered dangerous “pollution.” Naturally, that has the “climate” movement screaming bloody murder.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the effect of the so-called greenhouse gases coming from U.S. energy production using hydrocarbons (or “fossil fuels”) is so small as to be negligible. The agency also pointed out that the CO2 from power plants is not actually hurting people’s health, contrary to the demonstrably false claims of previous administrations. The latest announcement is part of a suite of two dozen “climate” decrees being eliminated by the administration.

Under the plan, coal and hydrocarbons could continue to provide power for U.S. consumers and businesses. “Rest assured President Trump is the biggest supporter of clean, beautiful coal,” EPA chief Lee Zeldin announced at the agency’s headquarters. “EPA is helping pave the way for American energy dominance because energy development underpins economic development, which in turn strengthens national security.”

The EPA regulatory changes, explained in a proposed rule released this month, would “repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants,” the agency explained. “The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.”

story

Solyndra – Obama-backed solar firm collapses after big federal loan guarantee

Solyndra Inc., a renewable energy firm that became a darling of the Obama Administration, shut the doors of its California headquarters Wednesday, raising fresh questions from critics about political favoritism and wasted money in the federal loan program.

The manufacturer of rooftop solar panels opened its doors in 2005, and in 2009 became the first recipient of an Obama administration energy loan guarantee – a $535 million federal commitment that helped minimize the risk to venture capital firms backing the solar start-up. Obama visited the factory last year to herald its future.

“The promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith — not anymore,” Obama told Solyndra workers then. “The future is here.”

The government loan guarantee was supposed to spur 1,000 fulltime jobs once Solyndra’s solar plant was fully operating. Instead, the company announced Wednesday it intends to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and that 1,100 full and part time employees had been laid off “effective immediately,” without severance. Some said they no longer have health insurance, either.

Now, the company’s collapse is sure to rekindle questions about how well the Energy Department vetted the deal before putting taxpayer dollars on the table – and about whether the public will have to pick up the $535 million tab. The full bill may not be clear until bankruptcy proceedings. How much taxpayers and other creditors recover could depend on the total value of the company’s assets.

story

What did Obama have his hands on that didn’t screw up or was crooked, against the law or marxist?

The climate scam continues to be just that, a laundromat for money

More Evidence That Both China And Environmental Activists Hate America

It isn’t bad enough that they are pumping enough fentanyl into America to numb the population and support groups like BLM and liberals, now this. China pollutes more than the rest of the world combined (except India), yet scoffs at stupid human tricks like the Paris Climate Accord, meant to penalize the USA most of all.

American energy independence is under attack from a shadowy alliance that threatens the foundation of our national security and economic prosperity. On the surface, we see radical environmental activists interrupting corporate shareholder meetings, blocking traffic, and vandalizing artwork. But behind these increasingly aggressive protests lies a more insidious threat: the Chinese Communist Party, which quietly bankrolls these same activists through a complex web of foundations and activist networks. Through dark money, China exploits environmental activism to undermine America’s energy sector. This dangerous partnership between foreign adversaries and domestic extremists demands immediate Congressional action – including comprehensive investigations into Chinese funding of domestic American nonprofits and new laws protecting American energy infrastructure. The security of America’s energy future hangs in the balance, and we can no longer afford to ignore this coordinated assault on our nation’s vital interests.

The evidence of Beijing’s strategic manipulation of American environmental groups has been mounting for years, but recent investigations have exposed the actual depth of these connections. Through a sophisticated network of foundations, consulting firms, and environmental organizations, the Chinese Communist Party has established multiple channels to funnel money and influence into groups working to obstruct American energy development. Beijing’s influence becomes clear when following the money. For example, Climate Defiance is one of the most aggressive new environmental groups making headlines nationwide. More than half of their 2023 funding flowed through the Oil and Gas Action Network – an organization supported by the Energy Foundation, whose Chinese office maintains deep ties to the Chinese Communist nation and Chinese nationals with direct links to the regime. Similarly, investigations reveal several other prominent environmental groups receive substantial funding through organizations with documented connections to Beijing, including research institutes that coordinate with Chinese state entities and foundations that partner with CCP-controlled ecological agencies.

