Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Wouldn’t it be marvelous if God had given us a material from which we could extract energy? The material could be solid so that its energy content would be concentrated, and it could be mostly carbon, so that when we burned it, the most common product of combustion would be safe, non-poisonous carbon dioxide. Perhaps it could contain small amounts of other useful materials which we could easily extract for multiple purposes while burning it to prevent these materials polluting the air. And the material could exist in large quantities underground, even in areas of the world where other natural resources are few.
God has given us such a material. It is called coal. It is very possible that a lot of the Earth’s coal was formed during the worldwide Flood.
It is popular to despise coal today. It is true that smoke and sulfur dioxide are pollutants, but today they can easily be removed. Meanwhile, we have frequently explained in these Creation Moments that carbon dioxide is actually beneficial for plant life and is not causing the problems ascribed to it by certain climate alarmists. Moreover, large deposits of coal are being found in developing countries that could lift their populations out of poverty with the utilization of this God-given resource.
Cheaper electricity would be a nice Christmas present but that’s probably not to be. You see, ‘Santa will be busy this year because 2020 marks the final year of the Kyoto climate change agreement signed way back in 1997. Santa has a long list of naughty countries, and only a few in the nice column.
There is good news for Australia. Santa has checked the list twice and confirmed that we should be getting more than a piece of coal this Christmas thanks to our Kyoto efforts.
The latest version of Australia’s emissions projections, released this month, shows that we have reduced our emissions by 403 million tonnes more than necessary to meet both our Kyoto and Paris targets.
Now some Christmas Grinches are suggesting that we should get no presents from Santa’s sack for these good deeds, not even a lump of coal. Indeed, some of the more zealous Scrooges think we should give up even more of the coal we have this Christmas despite our hitherto overachievement.
But that’s not what our non-Christian, secular, gender-neutral, modern Christmases are about! We all know that the modern interpretation of Christ’s message is that you only do a good deed to get something in return.
So what Christmas presents should we get for our 400-million-tonne carbon budget over the next 10 years – before our Paris targets come due in 2030? Here is my overflowing list for us all to choose from.
The closure of the Hazelwood power station – which once provided 25 per cent of Victoria’s electricity supply – doubled electricity prices. We now have the chance to correct this enormous mistake.
A modern, high-efficiency, low- emission (or HELE) coal-fired power station, of Hazelwood’s size, would generate around 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year. That is about 35 per cent less than the old Hazelwood power station.
And, with 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to spend over the next ten years, we could build four HELE coal-fired power stations. These power stations would not just make for an inspiring one-off Christmas present, they would be able to power the factories that make children’s presents for decades to come. Perhaps even in the future, when the wrapping paper is ripped off, we could find a ‘Made in Australia’ stamp underneath to replace the ubiquitous ‘Made in China’.
Speaking of China, why do we send almost all of our world’s best iron ore and coking coal to a communist dictatorship to bolster its steel industry? We could instead use our carbon budget to build steel mills in Australia again. That would easily end the shame that we are the world’s largest iron ore and coking coal exporter but a net importer of steel.
It takes about 1.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to produce a million tonnes of steel. So accounting for our carbon budget to 2030 would allow us to produce an extra 22 million tonnes of steel a year – around seven new steel mills. To become self-sufficient in steel production again we would only need to build a couple more steel mills roughly equivalent in size to the two steel mills left in Australia at Whyalla and Port Kembla.
So far I have considered all Australians equal when allocating credit for carbon good deeds. However, there is one group of Australians that have in fact been responsible for the bulk – in fact all – of Australia’s carbon ‘achievement’.
At the Kyoto negotiations, our diplomats successfully argued for the inclusion of terms that became known as the ‘Australia clause’. That let us use a baseline year of 1990 for the amount of land clearing that would normally occur in any one year in Australia. In 1990, 688,000 hectares of land in Australia were cleared, which was a record. Since then state governments have stripped farmers of their rights to develop their own land.
If it had not of been for the theft of property rights from farmers, Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions would have increased over the past 15 years. The only reason we can say we have achieved our Kyoto targets is because we stopped developing land in the bush. City people have emitted more over the past 30 years but that seems to have just recommitted them to the task of shutting down industries perceived as evil to atone for their sinful conduct. Australia once rode on the sheep’s back, now we are riding to international climate change conferences on our own farmers’ backs.
So why not give our farmers a break this Christmas and give them some of their property rights back? With 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to spend, we could let farmers develop an extra 300,000 hectares a year for the next 10 years. That would take us back to the 1990 heyday levels of clearing when we used to build dams to grow food. We would all then benefit from better Christmas lunches with lots of Aussie produce.
Before we get too carried away though, we should remember that more beef roasts at Christmas means more belching and farting cattle, and that means, you guessed it, more carbon dioxide emissions.
So the mooing cattle you see on your Christmas travels are not as innocent as they look. Each of these bovine sinners emits around 70 kilograms of methane a year. Factoring in methane’s potency as a greenhouse gas, means that we could double our cattle herd and remain on Santa’s nice list in 2030. Given the government’s stated goal of doubling Australian agriculture, what are we waiting for?
Unfortunately other nation’s are not rushing to reward our good behaviour. They instead laud the empty promises made by countries like China, which despite increasing its carbon emissions fivefold in the past 40 years promises to go to ‘net zero’ by 2060.
Watched a little of the morning news on Sky and the little bit I saw was a big shot from the ANZ Bank talking about the state of the bank. The only thing I realy took away from what he said was the ANZ bank will cease putting money in coal by 2030. Now I say that because many if not most of these financial institutions are cultural warriors appeasing the Leftists as Leftist/Communist China continues to consume more and more coal! Now this hatred of coal is supposedly to save the planet because of CLIMATE CHANGE! Now, have you noticed that these climate change scare mongers are predicting what will occur in ten or twenty years unless something is done NOW BUT the simple weatherman cannot guarantee what the weather will be the next day! That brings me to Part One of the article WEATHER MADE (sort of) UNDERSTANDABLE. This is a long article so just in case you don’t take time to read the entire article this sentence pretty much sums it up and that is ‘AS YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT WEATHER IT WILL BE COME CLEAR TO YOU HOW PREPOSTEROUS IT IS THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN PREDICT AND CONTROL WEATHER A CENTURY FROM NOW.’
‘We shall start at the beginning with possibly a shocking exclamation. Weather is nothing more and nothing less than nature trying to equilibrate the balance of all energy transmitted to the Earth by the sun. It is a never ending multilevel show of physics trying to overcome imbalances and irregularities too numerous to accurately quantify and yet we try hour after hour day after day all across the Earth.
Climate is simply the trends of weather over a long period. We never stop talking about it. It’s too hot. It’s too cold. I’m tired of the rain. I wish this spring would last forever. Don’t worry, there’s plenty of snow at the top of the mountain. This is the weather. We talk about it, we complain about it, we wish about it, but nobody can do anything about it.
With the help of technology in recent decades, like satellites, Doppler radar, telemetry, etc., we are getting pretty good at predicting how the weather is most likely to change over the next SEVERAL days. In Florida and Hawaii, it’s so easy, we don’t even need weather persons. At other locations, say, near tall mountains or along the coastlines, predicting the weather is harder, and forecasts are less reliable.
THE WIND
Wind is simply the movement of air. Its action is caused by temperature differences and atmospheric pressure differences from one place to another. Some differences are the result of the sun heating the earth in one area and not another. It also happens where a portion of the land that’s heated is a mountain, and another part is a valley. Along the coast, the earth is warmed faster than the ocean or if half of the sky is cloudy and half is not. Warm air is lighter than cold air, so it climbs into the sky, and then colder air rushes in to fill the void created by the warm air rising. Nature doesn’t like imbalances of any kind.
Near a warm and sunny beach in the early afternoon, we will get a gentle, cooling summer breeze coming in from the ocean to replace the rising warm air which heated up faster than the water. As shown in Fig 1 at night, the process generally reverses, because the water is now warmer than the land.
At other locations and circumstances, it can be a wild ride, like a jet stream. These are fast-moving rivers of air at the boundaries of massive weather fronts. Here one is hot and the other cold. They flow west to east in the opposite direction in response to the sun’s warming rotation from east to west. At the jet stream core, which is about ten to fifteen kilometers high, the airspeeds can reach several hundreds of miles per hour and move in serpentine paths over continents. These fast-moving core winds drag the adjacent air, forming a velocity gradient that’s very -very fast near the center and keeps slowing down and down until it reaches near-zero speeds some hundreds of Kilometers away. Naturally, if mountains or tall buildings get in the way, the wind changes directions and speed in many turbulent and unpredictable ways.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
This is the weight of the volume of air on top of you. At sunrise, if you are at the beach at sea level, and the temperature is 15° C, (69 F) there’s a column of air on top of you going all the way up into outer space. The weight of that air pressing down on you has a force of about 14.7 PSI (pounds per square inch) on your body. If you then go to the rooftop restaurant for brunch at 250 feet high, the pressure on you decreases from 14.7 to 14.3 PSI. Meanwhile, if you have a friend, who is mountain climbing at 2,400 feet, the pressure on him is only about 10.9 PSI. Now the heaviest air, meaning the densest air, is at sea level, and as we go up, it progressively gets less and less dense until near outer space, it’s about zero PSI. Figure 2 illustrators the impact of changing atmospheric pressure on a sealed bottle of water moving from 14,000 feet elevation down to 1000 feet.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP
Back at the beach the sun has been warming it up for about five hours. It’s the hottest time of the day when the sun is directly overhead, about noon. Now you might say, “But wait. Why does it usually feel warmer an hour or two into the afternoon, when the sun is no longer at its highest position (called the apex). That’s because an hour or two after the apex, while you’re getting a little less energy from the sun on your head, the earth you are standing on has already been heated by the sun and some of that stored heat in the ground starts radiating and convecting up to you. You are now heated on the top by the sun and from the bottom by the warm ground.
If you are a football fan you will remember Deflate-Gate where Tom Brady was accused of deflating footballs to his liking.Maybe he didn’t. It was noon at Indianapolis’ Lucus Oil Stadium, and the footballs are brought to the field for practice and then for play. The balls came out of a toasty locker room at 75° (Fahrenheit ), and the footballs and the air inside the footballs are also at 75° F, and the PSI is 13.0. Where the NFL likes them. But on the playing field, it’s a chilly 25° F. The footballs and the air inside starts to immediately cool down until the balls, and the air inside, reach 25° F. The question is – what’s happened to the balls? The simple answer is that the pressure in the balls decreased to 11 PSI the way Brady likes them.
Michael place picture of footballs Here
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AND SPECIFIC VOLUME
Let’s now put together these three measures, pressure, temperature, and volume and see how they generate wind. If we decrease the air temperature, the air density will increase, and the volume will decrease. Alternatively, if we reduce the pressure, the air volume will increase, and temperature will rise. So, we will need to specify two of these variables to see what it does to the third. But, you may ask, if hot air rises, why is it colder at the top of the mountain than at the base? The answer is that on top of the mountain, the air is less dense because of the lower barometric pressure. Another example of this relationship is that at sea level, water boils/turns to steam at 100° C. But if you are at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro at 20,000 feet, it will start boiling at 81° C. Or if you’re below sea level, like in parts of Death Valley California, the boiling point is about 103° C.
THE WEATHER VEHICLE
We have laid out our crazy cartoon model weather machine, in Fig 3. The sun is the engine, and it provides nearly 100 percent of the power to drive it, which we’ll call “temperature.” The transmission, is the way, the heat from the sun is distributed geographically in one part of the world and not in the other. It’s like a transmission that sends different speeds to each wheel, resulting in erratic motion. We’ll call this “specific volume.”
We then have barometric pressure, which regulates how much air enters the engine. Does it all seem if not crazy, awfully complex. That is because it is.
How does the earth receive the sun’s energy. Let’s turn on the engine and see what happens. We have sunlight arriving on the planet and spreading out like a three-dimensional bell curve as shown in Fig 4. The top-center of the bell is precisely on the equator, and it’s at the highest point on the bell. That means that the energy density there is the maximum. At the bottom of the bell are the north and south polar regions. The amount of energy received from the sun is almost the same, but it’s now spread over a vastly larger area.
On earth, where we have land, oceans, and air, they are all set in motion to eliminate these temperature and pressure imbalances. It does so in the atmosphere primarily by the wind. In the seas by water movements like the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic and in the Pacific with the “Pacific Oscillator” and “El Niño Nino/La Niña. On land, it does it primarily by radiation, convection mostly to the air. On the earth, some of this heat is also conducted deeper in the ground, which is essential for plants to grow. It warms up and dries out the soil in the spring, allowing plant roots to grow. Some of the heat in the warmed earth is radiated and convected back up into the air, creating vertical wind streams that help gliders fly around without engines, and birds without flapping their wings.
But along the way, the winds have to overcome many obstacles posed by obstructions like mountain ranges and narrow canyons, plus human-made buildings and cars, trucks, planes, and wind turbines. In rare cases, it can also be caused independently of the effects of the sun. For example, the low temperatures mass of the Antarctic ice will always be much colder than the sea and air temperatures of the southern temperate regions. Thus, like the jet stream in the north, it forms a planetary sub-weather system, which we call a “polar vortex.”
The Australian state of New South Wales is a place where the Leftist Climate scammers have taken over. It is said that if it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck it is pretty sure it is a Duck. Same with a tax and ‘Google lists 16 synonyms for the word “tax”. Politicians have used most of them over the years. Levies, tolls, excises, imposts have all been popular choices for those seeking to hide a sneaky tax.
No one beats innovation in this field of linguistic camouflage, however, than those seeking to justify a tax to prop up dud renewable energy investments.
The NSW Government has entered this competitive field with its *NSW Electricity Infrastructure Investment Bill 2020*. Section 57 of this proposed law would require electricity distribution companies to make a “contribution” to a Fund that will be used to support investments in renewable energy, batteries and other infrastructure.
A contribution! It sounds like the spare change you chuck onto the plate at mass but in fact there is nothing voluntary about this donation. The law would establish penalties for those who refuse to pay, potentially up to 220,000 for non-compliance.
A mandatory contribution is a tax. If we put a tax on electricity distribution companies, do you think these profit seeking companies will just absorb this extra impost? Of course not. These extra costs will be passed on to the long-suffering electricity consumers of New South Wales.
Electricity prices in Sydney have more than doubled over the past 15 years. There are many pensioners who can not afford to heat their homes in winter. This should be a moral outrage for a country that is blessed with abundant sources of coal, gas and sun.
In fairness, the NSW Government says that there is nothing to worry about. The “contributions” will only be required if prices get “too low”. That sounds a bit like saying our hospitals are very efficient, they only cater for those that don’t live too long. How can electricity prices be too low? I am pretty sure I speak for most when I say I want them to go as low as possible!
Worse, the NSW Government has not released any of the modelling that would describe exactly what level this artificial electricity floor price is set at.
The reason they won’t tell us is that this evidence would blow apart the myth that renewable energy is cheaper than coal. If renewable energy was the cheapest form of power why would they need government funded subsidies from a fund paid for by electricity consumers? If renewable energy was cheaper then they could undercut the coal electricity producers and make money without taxpayer support. We didn’t need a tax on telephones for people to buy mobiles and we didn’t need a tax on typewriters to invent computers.
What this proposed law is actually about is trying to kill the coal fired power that supports so many NSW jobs. The NSW Government’s own documents admit this, with it planning for the closure of four coal fired power plants over the next 15 years.
This is my first video uploaded to Rumble. It is an interview Ben Fordham had with One Nation’s Mark Latham concerning the Liberal/Nationals push for 100% renewable energy in the next ten years.
When you have friends like this who needs enemies?
‘As a member of the Australian Parliament, we have a solemn duty to do everything we can to assist Australian exporters – because creates wealth and jobs, and revenue for the Treasury to enable our nation to pay for; our hospitals, listing life-saving drugs on the PBS, helping kids with disabilities, or defence, etc, etc. For a member of Parliament to travel to a foreign nation and encourage that nation not to buy Australian exports is nothing other than high treason. But that’s exactly what the leader of The Greens Party just did.https://www.smh.com.au/…/greens-accused-of-treachery…And who wins, if the South Korean’s did want Adam Bandt wanted, a new tax on Australian Coal exports ? The Russians ! https://www.smh.com.au/…/the-russians-are-coming-for…The Russians are already coming after our coal export markets – the Australian Greens are trying to help them.’https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP
Can mankind change the climate? If you believe this I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
‘Thanks to US president-elect Joe Biden’s declaration that his administration will set a target of net-zero emissions for the US by 2050, meaningless statements about emission targets are now the political vogue.
President-elect Biden had barely made this declaration before independent Federal MP Zali Steggall brought forward her previously announced plans to launch a private member’s bill containing the same target for Australia. Britain and France have already made such declarations, as has China.
The private bill is extremely unlikely to reach the governor-general’s desk for royal assent but means just as much as all the other pious declarations made by the other countries, as it does not spell out how Australia is going to reach such a target.
Instead the bill sets out various processes which may help in achieving the target, such as forming a Climate Change Commission (as opposed to the late and unlamented Climate Commission) to advise on the matter, as well as mandating a national climate risk and national adaptation programs in addition to adopting the government’s existing technology road map.
All the extra public servants that have to be hired for those initiatives will then work out the irksome details on just how to eliminate or offset the emissions from Australia’s aluminium smelters and steel-making operations, not to mention changing all of the power industry over to renewables and the cars to electric.
Just how any of those targets will be achieved in thirty years is anyone’s guess but the major advantage for Steggall and the other proponents of this bill is that they can pose as green saviours knowing that the bill will never become law. If the bill, or some variation on it, does eventually get through parliament they will never be held accountable for any failure to meet a target so far into the future — at least five parliamentary cycles. In the meantime, taxpayers will be left to pay the bill for an expanded green bureaucracy plus consultancies.
Much the same calculation may underpin the decision by organisations such as Oxfam, the Business Council of Australia, the ACTU and the Australian Medical Association to publicly support the bill. They get green street cred knowing that the bill is unlikely to see the light of day.
President-elect Biden is in a different position as he will be expected to do something about the target, but at 77 he is highly unlikely to be held accountable for a target 30 years from now and he has a host of ready made excuses. For Biden only has the power to set targets, not to enforce them.
In the disparate US system, individual states have more freedom to mess things up than in Australia, assuming they have any interest in climate targets in the first place. It is difficult to imagine hard- core Republican states such as Texas, for example, being impressed by Biden’s climate aspirations and the Republican senate is unlikely to pass legislation that would force them to do so.
Then there is the reality of decarbonisation. Even Democrat California, which has its own climate targets, will struggle to meet the President-elect’s intermediate goal of decarbonising the power industry by 2035. As has previously been noted, California’s emphasis on renewable energy and failure to invest in reliable power plants resulted in rolling blackouts during a Northern summer heatwave (‘Battery Battles’, The Spectator Australia, 29 August, 2020). Activists living in the state have excused this failure on the grounds that the blackouts did not last for long, while Democrat state governor Gavin Newsom has blamed neighbouring states (which faced similar high demand) for refusing to sell power to California.
The checks and balances of the American system will also make it difficult for President-elect Biden to take the US back into the Paris treaty framework for reducing emissions, as he has declared he will do. America was only ever able to sign it in the first place in 2015 as a presidential agreement rather than a treaty. The wording of Paris was even altered so that it could be considered an agreement rather than a treaty as far as the Americans were concerned. Treaties have to be ratified by the US Senate which would never have happened at the time and still won’t happen.
However, Biden can still sign the Paris deal as a presidential agreement, binding him to do what he can to meet climate targets, knowing that green activists will insist on calling it a treaty, without any of the legal obligations of a treaty.
He can also still waste a lot of taxpayers’ dollars once he reaches the White House in pursuit of his declared goal and already the sum of $US2 trillion to be spent on clean energy over four years has been mentioned. That is a lot of money to spend on batteries and wind farms.
Particularly hard to take for anyone with knowledge of the climate scene is activists hailing, as a breakthrough, the declaration by Chinese President Xi Jinping that his country will aim for net-zero emissions by 2060 to a virtual audience of world leaders at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly last month.
Chinese mines dig up half the world’s coal (both power and smelting) and the country still has to import billions of dollars worth from Australia to feed its industry. Earlier this year US climate organisation CarbonBrief estimated that in 2019 the Chinese built coal plants capable of generating 37 gigawatts, net of closures, or about the same as the existing total coal-fired capacity of the Australian system.
Although coal’s share of the power generating market is declining despite that growth, thanks to increases in hydro power and nuclear, it is still very difficult to reconcile that building program with China’s net-zero emissions declaration.
This week Prime Minister Scott Morrison declared that Australia should meet the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 ‘as quickly as possible, as quickly as it’s able’, but he declined to mandate a target until it was clear how it would be achieved and what the cost would be.
The old Labor Party had its faults as do all political party’s. However, ‘In 1970 Gough Whitlam welcomed the federal government’s announcement that it would finance the building of the Gladstone Power Station.
Whitlam said “power was the determining factor in the development of natural resources in the area and the attraction of greater human resources to the area”.
Since that time the Labor Party has given up trying to attract working-class jobs to develop an area. This week Anthony Albanese has compared new, job-creating, coal-fired power stations to unicorns. Without new coal-fired power stations, thousands of manufacturing jobs across Australia will be lost.
There are 3000 people employed in alumina and aluminium production in central Queensland thanks to that Gladstone Power Station built by the federal government 50 years ago.
That was a time when we developed our resources not just to export overseas but to create jobs here too.
Without further investment, however, we will lose this industry and thousands of jobs. Other countries will instead take these jobs because, in the words of the Opposition Leader, they’re building lots of unicorns.
According to the environmental activists at Global Coal Plant Tracker, China is building 105 more unicorns (coal-fired power plants), India 31 more, Indonesia 24 more and Japan 14 more. Around the world 223 coal-fired power stations are being built, including seven in Europe, and there are 343 coal-fired power plants in the “pre-construction” planning stage. Coal-fired power is imaginary only in Albanese’s mind.
If other countries build coal-fired power stations (often fuelled with our coal), and we do not, they will take our jobs. We will not just be shipping the coal overseas, our jobs will be shipped over there too.
That will also happen if we succumb to the glib talk that we should adopt a target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. How will this work? We are due to receive our last diesel submarine in 35 years, but apparently we can hit net-zero emissions in 30 years.
The net-zero advocates will respond that we can “offset” the diesel-powered subs with investments that help cut emissions in other countries.
But we are being told that we need all countries to hit net zero by 2050 to save the planet. Who are we going to buy carbon emissions from if all other countries have stopped emitting too? We can’t buy carbon credits from Mars.
What the advocates are really suggesting is that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can still drive our cars, heat our homes and even fly around the world on holidays, providing we tick a box that says “green offset credits” for the low, low, low price of $2 a trip.
If only it were that simple.
The 223 coal-fired power stations that are being built around the world have economic lives that will last until 2070.
Other countries will not handicap their economies by shutting them down early. They will keep producing our wind turbines and solar panels using coal-fired power. And, they will make a lot of money out of this.
But renewable energy will not protect our manufacturing jobs and industries.
Electricity prices are cheaper in other countries that use our coal. The proposed policy of exporting our coal while denying ourselves the use of it hurts our manufacturing industry at both ends. Not only does it make the costs of making things here more expensive, it gives our competitors a leg up.
The proposed Collinsville power station is backed by an indigenous-led company, Shine Energy. This company is run by proud members of the Birri nation. They want to build a coal-fired power station on their land so they can enjoy good-paying jobs on their own country.
The Birri people have experience working on power projects. They worked on the Collinsville solar farm. They managed to get jobs out of that project, but they were temporary.
Once the panels were installed all the jobs disappeared, and that doesn’t help the Birri achieve their long-term economic goals.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Revelation 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
Man is in rebellion against his Maker and the climate change lie is the New World Religion. In their rebellion against the Creator they think they can not only change the climate but the gender in which they were born! Poor dupes!
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
However, there is hope and that is ‘if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ Romans 10:9.
What scares me most is not so much Ocasio-Cortez and her socialist ideas but those who voted her in!
‘According to an eye-popping PJ Media analysis based on a new report from Power the Future, the “Green New Deal” proposed by democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) would cost more than 8,000 times as much as President Donald Trump’s border wall.
The “Green New Deal” will cost approximately $49,109 trillion in the first ten years, enough to fund Trump’s border wall 8,616 times over. The president is requesting $5.7 billion for the wall.
PJ Media calculated the cost of the “Green New Deal” by integrating each of the cost aspects involved in a Power the Future analysis and calculating their cost for the U.S. over about ten years — and in one case through 2050.
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the “Green New Deal” will force America to transition to an economy run from 100 percent renewable energy. Christopher Clark, a physicist who has studied rapid deployments of renewable energy, told The Hill that building this kind of generating capacity would cost “at least $2 trillion.”
Ocasio-Cortez has also called for a smart power grid to replace the U.S. power grid, an estimated cost of $338 billion on the low end ($476 billion on the high end), according to the Electric Power Research Institute. This kind of transition may be a good idea in general, but it drives up the cost of the “Green New Deal” nonetheless.
The proposal would also call for decarbonization of U.S. industries — a massive task. According to a June 2018 study from McKinsey and Company, the cost to decarbonize steel, cement, ethylene, and ammonia manufacturing worldwide is between $11 trillion and $21 trillion through 2050. It remains unclear exactly how long this would take for U.S. markets, but calculating the U.S. percentage of each industry and applying that industry’s percentage of the global $11 trillion cost should provide a ballpark figure.
Here in Australia, the leftists believe pretty much the same thing. In New South Wales the so-called Energy Minister is ‘…a sanctimonious windbag, is part of a small and insidious clique of Liberal politicians and lobbyists heavily invested in the renewable energy scam. His recent unhinged rantings sound more like what might be heard at a Green party RE love in, rather than what should be emanating from a Minister in a notionally conservative government, claiming the pretense of caring about industry, jobs and growth.
Among the complete and utter nonsense spouted about Australia’s self-inflicted energy debacle, Harwin made the ludicrous statement that wind and solar are more reliable than the conventional generation sources, gas and coal. Perhaps the sun never sets on Harwin? And he can never have seen a graphic like the one above: the output from every wind turbine connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid last month.’ https://stopthesethings.com/2019/01/05/delusional-nsw-energy-minister-claims-wind-solar-more-reliable-than-coal-gas/
Why, are these elected officials so determined to take society back to the dark ages? I personally believe; (1) they are servants of the Devil. God has provided mankind with not only a mind that has thought through those methods to bring forth the machines that have made our lives better but God has given us the natural resources such as coal and gas that power most of the things that make our lives better. (2) They are at war with God. (3) They believe IF there is a God they are wiser than God is!
Well, they have a hard lesson to learn and all my ranting and writing will probably not stop these buffoons but I know He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
