Climate
‘As far as I can tell, the world’s leading climate experts don’t understand anything about climate.’https://rumble.com/vktvkl-man-made-sea-level-rise.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tonyheller&ep=2
‘Even climate modelers understand that their models are worthless scientifically. Yet they are being used to push anti-human political agendas.’https://rumble.com/vkjkkr-back-in-the-ussr.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tonyheller&ep=2
Matthew 6:25 “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?”
‘A 2019 poll in the UK discovered that 40% of the public describe themselves as very worried or extremely worried about climate change. A similar poll three years earlier put the figure at 19%, so that worry has doubled in three years.
As with all issues having to do with science, the foundational passages to which we must turn are found in Genesis. The first place to look is Genesis 1:28. When God blessed the first human beings, He gave them dominion over all living creatures and gave them authority to “fill the earth and subdue it.” The verse implies first that humans have authority to exploit the earth’s resources, and second, to do so in a manner of good stewards. Add to this basis the fact that God was prepared to cause massive climate change, as a punishment for human sin, by sending the global Flood of Genesis 6 through 9. God would be justified in sending another Flood today – except that He has promised not to do so in Genesis 9:11. Moreover, in Genesis 8:22, He promised that our current pattern of seasons would continue, until the end of the world.
These verses should be a reassurance to Christians. And, if worry remains, remember what Jesus said: “Do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” (Matthew 6:25)’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/worried-about-climate-change/?mc_cid=3e793bd0e8&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Ultimately the debate on climate change will be settled not by rhetorical excess or quantity of funding. It will be settled by evidence. As so often in public policy, confusion and abuse seemed to get out of the gate with frightening speed. But ultimately it will be the tendency of the planet to become uninhabitably hot and stormy, or not to do so, that will decide the matter. Just as the Berlin Wall fell because freedom is stronger than tyranny, and when it fell it was shown beyond rational doubt to have been a prison gate, as the West claimed, and not a defensive fortification as Soviet Communism and its apologists maintained. Which brings us to California. Not because it has been taken over by communists or their postmodern cousins, although there are some worrying signs. But because one of those worrying signs is that blackouts loom as electricity prices go nuts. So one thing plodding awkwardly across the finish line in the climate debate is that renewables don’t work. And another is that energy is necessary.
You’ve heard the cliché about a frog placed in a slowly heating pot. Probably from a climate alarmist. It’s not actually true though, like the fable that King Canute actually thought he could stop the tide, it still seems to be in the lead over the prosaic facts. But if it were true we would cite it here to note that people now find it unremarkable that California and Texas would have energy shortages. It is nothing of the kind.
In the case of Texas it is surely obvious why. Despite the best efforts of the state’s promoters, when the Lone Star State is mentioned the vast majority still think “oil, that is… Texas tea” or something to that effect. But California, whatever else it produces, also accounts for over 8% of total American crude oil extraction and over 10% of its refining. And it is fifth among American states in per capita GDP, eight places ahead of Texas (not counting Washington, DC, whose per capita GDP is more than twice that of any state, a curious achievement by big government). So how can it be short of energy?
You could ask New York, whose per capita GDP is second only to that of Massachusetts. Plans to decarbonize the grid there are not going well, Francis Merton reports, and indeed seem clownishly amateur. But it’s not funny to contemplate what a winter there might be if they somehow pull it off, or apart, and get into blackouts through some California dreaming. To say nothing of President Biden’s vacuous but vigorous determination to do it nationwide.
As Michael Shellenberger bluntly put it, noting that energy shortages kill people during heat waves, as we add they do more generally, “The Real Reason They Blame Heat Deaths, Blackouts, and Forest Fires on Climate Change Is Because They’re Causing Them”, adding “Journalists, experts, and elected officials are today blaming heat wave deaths, forest fires, and electricity shortages in New York, California, and Texas on climate change, but the underlying cause of those events is lack of air conditioning, lack of electricity, and the failure to properly manage forests, not marginal changes to temperatures.”
Of course a blackout in the formerly Golden State, or even the collapse of the grid, doesn’t prove that climate change isn’t real. Indeed alarmists could say told you so, it’s the exploding demand for air conditioning as summers become intolerable. And NBC predictably did. But however that may be, you will not persuade someone suffering under such conditions in one of the wealthiest societies the world has ever seen that the power system is working, or that it doesn’t matter that it’s not.
Thus one leathery foot at a time the truth thuds on. (Including the truth that a turtle’s appendages are indeed technically feet not paws, in case you were wondering.)’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/07/07/this-eventually-in-tortoise-beats-hare/
Are our climate change loving politicians correct or is Tony Heller? Well, I’ll go with Tony! He says ‘The transparent climate disinformation campaign being waged by journalists, academics and politicians – makes my work exposing them very easy.’ https://rumble.com/vjg3fz-using-a-new-method.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tonyheller&ep=1
‘Oh dear. Do lithium batteries pose a fire hazard? Yes they do. And suddenly it seems to be mainstream. The story we discussed in April became the focus of a major NBC item on June 20, including the suburban Houston fire chief whose department used a month’s worth of water putting it out comparing such fires to “a trick birthday candle.” And the Guardian just wrote an exposé on the environmental cost of lithium mining. Which of course has all been said before. But what’s actually encouraging is who’s saying it now: People who believe in man-made global warming, and alternative energy, are finally starting to engage in a balanced discussion of pros and cons. Mind you, in the era of the Internet it’s pretty hard to hush up the tendency of lithium batteries to cause horrendous fires. But if you’re waiting for our scathing putdown, well, not in this item. Proper attention to such things can only advance the discussion.
OK, one small putdown. NBC seems to regard the whole thing as a hiccup, to be overcome by one of progressives’ favourite techniques, training. “As the popularity of electric vehicles grows, firefighters nationwide are realizing that they are not fully equipped to deal with them. So they have been banding together, largely informally, to share information… But training to put out these fires can’t come fast enough as more electric vehicles arrive on U.S. roads every day. According to IHS Insight, an industry analysis firm, the number of registered electric vehicles reached a record market share in the United States of 1.8 percent and is forecast to double to 3.5 percent by the end of this year. But IHS notes that 1 in 10 cars are expected to be electric by 2025.”
Frankly we’ll believe that one when we see it. Partly because for all the chirpy enthusiasm about how EVs are on the verge of a technological and economic breakthrough, or several of them, again, batteries are as suspicious as an energy source as they are as a fire source. And a source of materials hard to dispose of. But again, the important point is that discussion of these issues is no longer taboo. Indeed the New York Times just dipped a toe into these calm, sensible waters with an item on how there isn’t enough lithium to meet President Biden’s EV goals and, what’s more, “production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people”. Now the Times also opines that “That environmental toll has often been overlooked in part because there is a race underway among the United States, China, Europe and other major powers.” But we think it would also be fair to say that it has been overlooked in part because climate alarmists, including those at the Times, have not wanted people to think there’s a downside to ditching fossil fuels.
Now that we’re rushing toward Net Zero, or failing to, it seems minds are being concentrated. Including over the fact that solar power has similar problems. Those lovely hideous solar panels do not last forever nor do they go into the compost. Far from it. Though based on their disappointing performance some people might wish they did. And if you’re wondering what is to be done, well, the same Guardian is now willing to start prying the door to nuclear power back open.
Withering putdown? No. Sorry. These developments are just good.’ https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/06/30/battery-catches-fire-film-at-11/
This Climate Scam will destroy the economy, electricity grid and increase taxes for those living in the Western world. Our “leaders” have swallowed the climate kool aid! Here is the climate scam strategy of the make believe conservative New South Wales state government’s proposed budget to save the earth through electric cars.
If this is democracy what will a totalitarian regime be like?
The following story is going to be true for nations that worship at the altar of Climate Change!
‘An NBC story headlined “California warned to brace for another summer of energy blackouts” to which the head of the state’s power grid operator added “Guarded optimism is a reasonable way to state it.” Another way might be: Why is it that the richest state in the union can’t provide its people with reliable electricity? Dare we suggest because it’s also the greenest? But that possibility isn’t stopping the lineup of would-be copycats. For instance President Biden with his pledge to cut US GHG emissions by half from 2005 levels by 2030, that famously distant date now under nine years away. As Somini Sengupta put it with considerable understatement in the New York Times’ “Climate Fwd.” after Biden’s virtual climate summit, “Now comes the hard part.” Unfortunately, causing soaring energy prices while missing climate targets doesn’t seem hard at all to the political class.
As for the possibility that unwise investments in unicorn power are to blame for blackouts, perish the thought “’Achieving 100 percent clean electricity by 2045 is not only a bold pursuit, but a wise one,’ Marybel Batjer, president of the California Public Utility Commission, said in a statement. ‘Such action is required to avoid the worst impacts and costs of climate change and to ensure the delivery of safe, affordable, reliable and clean power to all Californians.’” Uh didn’t you just say it was going off? Yes but see “as the most populous state races toward a sustainable future, officials remain concerned that California’s aging infrastructure is not up to the task.”
Nor is their mental infrastructure, at least according to Francis Menton who argues that they didn’t grasp the difference between GW and GWH. Also known as “Either these people do not understand the basic units used for these calculations, or they cannot do basic arithmetic, or both.” We’re going with both.
As we are with regard to the Canadian government, which of course maintains a sunny insistence that it will meet all its targets despite never having done so yet. But as Lorrie Goldstein recently wrote in the Toronto Sun, such “political rhetoric has become increasingly divorced from reality.” He quoted Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson that “We will see year-on-year reductions — absolute reductions — starting in 2020, through to 2030. We have high confidence that’s actually going to be the case.” But Goldstein says, we may see a reduction in 2020 because of the pandemic, when they lope around to releasing the figures in 2022 (though probably not, his paper editorialized, by enough to meet even that year’s target). But “Since the Trudeau government was elected in 2015, Canada’s emissions have gone up from 723 million tonnes annually to 730 million tonnes in 2019 — the last year for which government data is available. Now it’s promising to cut our annual emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 — meaning a cut of between 287 million tonnes and 324 million tonnes annually. A 324-million tonne cut would require Canada to shut down the equivalent of our entire oil and gas sector (191 million tonnes annually ), entire agriculture sector (73 million tonnes annually) and entire electricity sector (61 million tonnes annually) in less than a decade. That would total 325-million tonnes, giving Wilkinson one million tonnes to spare. That’s some fairy dust he must have.”
Across the pond the British government is tossing more than £30 million at research into ways to get large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. And maybe they’ll get lucky though, as we have already observed, this plan is more than a little risky if it turns out CO2 really drives the temperature, because then sucking it back to a “natural” 280 ppm would not only risk making the world colder as well as browner in the short run, but triggering a trend taking us back to the Little Ice Age with its foul weather and crop failures. On the plus side, this initiative shows that they are serious. Though back on the minus, they’re a bit late. What ever happened to figuring out how to do something before promising to do it?
Make-believe remains popular. But nuclear is the real main option, and the hostility of many greens to the one form of power than can reliably supply energy to normal people without a lot of GHGs has raised suspicions in some quarters about their real goals. But taking the high road, we ask that as the other options come up short, they reconsider. Because other options are coming up short. Way short.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/06/02/more-money-than-brains/
whatyareckon 