China’s financial support of American environmental groups raises a crucial question that cuts to the heart of Beijing’s strategy: Why would the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter and most prominent financier of fossil fuel projects globally invest in funding American environmental protesters? The answer reveals a calculated effort to weaken American energy independence: these radical groups are unknowingly doing China’s dirty work by targeting and disrupting America’s vital energy infrastructure projects.

The numbers tell the story of China’s true environmental priorities. China’s greenhouse gas emissions are double those of the United States, while Chinese institutions lead the world in financing new fossil fuel developments. These facts expose an obvious truth—China’s interest isn’t in saving the environment but in sabotaging America’s energy independence and economic competitiveness.

The tactical playbook of these Chinese-backed environmental groups has become increasingly aggressive and disruptive. Environmental activists have shut down a New York Times climate conference, declaring that “climate criminals should not be allowed in polite society.” They’ve disrupted major sporting events, vandalized priceless artworks, blocked highways during rush hour, and damaged construction equipment to cause massive delays at pipeline sites.

These aren’t random acts of civil disobedience – they’re part of a coordinated strategy to weaken American energy infrastructure and drive-up consumer costs. The groups behind these actions openly admit their radical aims. The Climate Emergency Fund’s executive director recently told The New Republic that movements “need to have a radical flank that is disrupting normalcy.”

more here

Environmental Marxism

In 2006 the State of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act mandating an unattainable and massive reduction of greenhouse gasses within the state by 2020. This bill, and mindless near-religious allegiance to the “green” movement, set in motion the recent catastrophic events in Los Angeles and previously throughout much of California, a state that for the past twenty-five years has been increasingly controlled by a Marxist-inspired Democrat Party.

It is not a coincidence that the current environmental or “green” movement is the driving philosophical force animating the Democrat Party not only in California but on national basis as this movement has its roots in Marxism.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848. The general consensus on the Left is that Marx and Engels were in fact very conscious of and promoted the concept of what is considered to be the modern environmental movement. The current “green” movement is in reality a major facet of Marxist philosophy.

Among those who champion Marx’s environmentalism is Professor John Bellamy Foster of the University of Oregon. In 1997 he published The Crisis of the Earth, Marx’s Theory of Ecological Sustainability as a Nature-Imposed Necessity for Human Production.

Foster wrote, “Marx’s analysis of the crisis of the earth in the mid-nineteenth century led him to a concept of sustainability that was central to his vision of a communist society. Because this concept of sustainability was rooted in both a critique of capitalism and a vision of a future society, it has a richness and complexity all its own. A close examination of Marx’s concept of sustainability therefore offers important insight into the possibilities for the creation of a more just and sustainable world order.”

Per Raju J. Das of York University, Toronto, “Sustainability (or a healthy environment)… has to be fought for as part of a larger fight against the logistics of capitalism, such as endless accumulation, and against the system as a whole. Therefore, ecological sustainability is fundamentally a class issue.”

During the 1980s the global Communist Movement, due to setbacks in Russia and elsewhere, began to exploit and take over the fledging Marxist environmental movements in Europe and the United States. They saw the potential of the movement as a weapon to foment “peaceful” revolutions in democratic western nations.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not the end of communism but a metamorphosis of the means of revolution as environmentalism became the socialists/communists’ primary weapon in undermining capitalism and Western societies.

This tactic was quickly recognized by those who had suffered under the oppression of communism for decades. In his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus, the first president of the Czech Republic after the end of nearly four decades of Soviet dictatorship, warned the nations of Europe and the United States, “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life, I feel obligated to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century, is not communism or its various softer versions. It was replaced by ambitious environmentalism.”

