‘Globalists are being quite open about their junk science Great Reset plans, and they aren’t about to let actual science or civil liberties interfere.’https://rumble.com/vngmai-banning-dissent.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tonyheller&ep=2
Between Covid and Climate Change the world is in BIG TROUBLE! NOT!!!! The truth is the earth isn’t getting worse but the people are! You see, these same ‘people’ try to make it out that there are more than two genders so that tells us a lot about these people. Now, when the world does go into a real climate change men blame God such as we read in 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.
‘Academic climate fraudsters know they can say whatever lies they want with impunity.’https://rumble.com/vk7est-the-untouchables.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tonyheller&ep=2
‘Discussing the bottom line of the climate lies and fraud from the press politicians and government agencies.’
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/
‘Or rather storms. Beginning in mid-December, it was as clear as it ever is with weather forecasting that something nasty was coming. Something cold, and cold kills more people than heat. Something that would make us very glad we had reliable energy sources, scrambling to find some if we could or, as Ronald Stein warned and Germans learned, very sorry we did not. It hit, and hit again, with another massive storm in January, possibly the worst in 30 years in the United States and unusually tenacious as well, plunging oil-rich Texas into energy crisis as windmills froze. It seems children know what snow is after all. Even in Seattle.
On February 12 the Weather Network warned “Canada set to endure the most widespread cold this century” and by February 13 it gasped that “2021 threatens the unheard of – Canada’s capitals all plunge below freezing”. In the UK, as cold hammered the entire Northern Hemisphere for weeks in a regional blip, they had the coldest temperature in 25 long hot years (in Braemar, a.k.a. my winter coat’s in the Highlands) or possibly in 70, while Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir had and Dallas braced for its lowest in 30. And Alberta set or tied no fewer than 53 all-time cold records.
If these were record highs, you know what they’d say: proof of climate change. Any idiot can see it. Shut up and do as you’re told by “science”. But since they’re record lows instead, you know what they say: nothing. Bupkis. Or that it’s proof of climate change. Or never mind your own eyes, children soon won’t know what snow is. And yes, even the story we mentioned last week about record cold in Thailand, with elephants being given sweaters, was predictably blamed on warming.
Meanwhile the UN showed its seriousness by distributing a survey via games like Angry Birds to show that vox populi vox climate change. On which subject the Guardian included the patronising woke comment that “The reason why more men and boys said there was a climate emergency than women and girls in countries such as Nigeria and Vietnam may be because girls have less access to education in those places.”
The alarmists shout down critics, cancel skeptics and, when that doesn’t work, they cheat, for instance changing the results of the famous 2007 debate between skeptics Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott against alarmists Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard Somerville. Meanwhile out the window there’s a raging snowstorm not a boiling hurricane. And if it doesn’t matter to them, it matters to the people affected by it.’ https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/02/17/so-about-that-storm/
The climate scammers have been droning on for over thirty or more years now! If a preacher or any religious person had predicted Jesus’ coming again as many times as these prophets of climate change have they would be laughed out of town! Oh, but the climate change scam is SCIENCE and we trust the EXPERTS! When will this nonsense cease? When will politicians wake up and see it for what it is; a SCAM! This is why they want President Trump out! If 2021 sees Biden/Harris in the WH be sure these lies will be told more and more until the younger generation will not know the truth and all weather history will be rewritten to fit their lies!!
Don’t bother me with the facts! That seems to be what the political elite seem to be saying. However, ‘Using a new observational approach to an old but most important question, CLINTEL President Guus Berkhout finds that about 62% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to natural sources, not human emissions. The study then looks at the implications for drastic CO2 reduction measures, finding that these measures will not stop the atmospheric increase. Actually, they will have very limited effect. Hence the title of the report is “Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earth’s Atmosphere“.
Professor Berkhout’s approach is based on proven technology in geophysical imaging. He calls his method spectral ‘fingerprint detection (FPD)’, because it looks at the relationship between fine-grained details of the atmospheric CO2 increase and anthropogenic emissions over time by computing auto and cross correlation functions.
Note that in the spectral FPD approach knowledge about the existence of different CO2 isotopes (C12 and C13) is not required. This is consistent with the current decarbonization practice, where minimization of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the target, whatever the isotopic composition.
Note also that spectral FPD reveals that a lot of information is hidden in the variability of observations. Therefore, spectral FPD starts with decomposing observations into trends and changes along the trends.
The study puts it this way:
“The fine-grained variability of the anthropogenic emission represents the ‘fingerprintof the human CO2-source, telling us that most of the anthropogenic CO2-emission is absorbed by the land-ocean reservoir (fingerprint detection). It also reveals the existence of internal oscillations between the atmosphere and the land-ocean reservoir.”
There is a lot of math here, including least-squares minimization, but the results are clear. An estimated 62% of the increased CO2 concentration is entirely natural.
The study then applies these findings to determine the impact of four different emission reduction scenarios, as follows:
“Four policy scenarios for decarbonization purposes have been built: ‘Business as Usual’, ‘Stabilizing the Emission’, ‘Reducing the emission’ and ‘Making use of CCS’. A big impact conclusion for policy making is that zero anthropogenic emission – being a major achievement– does not mean at all that the atmospheric accumulation becomes zero.”
The analysis comes with a warning:
“Each scenario has its own phase diagram, showing the relationship between atmospheric concentration and anthropogenic emission. It is advised that decarbonization policies are designed such that the transition path in the phase diagram is technically, economically and socially feasible.” (Emphasis added)
Given that even the most stringent (and hugely expensive) scenario does not stop the natural CO2 increase, their rationale is greatly diminished. Also, given that most of the past increase is natural, we can stop blaming ourselves for it.
Professor Berkhout says this is just the first step in applying spectral FPD to the science of climate change:
“By considering spectral fingerprint detection on any source variability, there will be a lot of applications. Apart from CO2 variability, we will look at solar-irradiation variability, cloudiness variability, etc. to determine their individual influence on atmospheric temperature. It leads to a multidimensional causality determination. Again, without any theoretical assumptions. It is all based on observations.”
In science new methods often yield surprising results. I look forward to this multidimensional causality determination with great interest. In the meantime, the climate science and policy communities need to rethink the contribution of human emission to the atmospheric CO2 increase, especially with regard to the potentially destructive mitigation actions.
Combining this conclusion with the evidence that more CO2 will make our planet greener, what the h… are politicians up to? Are they racing to see who can enact the worst policies?’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/12/20/clintel-study-finds-most-of-the-co2-increase-is-natural/