diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

The goal is to destroy Western Economy​

Green Energies Shattering German Economy…Industrial Production Falls 7th Consecutive Month​


-1.6%!

That’s how much Germany’s industrial production fell in December, 2023. It’s the seventh-straight month of decline as the country’s energy woes mount.

One reason is reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports today :”Germany’s Industrial Production Falls For Seventh-Straight Month” in December 2023, far worse than expected.

To underscore the seriousness, 2023’s industrial production result is a whopping 10% below pre-pandemic levels.

One of the major drivers behind the demise is arguably the country’s disastrous energy policy, which has entailed shutting down cheap and steady conventional sources such as nuclear and natural gas and increasingly relying on unstable wind and solar energy. Energy prices have soared over the past years, thus driving inflation.

Things aren’t expected to improve much any time soon as the country is currently being plagued by strikes by train drivers, airport and airline personnel, who are fighting for higher wages that have been eroded away by high inflation. Energy supplies remain unstable and are expected to stay high.

Farmers are angry and have been demonstrating for weeks, often blocking transportation routes.

If there’s any light at the end of the tunnel, it’s a very faint one and the tunnel may be very long.

Currently many companies are announcing plans to move operations to business- friendlier locations
 

Weaponizing ‘The Science’​


Two of my favorite substackers, William “Matt” Briggs and Roger Pielke Jr., have articles up that touch on the subject of what is disparagingly known as “The Science”.

The initial caps version – The Science – invariably means the opinions about some scientific subject held by those telling you to Follow The Science. It very often means a strong consensus position being promoted or enforced by a group advocating some particular belief about a scientific topic or policy position prescribed by those holding that belief. And there are too many of these today to list – one The Science for almost each and every topic you might choose to mention.

Now, there is nothing wrong with any group, even a professional association, like the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association (ALA) or the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), having a group consensus position on a topic that falls under their purview. The AAP even has whole section of their website dedicated to advocacy, which includes such things as advocating to keeping guns out of the reach and hands of kids and making sure kids get their childhood illnesses vaccinations.

The problem comes when we see things like this, as related by Pielke Jr.:

“In September, 2022 California Governor Gavin Newsome signed into law a bill that prohibited medical professionals from sharing “misinformation” with patients. Specifically, the law stated that it would be:

nprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19.

The law defined “misinformation”:

“Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”


And there you have it….California passed a law that threatens the professional license of any medical professional who shares their professional opinion or any information that contradicts a “contemporary scientific consensus”. It is considered “false” because it contradicts the current consensus. And in this case about a topic that has a lot of controversy and a broad range of opinion.

The “contemporary scientific consensus” thus becomes legally enforceable under State law.

Let’s parse that:

Contemporary: If a thing, an idea, an opinion, or a consensus is contemporary is just means it “exists now”. The fact that it could or does “exist now” means that it could have been different in the past and might be different in the future.

Scientific:
Simply means “Scientific is used to describe things that relate to science or to a particular science”. When “scientific” is used as an adjective in today’s language, it is often used as code word for “true or truth”.

Consensus: Even the meaning of the word “consensus” is a bit controversial. Its core meaning is that of “a generally accepted opinion; wide agreement”. Some dictionaries use “unanimity” as a synonym but unanimity means “agreement by all people involved”, which is close but gets no prize. There will be varying opinions, but for this essay today, I will differentiate between consensus – something which is generally accepted or has wide agreement as different from unanimity which carries the concept that everyone agrees. This is a bit tricky because a consensus reached by a democratic group would be a statement with which all, or almost all, can agree.

Pielke Jr. argues like this: “The notion of consensus-as-truth has been operationalized in various forms: journalistic “fact checkers,” academic “misinformation” researchers, and content moderation on social media platforms. The practical effect is the creation of self-appointed arbiters of truth — journalists, academics, social media platforms, and even governments — who render judgments on acceptable and unacceptable speech according to conformance with an acceptable view.”

And goes on to say:

“The notion of consensus-as-truth can create obstacles to improving understandings. In re-reading Oreskes 2004 on climate consensus for the first time in a while I was struck by this comment:

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.
[Oreskes 2004]

This is completely backwards — scientific assessments are an interpretive snapshot of what a scientific literature says about specific scientific claims. When done properly, they are a useful characterization of what is often a large amount of published research. But make no mistake — the scientific literature does not “agree” with assessments, the literature informs the assessments.” [ emphasis mine – kh ]


Bottom Lines:

1. “There is no such thing, therefore, [as] Following The Science.” – William Briggs

2. Science changes moment to moment – as new evidence is produced and found for and against various hypotheses.

3. Generally accepted understandings of scientific topics – commonly referred to as “consensuses” – are themselves momentary and must be allowed to change as evidence changes.