One of the great deceptions used by the Soviet Union was the incessant propagandizing of a fictitious hypothesis — that humans are responsible for any change in the climate and the only means of saving the earth is by adopting Marxian socialism. A scientifically-proven false premise but a tactic fully embraced and exploited by the current environmentalist movement.

This propaganda campaign has successfully convinced over 54% of the American citizenry to believe in human-driven climate change and the unquestioned need for drastic action to combat the impact of human activity on the environment.

Among the hallmarks of Marxism/Communism is universal disregard for human life as mankind is viewed as a mere cog in a wheel and therefore whatever so-called rights he or she may be granted is solely at the whim of the state. An omnipotent entity that supposedly looks out for the best interest of the people. Yet, as history has amply chronicled, the advocates of communism have had no problem eliminating millions of lives in order to achieve a Marxist utopia.

Which neatly dovetails with the primary tenet of the green movement. Human activity causes climate change; therefore, human overpopulation is the cause of virtually all environmental and economic catastrophe. Consequently, any means of reducing the population is therefore acceptable, whether it is a negligently uncontrolled wildfire in Los Angeles, a green-agenda- induced drought or famine, an untested vaccine forcefully administered to untold millions around the globe, or the cataclysmic collapse of societies by accelerating the elimination of fossil fuels.

more here, if you dare, but it has nothing to do with caring for the environment. It’s using that as a tool to control the masses, just like Marxism

Ten Fundamental Climate Questions the Media and Climate Alarmists Can’t or Won’t Answer

Here are 10 fundamental questions that climate alarmists never answer.

➊ You claim that the Earth is overheating. That it’s “too hot.” So, what is the correct global mean surface temperature (GMST) for life on Earth and why? 

Please provide a numerical answer. Use units and round it to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius. Then, explain why that value is ideal and cite evidence to justify your answer.

➋ What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?

What is best to optimize our agricultural productivity? 

What CO₂ level will make da weatha less scary? 

Give your answer as an exact value as a mole fraction or volume percentage, and then explain why that value is ideal.

➌ What exactly makes CO₂ “pollution”?

The EPA considers CO₂ to be a pollutant, legally speaking, under the Clean Air Act, and their scientific justification is simply that, it “…𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑒.”

https://epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

That’s pretty ambiguous.

Because by that measure, water vapor should also be classified as a “pollutant” because it’s also a “greenhouse gas” (GHG) — it’s also the most abundant and potent GHG; it absorbs a wider spectrum of IR wavelengths than CO₂. 

So, what actually makes CO₂ pollution?

➍ Why are temperature departures from 1850-1900 climate conditions deemed as the human welfare control knob given that the overall human condition has never been better than it is today? How is was climate during the end of the Little Ice Age — the coldest period in the last 10,000-years — preferable to today’s? On what account was the weather more benign? By what measure? Be specific. Tell me how the climate was supposedly less dangerous in the 17-19th centuries.

➎ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that President Biden signed into law in 2022 was popularized as the “biggest climate bill in history,” but ever since the bill was signed, climate alarmists insist climate change has only gotten worse.

Why are we not seeing the bill work its magic?  

https://axios.com/2024/07/21/biden-legacy-election-2024

➏ If we spend $75 trillion to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will it reduce the GMST by the end of the century? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your calculations.

What does the perfect climate look like? How will we know when we get there? By what measure?

➐ The estimated cost of net zero by the year 2050 in the U.S. is $75 trillion ($3 trillion per year), according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. 

That’s a hefty price tag. 

And with ~260 million adult taxpayers, it would cost each of us $288,461.54 to get to “net zero emissions” by the target date. That’s 3-6-years’ worth of peoples’ salaries.

Are you willing to shell out that money, or do you just expect that everyone else will foot the bill for you? 

Secondly, if you don’t know the answer to question six, then are we supposed to just spend that $75 trillion and see what happens? 

➑ If “combating climate change” is a global concerted effort, why do China and India get a free pass to continue emitting carbon dioxide without bound?

➒ Why are you so vehemently opposed to the deployment of nuclear power? It is the safest, most sustainable “carbon-free” energy technology and without the compliance regulations, isn’t expensive when compared to solar PV and wind, which are inefficient, intermittent, costly add-ons to existing electricity generation sources.

➓ If humans are a parasite to the Earth since we are destroying it, why then are you worried that climate change could wipe us all out? Wouldn’t that be better for Earth? Why don’t you be the change you want to see and “net zero” yourself?

source

Why They Can’t Give Away EV’s Right Now

First, we have this: EV Dealers Are So Desperate to Offload Stock That They’re Offering Lease Deals For $20 a Month.

How soft is the new EV car market? Some EV vehicles have been on their lots for so long that they’re offering lease terms so generous, they may as well be giving them away.

A Kia dealer in Virginia only gets a couple of inquiries a month for EVs. The price tag of new vehicles scares them off, says Finance Director Ramon Nawabi. He’s got a few EV 6 SUVs that have been on the lot for six months that Kia is now offering discounted leases on top of the $7,500 EV tax credit “just to move the car,” he says. “In a sense, we’re giving them away.”  

That $7500 tax credit helped dealers sell a million EVs in 2022. However, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act severely limited how that $7500 tax credit could be applied. There are now price caps for EVs ($80,000 for SUVs and trucks; $55,000 for cars), and the batteries must be American-made. Also, the vehicles must be assembled in the U.S. There’s also a cap on the net income of the potential buyer.

But you can avoid the restrictions if you lease a new EV. “That’s allowed car companies or dealers to bundle the $7,500 tax credit savings into the lease financing cost, lowering consumers’ monthly payments,” reports Bloomberg News

source

Then, the EU mandate on EV’s caused this:

“The EU is in a crisis caused by low consumer demand for EVs and unfair competition from third country EV manufacturers, meaning that the EU industry will not be able to meet these reduction targets. EU industry will have little choice but to significantly cut production, which threatens millions of jobs in the EU, harms consumers, and adversely impacts the EU’s competitiveness and economic security.”

The quote above is an excerpt from a draft European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association (EAMA) document made public this week in a story by Bloomberg. The report was prepared by EAMA in preparation for formally requesting a 2-year delay in EU emissions goals set to take effect in 2025. EU EV makers say they will not be able to meet the idiotic mandate set by the EU’s authoritarian central planners, citing low consumer desire to buy the damn things and “unfair” competition from China.

It’s a reality that should come as no real surprise to anyone, especially since critics of the EU’s central planning literally predicted this very outcome a thousand times.

Source

It’s because people bought them because there was a subsidy. Then they found out that the current technology of an EV is flashy, but not good. It sucks in hot or cold weather and takes too long to charge.

It’s not the panacea that was promised, just another government program, nee mandate that is a failure.

There is not enough electricity nor the grid to support people driving EV’s. They are 3-5 iterations of technology away from being efficient and desirable. They are wealthy peoples salve at feeling good about themselves for the made-up environmental crisis going on.

Let’s also not ignore the fires that they cause and the inability to put them out. They just burn to the ground (or 57,000 gallons of water for the enviro-weenies trying to save the planet – irony and sarcasm there).

So unless they bribe the buyers to get a technology worse than a petroleum powered car, people don’t want them.

Let’s not ignore that the manufacturers lose 10’s of thousands on every car they build (to the tune of a billion and a half loss for Ford alone this year).

So other than to make someone feel good because they are a greentard, there is no reason to buy one, yet. There may be a better iteration in the future, but it isn’t now.

For the record, I drove last weekend for 4 hours in my diesel truck and got 36 MPG. I didn’t hurt a plant or a tree.

Economics and technology say it’s a loser. It’s just another idea by the Enviro-nuts to try and make us do something because they hate petroleum.