4. Enforcing a consensus view, in any manner, is anti-science and calls to “Follow the Science” are always made to enforce some consensus and thus also anti-science.

And, a final word: The California law, mentioned at the beginning of the essay, has been repealed, after being shot down by the courts.
 

“Green” Activists Menace Humanity​

A swirl of tomato soup engulfs Van Gogh’s vibrant “Sunflowers.” Mashed potatoes mar Monet’s serene “Water Lilies.” Across the globe, priceless artworks endure desecration in the name of climate activism. On a recent weekend, so-called eco-activists threw yellow soup on the “Mona Lisa” at Paris’s Louvre Museum. These acts are a vile destruction of beauty in the name of a dangerous world view.

Peaceful protest of injustice is an important aspect of our civilization. Be it the civil rights movement of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the U.S. or the freedom movement of India’s Mahatma Gandhi, non-violent demonstrations can communicate important messages. Ongoing farmer protests in Europe are good examples of objections to concerning and overreaching tyrannical policies.

However, radical elements weaponized by green funding are engaged in anti-humanistic activities that does no good for society. Chosen targets – irreplaceable cultural treasures – often bear no relationship to the purportedly environmental cause. Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa, for instance, is a symbol of human ingenuity and artistic expression, not fossil fuel emissions. Vandalizing such works is more akin to cultural terrorism than constructive activism.

Eco-Activists Are a Menace, Even Life-Threatening!

Environmental protests are not new. Many decades back, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, along with key founding members of the organization, went on small boats to protest hunting of whales that threatened the species’ existence.

But gone are the days of meaningful environmental demonstrations. Today, eco-fascists protest consumption of animal meat and even the right to be born. For these self-anointed enforcers of irrationality, off limits – at least to others – is the use of cars, aircraft and ethically sourced natural resources. The list goes on.

The worst part: Many seem to care not even if people die from their actions. In 2021, in response to allegations that climate activists were blocking important British highways, Xtinction Rebellion’s founder Roger Hallam unashamedly said, “I would block an ambulance with a dying patient onboard.”

Last week, jet-setting Greta Thunberg joined climate activists from the same Xtinction Rebellion to block access to Farnborough Airport in the U.K. Their demand: Stop expansion of the airport and end private jet operations.

Throughout the world, environmental non-profits and eco-funded activists seek to stop projects essential in improving the socio-economic conditions of billions of people. In many instances, these disruptions share ideological objectives with green policies perpetrated by international political institutions like the United Nations and World Economic Forum.

In Africa, climate activists wanted to cancel a 895-mile-long pipeline from Uganda’s Lake Alberta region, which has a potential to carry 216,000 barrels per day and provide indirect employment for more than 105,000 people.

In India, activists want to end dozens of hydrocarbon projects across the country – initiatives that would directly contribute to the energy independency of a country that relies heavily on imported hydrocarbons.

Poverty undeniably remains a crippling reality for vast swaths of Africa and Asia. Billions still grapple with securing access to clean water, sanitation, non-polluting cooking fuels and reliable electricity. Infrastructure development holds the promise of changing this narrative, injecting much-needed capital, creating jobs and laying the groundwork for future prosperity.

By disrupting fossil fuel projects, activists contradict their claim of caring for people’s economic future. A thoroughly anti-human philosophy that envisions Earth untouched by people has them blindly adhering to an unscientific theory of a climate emergency.
 

Bugs On The Menu? Biden's Climate And ESG Policies Threaten Food Supply​

The report, released on Feb.7, found that the climate policies and mandates guided by the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) agenda that is being pushed by the Biden administration carries a hefty price tag for American farmers and consumers.

“To better appreciate the true costs that American farms and households will likely pay for the Biden administration’s net-zero policies and objectives, The Buckeye Institute’s Economic Research Center developed a model corn farm that must play by the government’s new carbon emission rules,” wrote report authors Trevor W. Lewis and M. Ankith Reddy, who are both economic research analysts at the think-tank.

The farm’s operational costs, as expected, all rose significantly,” they added.

Crunching the numbers, the researchers found that U.S. farmers will see their operational costs rise by an estimated 34 percent as a result of the Biden administration’s net-zero emissions policies.

Not only did the model predict that the government’s carbon pricing policies would raise farm operating costs, consumers also face a hit to their wallets.

Carbon pricing will increase the average U.S. grocery bill by $110 per month, $1,330 annually, or 15 percent,” the researchers estimated.