EU Mandate here:

The mandate is so utterly unattainable that EAMA makes this projection as part of its application for a delay:

EU rules targeting a CO2 fleet emission of about 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer per vehicle would require automakers to either halt production of about 2 million cars or be exposed to fines that could reach €13 billion ($14.3 billion) for passenger cars, according to estimates by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association contained in the draft and seen by Bloomberg.

Van manufacturers could also face paying an additional €3 billion for falling short of targets, said the group that’s currently headed by Renault SA Chief Executive Officer Luca de Meo.

“The EU is in a crisis caused by low consumer demand for EVs and unfair competition from third country EV manufacturers, meaning that the EU industry

“One of the biggest lies is that cows are killing the planet.”

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.

story

ESG 2.0 – Now Called Transition Investing, But It’s The Same Woke Crap From Blackrock

BlackRock began renaming environmental, social and governance (ESG) earlier this year. It’s now calling it “transition investing.”

The company recently updated its climate and decarbonization stewardship guidelines. The document makes no mention of ESG, but it shows in many ways, the world’s largest investment manager with $10 trillion in assets under management is still pursuing many of the same goals. 

When the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules regarding climate disclosures in March, critics were partially relieved that the most stringent aspects of the proposed rules weren’t included. The rule still faces a number of legal challenges by parties who argue the rules violate the First Amendment, the SEC exceeded its authority, and compliance will drive up costs and hurt consumers. 

story

As always, woke ruins everything it touches. Blackrock owned the building that the Trump shooter was on and gave Thomas Crooks support. Get woke and go broke.

America’s Dirtiest Beach Revealed – It’s A Shit Hole

America’s dirtiest beach revealed: Beautiful coast is making dozens sick due to river pumping in raw sewage in what’s been branded a ‘portable toilet’

California is home to three of the most polluted beaches in the country, according to a new report. 

The Surfrider Foundation tested thousands of water samples across the nation, with Imperial Beach in San Diego coming out as the worst. 

As part of the group’s survey, they also found that 64 percent of the 567 sites tested had at least one sample with unsafe bacteria levels. 

A quarter of the samples came from sites in California, with three beaches in The Golden State among the ten most polluted. 

Every sample recovered from Imperial Beach turned up bacteria counts that exceeded the state’s health standard for recreational waters. 

More than 100 billion gallons of untreated wastewater have flowed through Mexico ‘s Tijuana River and into the Pacific Ocean, eventually reaching the coastal town

The rest of the story is here if you want to read it

I’m not surprised the liberal hotbed of climate liberal everything has turned the stated into a dump.

Climate Change, The Data They Used Was Fake

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 …

More

Climate Hypocrites

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.

Story

Germany: Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes

Germany’s Economic Woes Intensify as Production Slumps “Much More Than Expected”

By P Gosselin on 13. August 2023

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.

What Only Climate Experts And Skeptics Know, But It’s The Same Thing

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.”

Claims of a “climate crisis” are being promoted around the globe by governments and their media accomplice in an effort to comply with the green agenda goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF), United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and other unelected globalist organizations.

Rest of the story here

Climate actions and gas car elimination are really meant to end private transportation

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

Climate Change Lies And Failures

Currently, China is producing more pollution and C02 and trash than the rest of the world combined. Add the number 2 offender India and you have almost all the climate change problem that the talking heads are espousing.

But wait, C02 and the temperature were hotter hundreds of years ago. There weren’t as many people or cars back then. How do you explain that? I can, it’s called cyclical climate patterns that have gone on without man affecting it.

The popular target is the United States, who has reduced it’s footprint more than most, but is the bank of climate change to cash in on.

The science says man hasn’t affected the climate as much as the AGW play for money says it has. I had to listen to the pontificating by Climatards like Tim O’Reilly and Tom Raftery on this nonsense for years when I was at IBM. I never believed it was anything but a grasp at attention and money. They lead in being wrong on the climate with Al Gore, Greta, AOC and John Kerry, but right on scaring people for money.

It turns out that Carbon offsets is a racket also. It is for money as it doesn’t offset anything

Obviously, this is already a scam. And the few sincere environmentalists who believe the sky is actually falling denounce it as such. But it’s an incredibly lucrative scam that moves billions if not trillions of dollars around.

Now some real facts.

Before the Meme’s here’s some Scientific proof from Oxford that shows wind farms are a failure.

Summary here:


The inadequacy of wind power
The plan dramatically to cut the combustion of fossil fuels was
accepted at the 2015 Paris Conference. The instinctive reac-
tion around the world has been to revert to ‘renewables’, the
sources of energy delivered intermittently by the power of
the Sun. Unfortunately this power, attenuated by the huge
distance that it must travel to reach the Earth, is extremely
weak. That is why, before the advent of the Industrial Revo-
lution, it was unable to provide the energy to sustain even a
small global population with an acceptable standard of living.
Today, modern technology is deployed to harvest these
weak sources of energy. Vast ‘farms’ that monopolise the natu-
ral environment are built, to the detriment of other creatures.
Developments are made regardless of the damage wrought.
Hydro-electric schemes, enormous turbines and square miles
of solar panels are constructed, despite being unreliable and
ineffective; even unnecessary.1
In particular, the generation of electricity by wind tells a
disappointing story. The political enthusiasm and the inves-
tor hype are not supported by the evidence, even for offshore
wind, which can be deployed out of sight of the infamous My
Back Yard. What does such evidence actually say?
That the wind fluctuates is common knowledge. But
these fluctuations are grossly magnified to an extent that is
not immediately obvious – and has nothing to do with the
technology of the wind turbine. The energy of the wind is that
of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy
is ½Mv2, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass
of air reaching each square metre of the area swept by the
turbine blade in a second is M = ρv, where ρ is the density of
air: about 1.2 kg per cubic metre. So, the maximum power that
the turbine can deliver is ½ρv3 watts per square metre.
If the wind speed is 10 metres per second (about 20 mph)
the power is 600 watts per square metre at 100% efficiency.2
That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200
million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square metres
of turbine swept area – that should be quite unacceptable to
those who care about birds and to other environmentalists.
But the performance of wind is much worse than that, as
a look at the simple formula shows. Because the power carried
by the wind depends on the third power of the wind speed, if
the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a
factor of 8. Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the pow-
er delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to
be turned off for its own protection. This is not related to the
technology of the turbine, which can harvest no more than
the power that reaches the area swept by its blades.

My wife’s relatives in Denmark are going to have to deal with this inconvenient truth. They bought the wind farm hoax a long time ago. I don’t bother telling them they are wrong. They have to justify living in that place and this is part of it.

Here is a listing of the scares throughout history of climate disaster, the end of oil and population bombs. All the same scare predictions that never come true, but are meant to scam money. I like the one about running out of gas decades ago. Click on it for fun and to know they are lying.

Now the meme’s.

This next one is for Tim, who said the tide rising is our major problem around 2010, dipstick.

And here are your hero’s Tim. Don’t try so hard to be a wanker.

Ah, a real climate disaster, but it doesn’t fit the narrative of Man and the USA being bad guys.

More for Tim O’Reilly and Tom Raftery

Professor Peter Ridd – The World’s Coral Reefs are not Declining

Plymouth Rock

Even more for evidence for Tim and Tom, who said both tides are rising and that Climate Science is hard when I asked him for facts. It’s only hard if it’s your religion and you ignore both the truth and science. Oh look, the tide is the same as it was 1620. Must be that AGW that doesn’t change anything.

Here’s one for the EV lovers.

Dear F1, EV’s Are Bad For The Environment, Bring Back The V-12

A great sport has been overtaken by the environmentalists saying this is the future of clean energy and the usual word salad to prove their point. They have created some of the most cutting edge technology and speed you can possibly do. It was at the cost of fun, enjoyment of the car and the rush you get from all of your senses.