People shop in a grocery store in Los Angeles, Calif., on Oct. 12, 2023. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Threat to Food Supply​

The government’s net-zero policies that the Buckeye report took into account in its analysis include the implications of rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, which targets greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to achieve the climate pact’s objectives, the Biden administration committed to cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50–52 percent by 2030 and to reach economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050.

“Achieving the administration’s desired decarbonized economy will require aggressive climate-emission reduction policies that drain and replace fossil fuels from every sector of the U.S. economy,” the report’s authors wrote.

The Biden administration has already started implementing stringent regulatory policies meant to cut carbon emissions from America’s energy industry, while a looming final rule on ESG reporting, due to enter into force in April 2024, threatens to push carbon compliance onto other industries.

Many of these policies have been tested in Europe, with the researchers concluding that the results there have been an “unmitigated failure.”

“Despite these resounding warnings from European counterparts, U.S. policymakers have recommitted American industry to the same net-zero emissions standards and have imposed the same kinds of costly mandates on farms and businesses that will ultimately reduce food and energy supplies without achieving their intended benefits,” they argued.

“The results of Buckeye’s modeling were predictable and unsurprising, but many U.S. policymakers seem unwilling to address or even acknowledge them. That has to change, or the United States will face dire economic consequences,” concludes the report’s executive summary.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the report’s findings.

President Joe Biden waits to speak at the Biden campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Del., on Feb. 3, 2024. (Alex Brandon/AP Photo)
Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, commented on the report in a post on X.

Farmers and ranchers lay out huge sums for everything from fertilizer, seeds, and feed to heavy machinery and pesticides to produce the food we eat. Yet, the climate cult and ESG elites are causing these costs to skyrocket,” he wrote.

“That puts a heavier financial burden on agricultural producers and imposes higher food costs on hardworking Americans,” he continued.

“America’s farmers and ranchers’ livelihoods shouldn’t be at risk because of inflated operating costs or loss of access to capital from woke banks. Nor should the American people be victim to a crushing tax put on their groceries by climate extremists.”

‘Agriculture Is National Security’​

The Buckeye report comes a week or so after a dozen Republican state agriculture commissioners warned in a Jan. 29 letter to top bank executives that membership in the UN Net-Zero Banking Alliance would negatively impact farmers and threaten America’s food security.

Along with their membership in the alliance, banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have pledged that the loans they make will “align with pathways to net-zero by mid-century or sooner.”

Tyler Harper, Georgia agriculture commissioner and one of the letter’s signatories, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview that committing to net-zero policies has a negative knock-on impact on national security.

“At the end of the day, agriculture is national security, and if we’re not able to feed ourselves as a nation, we’re not able to protect ourselves,” he said.

“When you look at Sri Lanka and the devastating impacts that [climate mandates] had there, you look at the Netherlands and what they did to implement some of these policies there and the devastating impact it had on their ag economy—we’ve seen the impacts that this had in other nations and we don’t want that to happen here,” Mr. Harper added.

Farmers gather with their vehicles next to a Germany/Netherlands border sign during a protest on the A1 highway, near Rijssen, on June 29, 2022. (Vincent Jannink/ANP/AFP via Getty Images)
In 2019, after the government of Sri Lanka implemented rules to cut down the use of nitrogen in fertilizer, crop yields collapsed, leading to violent protests that ultimately toppled the government.

In the Netherlands, regulatory attempts to impose net-zero policies led to widespread protests from farmers.

‘Will You Eat the Bugs?’​

Meanwhile, a recent Epoch Original Documentary called “No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs?” explores the climate-control policies pushed by governments around the world and how they’re forcing farmers out of business, threatening food supply.

“This is the next global crisis that is being ignored by media across the world,” Roman Balmakov, host of EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” and director of the documentary, told The Epoch Times during an interview on the sidelines of the world premiere of the film in September 2023.

Roman Balmakov, Facts Matter host and director at the world premiere of The Epoch Times original documentary, “No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat The Bugs?” in Irving, Texas, on Sept. 22, 2023. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
The documentary delves into the history of the “climate crisis” and how it was conceived by world leaders during the United Nations Conferences on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, in June 1992, shortly after the Cold War ended.

The film also dives into Agenda 30, previously known as Agenda 21, laying out a case for how global policies set forth by the UN’s aim to end private farming and create dependence on a one-world government that will control the world’s food supply.

People in charge of some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have determined that agriculture, specifically animal agriculture, is to blame for global warming and global warming is to blame for the high prices of food and food shortages,” Mr. Balmakov explained.

The documentary explores the impact of radical climate policies in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, while also exploring the impact of net-zero and other regulations in the United States.

The solutions being proposed by governments around the world to solve climate change “might surprise you,” Mr. Balmakov says in the film.

“According to the United Nations, [bugs] might actually be your future dinner,” he says.
 

"If You Want To Control People, You Have To Control The CO2"​

As farmer protests rage across Europe, Dutch MP Rob Roos sits down with The HighWire's Del Bigtree to discuss the climate scam pushed by radical globalist elites in the Western world to seize more power and control.

"They [elites] go against family values. They go against natural food. They go against freedom - because if you have to buy an electric car. They're almost twice as expensive - and people cannot buy that - it's not about the car - it's about you can't go anywhere and must depend on public transportation," Roos explained.


He said, "It's also digitalization - what we see is the digital identity and central bank digital currency - this is all about a new form of communism."

"If you want to control the people, you have to control the CO2 - because everything we do in life, breathing, living, traveling, eating, and everything we do in life leads to CO2 emissions. And if you can control the CO2, you can control the people," Roos said.

He further explained that the ultimate control comes when globalists connect people's digital identities to the central bank's digital currency.

Bigtree responded: "So much of this [globalist takeover of the West] was really fast-tracked during Covid." He pointed out that WEF branded the Covid era as the "Great Reset."

MEP Warns Climate Change Policies Will Lead to a “New Form of Communism”

“If you want to control the people, you have to control the CO2,” says MEP @Rob_Roos.

“It’s taking away your freedom,” he added.

“And if you then have the digital identity connected to the central bank… pic.twitter.com/r41RK9wdhF
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 10, 2024
We have cited 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, who have stated in a letter: "There is no climate emergency." But under the guise of an imminent climate disaster, globalist elites, NGOs, governments, politicians, mega-corporations, and, of course, legacy media outlets push climate fear to usher in a reset of society.

The most critical line to remember from Roos' interview is: "If you can control the CO2, you can control the people. "

So, the next time you find yourself concerned about radical progressive politicians and rogue billionaires, like Bill Gates, advocating for 'green' policies, consider asking yourself: Are these new policies resulting in any loss of freedoms?

 
Michael Mann Wins $1 Million Verdict In Defamation Trial
Mann sued Simberg and Steyn for defamation, but the trial proved to be about much more than statements that harmed the scientist’s reputation — the entire field and validity of climate science was under scrutiny.

Hidden Costs: Abandoned wells leaking GHGs
Of the $4.7 billion the law set aside for plugging wells that oil and gas companies have abandoned, $560 million has gone out so far.

Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere, Stachelberg said. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated abandoned oil and gas wells are releasing 280,000 metric tons of methane each year. That’s equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions of more than 1.7 million gas-powered passenger vehicles driven for a year

Plugging a well is a complex process that can cost over $100,000 per site — and many California operators have simply opted to defer their obligation by paying fees as low as a few hundred dollars per year. Some companies manage to avoid footing the bill forever. Of the roughly 40,000 idle wells, about 5,000 are likely orphan wells, deemed by the state to no longer have financially viable operators. Orphan wells become the state’s responsibility, putting taxpayers on the hook for the cost of cleaning up the oil industry’s mess. [ref2]

Bait & Switch?
Oil and gas companies are supposed to plug and clean up wells that they've drilled, but if they go bankrupt or otherwise disappear, that responsibility falls to the state...
... you may not realize that the oil companies themselves do not actually drill the wells. Wells are drilled by rig contractors and technical service and equipment suppliers in what is called the Oilfield Services industry. ref

 
Are these new policies resulting in any loss of freedoms?
Aenyc, seems a strange argument on a DIY forum.

if the grid becomes unaffordable or even unavailable due to carbine taxes, can't I add a few panels?, can't I fire up a generator?

freedom may not be defined as ease of use, or cost of use.
 

EU Farmers Rise Against the Climate Cult​


Many major arteries connecting Europe have been obstructed or brought to a standstill in recent days by a wave of protests by farmers against what they claim are overly burdensome environmental targets and unsustainable levels of bureaucracy associated with EU and national farming regulations.
The warning shots of this showdown between policymakers and farmers had already been fired on 1st October 2019,
when more than 2,000 Dutch tractors caused traffic mayhem in the Netherlands in response to an announcement that livestock farms would have to be bought out and shut down to reduce nitrogen emissions. Early last year, Polish farmers blocked the border with the Ukraine demanding the re-imposition of tariffs on Ukrainean grain.

But it was not until early this year that an EU-wide protest was ignited. German and French protests and tractor blockades made international news, and the blockades were soon replicated in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, and Ireland. Major highways and ports were blocked and manure was poured over government buildings, as farmers across Europe expressed their frustration at rising farming costs, falling prices for their produce, and crippling environmental regulations that made their products uncompetitive in the global market.

It seems the farmers have European elites rattled, which is hardly surprising, given that EU elections are just around the corner. While the European Commission announced Tuesday it was still committed to achieving a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2040, it conspicuously omitted any mention of how the farming sector would contribute to that ambitious target. Even more tellingly, the Commission has backed down or fudged on key climate commitments, at least temporarily.

According to politico, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Tuesday that “she was withdrawing an EU effort to rein in pesticide use.” The climbdown on this and other Commission proposals relating to farming was rather embarrassing for the Commission but politically inevitable, given that the protests were spreading rapidly and farmers were showing no signs of going home until their demands were met. As reported by politico,

A note on the possibility of agriculture cutting down on methane and nitrous oxides by 30 percent, which was in earlier drafts of the Commission’s 2040 proposal, was gone by the time it came out on Tuesday. Similarly excised were missives on behavioral change — possibly including eating less meat or dairy — and cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, many of which go to farmers to assist with their diesel costs. Inserted was softer language about the necessity of farming to Europe’s food security and the positive contributions it can make.
The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040, while fudging on the fact that a 90% emission cut in 16 years would have drastic implications for farming.

It is clearly politically expedient, especially in an election year, to put out this fire of farming discontent as soon as possible, and buy some peace ahead of June’s European elections. But there is no avoiding the fact that the Commission’s long-term environmental goals, as currently conceived, almost certainly require sacrifices that farmers are simply not willling to accept.

Independently from the merits of EU climate policy, two things are clear:

  • first, EU leaders and environmental activists appear to have vastly underestimated the backlash their policies would spark in the farming community; and
  • second, the apparent success of this dramatic EU-wide protest sets a spectacular precedent that will not go unnoticed among farmers and transport companies, whose operating costs are heavily impacted by environmental regulations like carbon taxes.
The Commission’s embarrassing concessions are proof that high-visibility, disruptive tactics can be effective. As such, we can expect more of this after June’s EU elections if the Commission doubles down again on its climate policy goals.
 
On Mann, it is not surprising that DC(!!!) Jury "ruled" in favor of the climate alarmism darling. Just shows how hopelessly corrupt the system is, but Farmer's victory in Europe shows that when SHTF reality always wins.


Today the jury returned its verdict in the defamation trial of Michael Mann v. Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn. The verdict was disappointing to those of us who followed the case and thought that Michael Mann presented a pathetically inadequate case. The jury actually agreed: it found that the defendants had defamed Mann, but awarded only a token $1 in damages, since Mann had failed to prove any. But it found that both Simberg and Steyn acted with actual malice–they didn’t actually believe what they said about Mann–and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $1,000 against Simberg, and $1 million against Steyn.

In a sane world, this case never would have gone to the jury. The legal standard is actual malice, which means the defendants must have thought, subjectively, that what they said wasn’t likely true. In this case, there was no evidence whatever that Steyn and Simberg didn’t sincerely believe that what they said was true. Indeed, as Mark pointed out in closing argument, he has been saying the same things about Mann’s hockey stick for something like 21 years, and even wrote a book about it.

Where do we go from here? The trial judge was openly skeptical of Mann’s case, and seemed to take seriously the defendants’ motions for a directed verdict. Those motions presumably were renewed at the close of evidence, and the court might now take them up. It requires a brave judge to take away a jury verdict, but Judge Irving, presiding in this case, was low-key but seemed, if pushed too far, to have a backbone. So who knows, he might do the right thing.

In any event, the case is destined for more years in the appellate courts. In John Williams’ closing argument on behalf of Mann, he said that the jury should award punitive damages so that in the future, no one will dare engage in “climate denialism”–whatever that is–just as Donald Trump’s “election denialism” needs to be suppressed. In 41 years of trying cases to juries, I never heard such an outrageously improper appeal. John Williams should be ashamed of himself, but he won’t be, because this jury apparently bought his argument: they want to make Mark Steyn pay $1 million out of his own pocket, to a plaintiff who suffered no damages but only made an ideological argument, so that no one will, ever again, try to challenge the regime’s global warming narrative. However false that narrative may be.

Ironically, the case may have come full circle. Mark always wanted to try this case as a free speech issue. But that didn’t quite work, since defamation has always been an exception to the First Amendment, or whatever free speech principles may apply. But now Michael Mann’s lawyer has made it explicit: impose an arbitrary seven figure penalty on Mark Steyn, not to compensate the plaintiff Michael Mann, who didn’t suffer any damages whatsoever, but rather to deter anyone from ever again arguing that climate change alarmists are wrong, however flawed their science may be.

It is hard to imagine anything more anti-scientific or anti-American.

1707662951496.png
 
Last edited:

"Mann sued Simberg and Steyn for defamation, but the trial proved to be about much more than statements that harmed the scientist’s reputation — the entire field and validity of climate science was under scrutiny."

"Williams’s voice rose as he began to exclaim to the jury that “these attacks on climate scientists have to stop.” But his statement drew immediate objections from Weatherford and Steyn.

After a brief conference, Judge Irving sustained the objections, and ordered the jury to disregard Williams’s comments. “This case is not about climate science,” the judge admonished.

In a literal sense, the judge was correct: Defamation laws say nothing about climate change or climate science or climate scientists."

In John Williams’ closing argument on behalf of Mann, he said that the jury should award punitive damages so that in the future, no one will dare engage in “climate denialism”–whatever that is–

Did he just say, "This is a SLAPP suit"?
 
Greening-up since when???

I remember an elementary school teacher explaining Iceland should have been named Greenland and vs versus. Then it was explained no one really wanted go to a place called Iceland. Which is what they wanted. 😀🤣 think that was 3rd grade…. Teacher was hot. She would adjust her boobies when caught me staring. She ws a tease. Our school had no ac….just huge fans and we opened the windows…. 😀🤣 climax change.
 
I remember an elementary school teacher explaining Iceland should have been named Greenland and vs versus. Then it was explained no one really wanted go to a place called Iceland. Which is what they wanted. 😀🤣 think that was 3rd grade…. Teacher was hot. She would adjust her boobies when caught me staring. She ws a tease. Our school had no ac….just huge fans and we opened the windows…. 😀🤣 climax change.
🤮:ROFLMAO:
 

Using social media data and artificial intelligence in a comprehensive national assessment, a new University of Michigan study reveals that nearly 15% of Americans deny that climate change is real. ref
Interesting to see it concentrated in the center.
nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-is-real-ai-study-finds-belief-by-affiliation-1024x742.jpg
A new paper was published in Science Advances “Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course.”
Scientists believe it's happened before. The IPCC reports have some information with confidence numbers attached as to what the impacts might be.

What happens if there are more clouds when it gets warmer? It depends... from NASA:
...low, thicker clouds mostly reflect the Sun's heat. This cools Earth's surface. Clouds high up in the atmosphere have the opposite effect: They tend to warm Earth more than they cool.
Levke-conveyor-505x600.jpg
 
Carbon credits is the biggest scam since Covid scamdemic!
The ONLY role of carbon credits is control over you!






The climate bogeyman is nothing more than another covid-like fraud, a vehicle for grabbing power and erasing our freedoms. There is no threat, and even if there was there is nothing that human beings could do about it since we have no bearing whatsoever on the course of the Earth’s temperatures. The world’s climate has been changing for millions of years, and there is no difference between the changes of today vs the changes of the past.

The globalists know that to achieve the “new world order” or the “great reset” they desire, a large percentage of the population has to be onboard. And since most people have a measure of conscience as well as self interest, their enslavement has to be presented as a positive. Tthey must be made to believe that by embracing slavery they are saving the planet and the lives of others.

None of this is true of course, but as long as the populace thinks they are doing good they can often be manipulated
into supporting immense evil.
 

"If You Want To Control People, You Have To Control The CO2"​

As farmer protests rage across Europe, Dutch MP Rob Roos sits down with The HighWire's Del Bigtree to discuss the climate scam pushed by radical globalist elites in the Western world to seize more power and control.

"They [elites] go against family values. They go against natural food. They go against freedom - because if you have to buy an electric car. They're almost twice as expensive - and people cannot buy that - it's not about the car - it's about you can't go anywhere and must depend on public transportation," Roos explained.


He said, "It's also digitalization - what we see is the digital identity and central bank digital currency - this is all about a new form of communism."

"If you want to control the people, you have to control the CO2 - because everything we do in life, breathing, living, traveling, eating, and everything we do in life leads to CO2 emissions. And if you can control the CO2, you can control the people," Roos said.

He further explained that the ultimate control comes when globalists connect people's digital identities to the central bank's digital currency.

Bigtree responded: "So much of this [globalist takeover of the West] was really fast-tracked during Covid." He pointed out that WEF branded the Covid era as the "Great Reset."

MEP Warns Climate Change Policies Will Lead to a “New Form of Communism”

“If you want to control the people, you have to control the CO2,” says MEP @Rob_Roos.

“It’s taking away your freedom,” he added.

“And if you then have the digital identity connected to the central bank… pic.twitter.com/r41RK9wdhF
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 10, 2024
We have cited 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, who have stated in a letter: "There is no climate emergency." But under the guise of an imminent climate disaster, globalist elites, NGOs, governments, politicians, mega-corporations, and, of course, legacy media outlets push climate fear to usher in a reset of society.

The most critical line to remember from Roos' interview is: "If you can control the CO2, you can control the people. "

So, the next time you find yourself concerned about radical progressive politicians and rogue billionaires, like Bill Gates, advocating for 'green' policies, consider asking yourself: Are these new policies resulting in any loss of freedoms?

 


Interesting to see it concentrated in the center.
nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-is-real-ai-study-finds-belief-by-affiliation-1024x742.jpg

Scientists believe it's happened before. The IPCC reports have some information with confidence numbers attached as to what the impacts might be.

What happens if there are more clouds when it gets warmer? It depends... from NASA:
Levke-conveyor-505x600.jpg

Americans in touch with the history of the weather understand how go along to get along commie lefties easily fall prey to thinking that history only started when they were born.

Grapes of Wrath Svetz....

That was C02 right
 

Wealthy liberal foundations have been seeking to have influence on media coverage of energy and environmental matters by funding workshops, courses and seminars for journalists focused on climate change – and some of the world’s most elite universities are happy to oblige.

An analysis of funding initiatives led by some of America’s biggest private foundations shows several major left-of-center entities funding this training for climate journalists at Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of Southern California. In addition, Britain’s prestigious Oxford University is involved in a similar endeavor across the Atlantic.

The news comes two years after the announcement by the Associated Press of its hiring of twenty climate journalists using $8 million in grants received from the same type of foundations to propel more climate journalism. After the infusion of funding, AP journalists appeared to forgo seeking comment from the fossil fuels industry on stories that affected them.

The organization Covering Climate Now is a major driver of climate-related news, reportedly encompassing “More than 500 news and media outlets [that] partner with the organization, which represents an audience of 2 billion people in 57 countries. Its partners include big names like ABC News, CBS News, Reuters, The Boston Globe, The Miami Herald, and The San Francisco Chronicle.”

NBC News and Bloomberg are also partners, and just recently, Portland’s KGW News was added as a partner.

Covering Climate Now was founded by the Columbia Journalism Review – an initiative of Ivy League Columbia University’s journalism school – in partnership with the far-left publication The Nation. Who funds it? Actions@EBMF, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Michaux Family Foundation, One Earth Fund, Park Foundation, Rockefeller Family & Associates, Rockefeller Family Fund, Schumann Media Center, Taylor Family Charitable Fund, and Wayne Crookes. Notably, Rockefeller money was also behind the AP climate journalism initiative.

Since Covering Climate Now and Columbia’s initiative was put in place, ABC, CBS, and Reuters have run a flurry of climate change-focused stories that seem designed to draw in non-climate hawks and amplify their concern about the issue by focusing on subjects of interest to extremely “average” news consumers, such as food, children’s mental health … even Christmas trees.
 

Scientists believe it's happened before. The IPCC reports have some information with confidence numbers attached as to what the impacts might be.

What happens if there are more clouds when it gets warmer? It depends... from NASA:


 
Look at these lunatics:

Scientists Try Risky Air And Water Experiments Hoping To Stop Climate Change​


Scientists desperate to stop or reverse climate change are dumping chemicals in the ocean and spraying saltwater in the air. What can go wrong? I discuss the short and long term.
1708005890905.png

The Wall Street Journal reports Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions to Cool the Planet

Dumping chemicals in the ocean? Spraying saltwater into clouds? Injecting reflective particles into the sky? Scientists are resorting to once unthinkable techniques to cool the planet because global efforts to check greenhouse gas emissions are failing.
These geoengineering approaches were once considered taboo by scientists and regulators who feared that tinkering with the environment could have unintended consequences, but now researchers are receiving taxpayer funds and private investments to get out of the lab and test these methods outdoors.

Tweaking the Climate



Experiments Underway

  • Marine Cloud Brightening: Researchers aboard a ship off the northeastern coast of Australia near the Whitsunday Islands are spraying a briny mixture through high-pressure nozzles into the air in an attempt to brighten low-altitude clouds that form over the ocean. Scientists hope bigger, brighter clouds will reflect sunlight away from the Earth, shade the ocean surface and cool the waters around the Great Barrier Reef, where warming ocean temperatures have contributed to massive coral die-offs. The research project, known as marine cloud brightening, is led by Southern Cross University as part of the $64.55 million, or 100 million Australian dollars, Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program.
  • Stardust Solutions: In Israel, a startup called Stardust Solutions has begun testing a system to disperse a cloud of tiny reflective particles about 60,000 feet in altitude, reflecting sunlight away from Earth to cool the atmosphere in a concept known as solar radiation management, or SRM.
  • Dumping Lye in the Ocean: In Massachusetts, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution plan to pour 6,000 gallons of a liquid solution of sodium hydroxide, a component of lye, into the ocean 10 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard this summer. They hope the chemical base will act like a big tablet of Tums, lowering the acidity of a patch of surface water and absorbing 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, storing it safely in the ocean.
This reminds me of a half-baked idea in the 1960s we discussed in grade school.

The idea back then was to spray charcoal on the artic ice to stop global cooling.

In Need of Volcanos?

Experiments aimed at cooling the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight away from Earth are an attempt to mimic what happens when a volcano erupts. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo, an active volcano in the Philippines, spewed sulfur and ash into the upper atmosphere, lowering the Earth’s temperature by .5 degrees Celsius (. 9 degrees Fahrenheit) for an entire year.
But until a few years ago, many scientists opposed human interventions, fearing a slippery slope that would allow society to avoid making tough decisions about reducing emissions and could ultimately backfire.

Solar Climate Intervention



Solar climate intervention diagram from White House document linked to below.

Yeah, let’s toss ash into the air. What can possibly go wrong? Lye in the ocean? Hey, why not?

If we get too much ash in the air and lye in the ocean, we can take it out, right?

White House Guidelines

Not to worry, President Biden has Guidelines on Solar Radiation Modification.

This Research Plan was prepared in response to a requirement in the joint explanatory statement accompanying Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, directing the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), with support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to provide a research plan for “solar and other rapid climate interventions.”
Not only do we need brighter clouds, we need more ash in the sky to darken it.

I am sure that if we can spend trillions of dollars to brighten clouds by spraying saltwater into the air while simultaneously darkening the sky, that everything will be great.

More seriously, does anyone really think these idea can possibly scale globally? At what cost?

Short and Long Term Risks

Ironically, the short term risk is that one of these plans is actually successful.

And bear in mind data will be manipulated to show success if for no other reason than to get more funding. Then we will ramp up spending to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars, messing with mother nature, only to encounter the long term risk.

The long term risk is we do something really stupid like dumping charcoal on the Arctic as proposed in the 1960s to melt the ice in the arctic.

In other climate-related news ….

Why Are Solar Panels 44 Percent Cheaper in China than the US?

Please consider the question Why Are Solar Panels 44 Percent Cheaper in China than the US?

The True Costs of Net Zero Are Becoming Impossible to Hide

On February 6, I noted The True Costs of Net Zero Are Becoming Impossible to Hide

Bloomberg reports a 48% Surge in Costs Wrecks Biden’s Much-Lauded Wind-Power Plans.
Even with massive subsidies, these projects are not economical.

Biden’s Biggest Tool

White House spokesperson Michael Kikukawa said Biden has “used every available tool to advance the growing American offshore wind industry.

Indeed!

His biggest tool is a pack of lies starting with a claim that these projects are cheaper and will pay for themselves.
 
I am going to do a Svetz and repost the same thing over and over and over again. Sorry folks

So, @svetz no longer reposts from "Electric Viking" who turned out to be a shill for EV and Tesla in particular.

Now we get to Sabine Hossenfelder (Who seems to be very eager to capitalize on the latest scam aka "climate change")

5 minutes of internet research turned out these gems (I decided to look this up because i have quite a bit of interest in various topics in Physics):


I particularly love this one:

Before I really knew much about physics, I liked Sabine and thought she was “speaking truth to power” in a way. Now that I know quite a bit more, I find that the majority of her audience is more of the “pop-sci” crowd who aren’t really able to form their own opinions and therefore just believe what she says unquestioningly. Among this crowd, she has positioned herself to be an authority, which she really is not. I find her to be extremely opinionated in a way that does not allow for other opinions to exist, meaning that she sees other opinions as being “unable to accept the truth” (where “the truth” here is really just her opinion). One instance of this is how she hates anything related to naturalness and acts like people who want to use naturalness as a motivation for physics are simply “lost in math” (the literal title for her book), but she conveniently leaves out that naturalness has historically been a very good motivator and has found huge success. She also rails against any future colliders, saying they are a waste of money because no one can guarantee any new discoveries will be made at these higher energies, but this is so antithetical to how science works and human exploration in general, not to mention that if you want to complain about wasted money in society, there are WAY bigger fish to fry (like the inflated military budget for instance, which spends more money in 2 days than the entire LHC cost to build over a decade). I am also a bit turned off by the fact that her new role as a “science communicator” (meaning her YouTube channel) comes across as being a bit of a money making ploy, but then again I guess everyone has to pay the bills somehow.

And this

The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.

She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.

Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on the funding that these fields receive.

It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.

Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.

There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.


And this, particularly interesting as this goes into her actual field of study, which is Theoretical Physics

 
Simon Clark, lol



 
Last edited:

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top