Before I get to the facts below, everyone likes the sound of a screaming V-12,10 or even 8 over a hybrid car. You can hear them before you see them and the noise and smell enhance your senses of excitement.

It’s not going to happen though, but here’s why it should:

The electric car’s biggest disadvantage on greenhouse gas emissions is the production of an EV battery, which requires energy-intensive mining and processing, and generates twice as much carbon emissions as the manufacture of an internal combustion engine. This means that the EV starts off with a bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered car when it rolls off the assembly line and takes time to catch up to a gasoline-powered car. 

One of the big unknowns is whether EV batteries will have to be replaced. While the EV industry says battery technology is improving so that degradation is limited, if that assurance proves overly optimistic and auto warranties have to replace expensive battery packs, the new battery would create a second carbon footprint that the EV would have to work off over time, partially erasing the promised greenhouse-gas benefits. 

With governments now in the business of mandating electric vehicles, the battery challenge assumes a global scale. The majority of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, where most electricity comes from coal-burning power plants. 

The process of mining critical minerals is sometimes described in language that evokes strip mining and fracking, an inconvenient truth that is beginning to attract notice. “Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear,” a 2021 New York Times article noted. “Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.” The Times has also warned that with global demand for electric vehicles projected to grow sixfold by 2030, “the dirty origins of this otherwise promising green industry have become a looming crisis.” 

Source.

All of these CO2 metrics could come into play in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they produce directly, as well emissions produced indirectly through their supply chains around the world. While the implications aren’t clear yet, the new rule could standardize CO2 disclosures and transparency on EV carbon impacts, but some say that such calculations are nearly impossible for global contractors, and automakers would have to rely on the same kinds of estimates and modeling that are used now. Echoing a common concern, EV battery maker Nikola Corp. told the SEC that “some climate data is not readily available, complete, or definitive.” 

As a result of these uncertainties, many consumers don’t understand the complexity of these analyses and may assume that their electric cars are literally zero-emissions, or that what matters most is that EVs are better for the environment and the precise degree is not that important. 

more….

EV advocates are optimistic that in the coming decades electric cars will become cleaner as power grids are “decarbonized” and the industrialized world reduces its reliance on CO2-spewing fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. Exactly how much cleaner is not easy to pinpoint. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 60% of the nation’s electricity was generated from coal and gas in 2021. In its Annual Energy Outlook, the agency projects those two fossil fuels will generate 44% of U.S. electricity by 2050. 

But those percentages can be misleading. Even as the relative fuel proportions change over time, overall electricity demand is going up, so the total amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the mid-21st century goes down by only about 5%, according to EIA estimates. Future greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the number of EVs on the road and how electricity is generated, and those forecasts swing wildly. The EIA forecasts a mere 18.9 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2050, which is very conservative compared with advocacy group EVAdoption’s prediction of more than 25 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2030, only eight years away. BloombergNEF forecasts 125 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2040, up from 1.61 million at the end of last year, which would constitute about half the cars in this country. 

“They’re making these forecasts that are basically licking your finger and sticking it up in the air,” David Rapson, a professor of energy economics at the University of California, Davis, who analyzes electric vehicle policy, said about California forecasts, which also applies more broadly. “Nobody knows what’s going to happen.” 

Back to me.

Don’t try to tell me racing a hybrid is environmentally helpful when you fly around the world in many private and cargo jets each F1 weekend. Hauling the freight to one race is the pollution (carbon is not pollution) of all the cars in every race.

Cut us some slack and put real engines that we can hear coming, building our excitement.

Even the greenie drivers loved it when Fernando Alonso drove his championship winning Renault to some exhibition laps. They miss the sound also.

It’s not a step backwards, rather a step in the right direction.

Election Time Meme’s, Climate Lies, The Media And On, And On….

How much government waste?

In Global Warming lies:

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.”

– Stephen Covey

And Finally, we are right: