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

And just like Covid, the climate lunacy is slowly starting to come apart

Era Of 'Unquestioned And Unchallenged' Climate Change Claims Is Over​

Leading voices in the climate community are in an uproar as their warming hypothesis comes under fresh assault by new scientific papers.
The authors of the papers are being attacked and say that “activist scientists” threatened by the new findings are “aggressively conducting an orchestrated disinformation campaign to discredit the papers and the scientific reputation of the authors.”

Indeed, from insults on social media and furious blog posts to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests demanding emails from a journal editor and federal scientist, the controversy is getting heated.

Several scientists who spoke with The Epoch Times expressed shock at the tactics used against those whose latest research is casting renewed doubts on the official climate narrative.

William Happer, Princeton professor emeritus of physics and former climate adviser to President Donald Trump, wasn't surprised by the response to the new findings.

“Of course the climate cult will be dismissive of any information—no matter how scientifically correct—that is politically incorrect," he told The Epoch Times, noting that the new findings made important and valid points.

The reason that climate activists are so upset is that the findings of the new papers—a trio of peer-reviewed studies by astrophysicist Willie Soon and dozens of other scientists from around the world—are casting further doubt on the narrative of man-made global warming.

The papers are also fueling even more public skepticism about the U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the authors say ignores the facts as well as climate science more generally.

The rhetoric employed by taxpayer-funded scientists with a vested interest in the climate change narrative to attack the new research was profoundly unscientific, multiple scientists told The Epoch Times.

Atmospheric science professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, for instance, denounced the authors of one of the new papers as “a group of climate denier [clown emoji]” on X.

Mr. Mann, famous for the now-widely ridiculed “hockey stick” graph purporting to show massive man-made warming, also described the editor of the journal Climate as a “denier clown.”

Gareth S. Jones with the UK Met Office ridiculed the new studies as "nonsense," while smearing the journal publisher for supposedly being "popular with the science denial community."

(Left) Atmospheric science professor Michael Mann is famous for the now-widely ridiculed “hockey stick” graph (L) purporting to show massive man-made warming. The blue curve is the original “hockey stick” with its uncertainty range in light blue. (Right) Scientist Michael Man (L) and director Josh Fox attend the New York Screening of the HBO Documentary
Mr. Jones also denounced the guest editor of Climate’s special issue, Ned Nikolov, for having a "bit of a reputation, so much so that other climate contrarians distance themselves from him."

Mr. Nikolov authored an earlier paper arguing that atmospheric pressure, not greenhouse gases, plays a primary role in temperatures on Earth and on other celestial bodies.

Also chiming in to attack the new papers and the scientists behind them was Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who's using a FOIA request to demand all of Mr. Nikolov’s emails with relevant scientists.

Mr. Schmidt mocked Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, one of the authors, saying on X that there was “mo[o]re [expletive] going around” before posting a highly edited version of Mr. Moore’s post on social media.

“The only point of this paper (which every climate denier and their dog has jumped onto), is to launder dirty ‘science’ into a clean made-for-Fox meme,” Mr. Schmidt wrote on X before publishing a more detailed rebuttal on his blog Real Climate.

“The latest contrarian crowd pleaser from Soon et al (2023) is just the latest repetition of the old ‘it was the sun wot done it’ trope[1] that Willie Soon and his colleagues have been pushing for decades,” argued Mr. Schmidt, whose federal salary is almost $200,000 per year. “There is literally nothing new under the sun.”

​

Scientists Respond​

The blog post by Mr. Schmidt “is dismissive in an insubstantive way,” said climatologist Judith Curry, who wasn't involved in the new papers but previously served as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
“The response by Schmidt, Mann, and others, particularly with regard to the FOIA request regarding editorial discussions on this paper, reflects their ongoing attempts to control the scientific as well as public dialogue on climate change,” she told The Epoch Times. “In my opinion, their behavior not only reflects poorly on them but is damaging to climate science.”

Ms. Curry, author of "Climate Uncertainty and Risk," who has a post by the lead authors on her blog Climate Etc. to provide a forum for discussion, said the new paper raises “an important issue that is swept under the rug by the IPCC and many climate scientists.”

In particular, it has major implications for how 20th-century climate records are interpreted, she said.

“Further, the issue of the urban heat island effect on global land temperatures remains unresolved, which is also highlighted in the Soon et al. paper,” she said, calling it “a useful contribution to the climate science literature.”

Mr. Soon, the main author of the paper and a principal with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), explained that the three new papers by CERES scientists are a major threat to powerful vested interests.

“For over three decades, the claims and conclusions by U.N. IPCC reports reigned supreme, unquestioned and unchallenged,” Mr. Soon, who was previously with the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told The Epoch Times. “Our latest series of three published papers show that those claims are scientifically empty.

The new paper shows “very strong evidence” that a global “warming bias is built into the records from urban areas,” according to an expert. (Victor He/Unsplash)
“Our results appear to rock the weak foundation of IPCC, and this must be the reason why you are seeing such instantaneous rejection and outright complaining by activists like Schmidt and Mann.”

Mr. Soon and some of the other scientists involved in the new papers published another groundbreaking study in 2021 showing that solar activity could explain all observed warming.

In a highly unusual development for complex scientific studies, that paper has been downloaded more than 55,000 times since it was published.

“The high level of attention to this paper by people hungry for truth might be the real threats that Schmidt and Mann are worrying about,” Mr. Soon said, pointing to a detailed response to the attacks from critics published on CERES-Science.com, titled "The orchestrated disinformation campaign by RealClimate.org to falsely discredit and censor our work."

Mr. Happer noted that the new paper by Mr. Soon and the other authors, headlined “The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming,” is indeed significant.

The two important and valid points are that there are “huge uncertainties” surrounding how much warming there has been since 1850 and how much of that might be due to human activities, he said.

“The paper presents very strong evidence that a warming bias is built into the records from urban areas,” Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times after reviewing the paper, which he wasn't involved with.

“This extra warming of urban versus rural areas is not caused by increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It is caused by humans, but it cannot be reversed by ruinous net-zero policies.”

A groundbreaking study in 2021 had shown that solar activity could explain all observed warming. (David Gannon/AFP via Getty Images)
Mr. Happer, who believes that human CO2 emissions are responsible for “a relatively small contribution” to the “modest warming” that has been observed, agreed with the paper’s conclusion that available data isn't good enough to determine how significant the various factors, such as volcanoes, solar irradiance, and greenhouse gas emissions, are to the warming.

Marc Morano, editor of the popular website Climate Depot, told The Epoch Times that the aggressive reaction to the new papers was an effort to silence dissent from the U.N.-backed narrative.

“The climate establishment is mimicking the same coercive tactics that we saw in COVID,” he said. “If you present any scientific challenge to the official narrative, you are the deplatformed, canceled, censored, and silenced.”

Indeed, the United Nations and other powerful groups are actively working to silence other views on the issue. U.N. Undersecretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is waging war on what she calls climate “disinformation.”

aenyc said:

Scientists Respond​

The blog post by Mr. Schmidt “is dismissive in an insubstantive way,” said climatologist Judith Curry, who wasn't involved in the new papers but previously served as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
“The response by Schmidt, Mann, and others, particularly with regard to the FOIA request regarding editorial discussions on this paper, reflects their ongoing attempts to control the scientific as well as public dialogue on climate change,” she told The Epoch Times. “In my opinion, their behavior not only reflects poorly on them but is damaging to climate science.”

Ms. Curry, author of "Climate Uncertainty and Risk," who has a post by the lead authors on her blog Climate Etc. to provide a forum for discussion, said the new paper raises “an important issue that is swept under the rug by the IPCC and many climate scientists.”

In particular, it has major implications for how 20th-century climate records are interpreted, she said.

“Further, the issue of the urban heat island effect on global land temperatures remains unresolved, which is also highlighted in the Soon et al. paper,” she said, calling it “a useful contribution to the climate science literature.”

Mr. Soon, the main author of the paper and a principal with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), explained that the three new papers by CERES scientists are a major threat to powerful vested interests.

“For over three decades, the claims and conclusions by U.N. IPCC reports reigned supreme, unquestioned and unchallenged,” Mr. Soon, who was previously with the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told The Epoch Times. “Our latest series of three published papers show that those claims are scientifically empty.

The new paper shows “very strong evidence” that a global “warming bias is built into the records from urban areas,” according to an expert. (Victor He/Unsplash)
“Our results appear to rock the weak foundation of IPCC, and this must be the reason why you are seeing such instantaneous rejection and outright complaining by activists like Schmidt and Mann.”

Mr. Soon and some of the other scientists involved in the new papers published another groundbreaking study in 2021 showing that solar activity could explain all observed warming.

In a highly unusual development for complex scientific studies, that paper has been downloaded more than 55,000 times since it was published.

“The high level of attention to this paper by people hungry for truth might be the real threats that Schmidt and Mann are worrying about,” Mr. Soon said, pointing to a detailed response to the attacks from critics published on CERES-Science.com, titled "The orchestrated disinformation campaign by RealClimate.org to falsely discredit and censor our work."

Mr. Happer noted that the new paper by Mr. Soon and the other authors, headlined “The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming,” is indeed significant.

The two important and valid points are that there are “huge uncertainties” surrounding how much warming there has been since 1850 and how much of that might be due to human activities, he said.

Indeed, the United Nations and other powerful groups are actively working to silence other views on the issue. U.N. Undersecretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is waging war on what she calls climate “disinformation.”

Click to expand...

The IPCC, the UN in general, the WEF, and the WHO are all socialist in nature at best, and communistic terroristic at worse. The majority in the UN support Hamas. Read their charter.

• It references a hadith reported by Sahih al-Bukhari, Muslim:2922, which states that the Day of Judgment would not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews.[1][28]
• Article 8 The Hamas document reiterates the Muslim Brotherhood's slogan of "Allah is its goal, the Prophet is the model, the Qur'an its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the sake of Allah "is the loftiest of its wishes."[1][20]

Hamas, and those muslims that support it around the world, and you have seen the recent protests even in times square, are a death cult. Democrats also support it, especially the "squad". Not one democrat recently voted for the border security measures. Not ONE. Therefore, the next 9/11 is on their bloody hands.

What the Data Is Telling Us​

U.S. oil production hits all-time high​

Innovators share what helped convince them to take climate action​

New Zealand: 100% renewable electricity generation by 2030​

Sensitivity of South American tropical forests to an extreme climate anomaly​

R47627|Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals​

IN10784|National Flood Insurance Program Borrowing Authority​

Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress​

R47697|Cell-Cultivated Meat: An Overview​

IF11446|Weather and Climate Change: What’s the Difference?​

More lightning here

Net Zero Ambitions: Sinking in a Sea of Reality?​

Investor Confidence Wanes in Renewable Energy

A recent article highlights a notable shift in investor sentiment away from renewable energy.

“Reuters reports that renewable energy funds suffered a net outflow of $1.4 billion in the July to September 2023 quarter.”

This marks the largest-ever quarterly outflow, signaling a significant retreat from the sector. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index, which encompasses major renewable energy companies, has also seen a decline of 30 percent this year, further illustrating the dwindling investor confidence in the net zero mission.

Political Skepticism Surrounds Net Zero Goals

Political voices across the globe are expressing skepticism and concern regarding the feasibility and impact of net zero policies. Australian Nationals Senator Matt Canavan, for instance, has described net zero as a “soundbite” and “totally insane,” emphasizing the extensive reliance of various sectors on fossil fuels.

““Almost everything we grow, we make, we do in our society relies on the use of fossil fuels,” he said.”

Click to expand...

Global Shifts in Energy Policies

Various countries seem to be subtly shifting away from aggressive net zero targets, reflecting a more pragmatic approach to energy policies. For instance, the UK has delayed the banning of new petrol and diesel cars and residential gas heating, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stating,

“We’re not going to save the planet by bankrupting the British people.”

Click to expand...

Similarly, France’s President Macron has refrained from setting a definitive date for phasing out fossil fuels.

Questioning the Science Behind Net Zero

Critics are also questioning the scientific basis of net zero policies. Geologist Professor Ian Plimer has criticized the manipulation of temperature records, stating,

“The fundamentals of science are you do not tamper with the original evidence. That has happened with our temperature record, where the past has been cooled and it makes it look as if we’re warming. That is fraud.”

Click to expand...

Conclusion: A Reevaluation of Net Zero?

The article paints a picture of growing skepticism and reevaluation of net zero policies across various sectors, from investment to politics. The retreat of investors, coupled with political voices advocating for a more balanced and practical approach, suggests that the net zero ship might indeed be navigating through turbulent waters.

Extraordinary Costs Of Green Energy Creeping Slowly Into Public Awareness​

A key claim of the green energy movement has long been that the intermittent “renewables” — wind and solar — provide the cheapest form of energy. Therefore, the advocates say, just build enough wind turbines and solar panels, convert all use of energy to electricity, and sit back and enjoy a future of affordable energy without adverse environmental consequences.

Meanwhile a key theme at this blog has been exposing the incompetence and chicanery of the claims of low cost for electricity from wind and sun. Although it may often seem as if nobody is listening, I reassure myself that when the full costs of wind and solar electricity eventually get exposed, the people will catch on and not allow themselves to be impoverished.

Over in Europe, it looks like enough of the costs have now gotten exposed to cause the beginning of a public awakening. In August I had a post on how the costs of “green” energy were starting to change the “net zero” debate in the UK. Now, add to that report the results of the elections this past weekend in Germany and Luxembourg. In both countries, parties now standing at least somewhat against the green transition scored gains, while Greens lost ground. The process of ultimate political transformation looks to be long and slow; but I have faith that reality will eventually win out.

First, a short refresher on the claims of green energy advocates that the wind and sun provide the cheapest power. If you only read this blog, or other climate skeptic sources, you may find it incredible that anyone could believe such assertions. But you must remember that the self-designated climate advocates repeat these claims to themselves endlessly in an echo chamber where no one ever pushes back. Eventually, it appears, they come to believe that the claims are true.

And thus, here is my blog post from August 16, 2022, reporting on a Soho Forum debate on the energy future, between Steven Koonin and Andrew Dessler. Dessler, arguing for a future of wind and solar power, had as his main contention that those are cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives, and therefore they will inevitably sweep the fossil fuel infrastructure away. Although he is some kind of leader in the climate alarm movement, Dessler appeared to have no clue that there was any counter-information to his contentions about the costs of wind and solar power. In support of his position, Dessler used as his main metric the “Levelized Cost of Energy” (LCOE) as published by investment bank Lazard. The LCOE metric is ridiculously flawed, and should not fool anybody, but seems to have fooled not just Dessler but also the entire green energy movement (and for that matter the entire Democratic Party and the President of the United States).

And nothing about LCOE and fraudulent advocacy based on it is going away. Long after the Soho Forum debate last August, Lazard went right ahead and came out with a new and updated Report in April titled “2023 Levelized Cost of Energy+.” Here is the key chart from that Report:


You can see right there that the cost (measured by LCOE) of solar PV is $24-96/MWh, onshore wind is even less at $24-75/MWh, and the cheapest fossil fuel alternative is combined cycle natural gas at $39-101/MWh. So wind and solar are cheaper — QED! But, as I wrote in my August 16, 2022 post:

[A]n LCOE calculation completely omits the dominant costs of generating reliable electricity using mostly or entirely wind and solar generators. These dominant costs are the costs of energy storage and/or backup, the costs of overbuilding, and the costs of additional transmission.

Meanwhile over in Europe, I doubt that many people are abandoning the green movement based on complex spreadsheet calculations of the costs involved. Rather, most of them are starting to face up to reality because of some combination of skyrocketing electricity bills and plans to ban gas heat and internal combustion cars.

The BBC reports here on the results of yesterday’s regional elections in the German states of Bavaria and Hesse. The swings in voter preferences were not huge, but still enough to be meaningful on the climate issue. For example, in Bavaria the BBC reports that the long-dominant CSU got 36.7% of the vote, and a second conservative party, the Free Voters (Freie Währen) expanded to 15%, while the Greens “slipped slightly” to 15% and the SPD (party of Chancellor Olaf Scholz) got only a “catastrophic” 8%. The BBC has this to say about the issues in the Bavarian election:

In an unusually ferocious campaign in Bavaria, conservatives and right-wingers railed against Berlin’s plans to phase out fossil fuel boilers and high levels of migration.

While this was not a one-issue referendum on green energy, still it is clear from the results that opposing green energy in at least some respects was definitely a positive rather than a negative among the electorate.

In Luxembourg, the swings were also mostly small, but included a gain for the conservatives matched with a dramatic loss for the Greens. Bloomberg reports on October 8 that the long-time ruling coalition of Democrats, Socialists and Greens got “toppled.” In a parliament of 60, the Conservatives upped their total to 21 seats, while the Greens went from 9 seats to just 4. The result is likely to be a governing coalition of the conservatives with other parties, but excluding the Greens, which could mean a significant shift in green energy policies.

Back here in the U.S., the Biden administration continues with its wrecking ball approach to destroying our energy economy. But as Europe is showing us, small changes voter preferences can change that quickly after the next election.

Not to mention how bad this frankenmeat would be for humans.
I volunteer Svetz to eat it for the next 5 years and then tell us how it goes.

Per Reuters, Equinor is involved in three projects with BP—the 816 MW Empire Wind 1 and the 1.26 GW Empire Wind 2, as well as the Beacon Wind farm, with a projected capacity of 1.23 GW.

Indeed, rising costs have compromised the financial sustainability of many wind power projects and earlier this year led to the cancellation of a large-scale one off the coast of the UK.

Swedish Vattenfall, which led the Norfolk Boreas project, said it would quit it after it saw costs rise by 40%, which made the project unviable.

To tackle the rising cost problem, wind developers have turned to governments, asking for additional tax incentives and higher electricity prices, busting the myth of cheap wind power.

The New York Public Service Commission said that if they had agreed to do what the wind developers wanted, that would have added 6.7% to New Yorkers’ electricity bills, which are already among the highest in the State.

Remember the "Hottest Summer Eva/Global Boiling?"
Well, as i said, it all turned out to be complete BALONEY! (Yes Svetz)

Major Climate Alarmist Fail: “The Hottest Summer Ever” that Never Was​

The climate alarmist news media and climate activist scientists have been misleading the public with false claims of the “hottest summer ever” based on using summer average temperature anomaly values derived from Tavg while ignoring summer maximum temperatures (Tmax) with the maximum temperature data clearly showing the U.S. has not seen a “hottest summer ever” outcome in year 2023.

The sharply increasing minimum temperatures are significantly driven by Urban Heat Island impacts (UHI) as described in a recent significant study (shown below) at this WUWT link by Dr. Roy Spencer whose study evaluated how increasing population density around cites over the last 100 years have resulted in artificial heat sources (buildings, roads, airports, vegetation, traffic, air-condition vents, etc.) impacting temperature measurements at stations in these areas across the U.S.

These artificial heat sources significantly impact measurement of minimum temperatures as the stored heat in these artificial sources contribute to increasing temperatures after the sun has set as reflected by the NOAA graphs above that clearly show increasing minimum temperatures (blue graphs) have been climbing since about the mid 1970s and are driving up average temperature measurements as addressed in Dr. Spencer’s important and comprehensive study.

The key conclusion from Dr. Spencer’s study is as follows:

“But for the average “suburban” (100-1,000 persons per sq. km) station, UHI is 52% of the calculated temperature trend, and 67% of the urban station trend (>1,000 persons per sq. km). This means warming has been exaggerated by at least a factor of 2 (100%).”

The failure of climate alarmists to use NOAA summer maximum temperature measurements and instead rely on temperature anomaly related analysis using summer average temperatures in making flawed “hottest summer ever” claims is a major error. This error is applicable at global, regional, national, state, county, and city levels.

Interesting alternative theory.

The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.

Well Bob, I know you're just going to say this all bunk and I'm only finding what I want to find. But...

Bob B said:

Interesting alternative theory.

...The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science ...

Click to expand...

When a model shows unexpected results that don't match measured values, the model is most likely wrong as opposed to observed values.
That is they haven't discovered anything new, they're just justifying their argument with a nonsense computer model.

So, who are the authors:

• Ned Niolov is a physical scientist with the USDA Forest Service. So, not a climate scientist or a physicist.
• Karl Zeller is a retired USDA Forest Service scientist and was at least a weather forecaster for a part of his career.

But basically these two are computer programmers, they build models based on other people science.

Oh, turns out they're famous for falsehoods too (ref):

Zeller and his colleague Ned Nikolov, who used to work together at the forest service, were the subject of controversy when they were caught publishing a paper under pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez (their names spelled backwards) multiple times from 2014 to 2016. In their research, they propose an alternate theory to the generally accepted greenhouse effect and suggest that greenhouse gas emissions are not contributing to global warming. [3]

Click to expand...

Nikolov and Zeller suggest that atmospheric pressure is the cause for warming, counter to the accepted science of the greenhouse effect. Professional climate scientist Scott Denning described their theory as “too simple” and said it ignores elements of thermodynamics. However, the two argue that their papers were unfairly rejected not due to the science, but because of their association with the climate change denial blog network. [4] Another climate scientist, Professor Steve Sherwood, described one paper published in a “sham journal” by Nikolov and Zeller as “laughable.”

Click to expand...

At least it proves deniers can get their work published no matter how stupid it is.

Bob B said:

...Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure....

Click to expand...

We can also tell this is nonsense because solar energy input has been fairly steady for a long time. From the "200 myths" see "It's the sun", or from NOAA you can see a lot of warming over the last 60 years, but solar input only varying seasonally by a watt:



Update: found a blog debunking the paper: https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/08/making-elephant-dance-as-performed-by.html

svetz said:

Well Bob, I know you're just going to say this all bunk and I'm only finding what I want to find. But...


When a model shows unexpected results that don't match measured values, the model is most likely wrong as opposed to observed values.
That is they haven't discovered anything new, they're just justifying their argument with a nonsense computer model.

So, who are the authors:

• Ned Niolov is a physical scientist with the USDA Forest Service. So, not a climate scientist or a physicist.
• Karl Zeller is a retired USDA Forest Service scientist and was at least a weather forecaster for a part of his career.

But basically these two are computer programmers, they build models based on other people science.

Oh, turns out they're famous for falsehoods too (ref):



At least it proves deniers can get their work published no matter how stupid it is.


We can also tell this is nonsense because solar energy input has been fairly steady for a long time. From the "200 myths" see "It's the sun", or from NOAA you can see a lot of warming over the last 60 years, but solar input only varying seasonally by a watt:

Update: found a blog debunking the paper: https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/08/making-elephant-dance-as-performed-by.html

Click to expand...

It still boggles my mind that some people think our most critical issue these days, is to spend trillions on government and UN related projects to try and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and do this while all the other major industrial countries do nothing.

This is their priority, over War, Crime, Poverty, Homelessness, Drug deaths, Corruption, Social decay, Mass migrations, and Economic collapse.

Will you be charging your EV to save the planet while the nukes are on their way?

Sanwizard said:

It still boggles my mind that some people think our most critical issue these days

Click to expand...

An or proposition like that is known as a "sucker's choice" - it's this or that. Obviously, nuclear war is bad. Obviously, climate change is bad.
Nuclear war may or may not happen. Climate change is well under way and +1.5C doesn't seem stoppable.

svetz said:

An or proposition like that is known as a "sucker's choice" - it's this or that. Obviously, nuclear war is bad. Obviously, climate change is bad.
Nuclear war may or may not happen. Climate change is well under way and +1.5C doesn't seem stoppable.

Click to expand...

I will take +1.5c over +100,000,000C any day of the week.

During the period of peak energy output, a 1-megaton (Mt) nuclear weapon can produce temperatures of about 100 million degrees Celsius at its center, about four to five times that of the Sun.

svetz said:

An or proposition like that is known as a "sucker's choice" - it's this or that. Obviously, nuclear war is bad. Obviously, climate change is bad.
Nuclear war may or may not happen. Climate change is well under way and +1.5C doesn't seem stoppable.

Click to expand...

Climate has been changing since the beginning of Earth's existence.
Manmade climate change is complete baloney, completely made up by the parasite class in order to gain more power.
Proof of this has been given numerous times, from numerous respected scientists as well as from individual observation.
Anyone claiming anthropoligic climate change is a parasite class shill or an illiterate useful idiot.

Svetz learned nothing during covid.

It's just happenstance that all the people who go against the " need to make government bigger" narrative are all "taken down" because they are "quacks".

Seriously Svetz, just stop.

Go away.

Checkthisout said:

Svetz learned nothing during covid.

It's just happenstance that all the people who go against the " need to make government bigger" narrative are all "taken down" because they are "quacks".

Seriously Svetz, just stop.

Go away.

Click to expand...

This is @svetz thread, so he is rightfully here. I would like to thank him for starting this thread, as it has been a very robust conversation, and a lot has been learned.

How El Niño will affect the weather this winter​

Scientists lay out a sweeping roadmap for transitioning the US off fossil fuels​

Climate change is real. Attempts to deny it rely on myths and falsehoods​

Light-Duty Vehicles, Air Pollution, and Climate Change​

Sanwizard said:

This is @svetz thread, so he is rightfully here.

Click to expand...

Everyone is 'rightfully' here and invited to post. Forum rules allow members to post their thoughts on any forum so long as they follow the forum policies. If a member doesn't want to see a person's posts, they should just put them on ignore. I'm good with people posting honest discussions as to why they believe climate change isn't real or not urgent, but I do ignore members who repeatedly violate forum rules as they're not worth my time.

Sanwizard said:

..I will take +1.5c over +100,000,000C any day of the week....

Click to expand...

I don't know, 5 bombs/second is a lot of energy too...

Ocean heat shatters record with warming equal to 5 atomic bombs exploding "every second" for a year. Researchers say it's "getting worse."​

svetz said:

How El Niño will affect the weather this winter​

Scientists lay out a sweeping roadmap for transitioning the US off fossil fuels​

Opinion: Interesting, but I don't see Congress taking any action. Similar to SanWizard's PoV, silent killers can be easily ignored. That and lobbying.​

Climate change is real. Attempts to deny it rely on myths and falsehoods​

Light-Duty Vehicles, Air Pollution, and Climate Change​

Everyone is 'rightfully' here and invited to post. Forum rules allow members to post their thoughts on any forum so long as they follow the forum policies. If a member doesn't want to see a person's posts, they should just put them on ignore. I'm good with people posting honest discussions as to why they believe climate change isn't real or not urgent, but I do ignore members who repeatedly violate forum rules as they're not worth my time.


I don't know, 5 bombs/second is a lot of energy too...

Ocean heat shatters record with warming equal to 5 atomic bombs exploding "every second" for a year. Researchers say it's "getting worse."​

Click to expand...

Five nukes a second for a year? LOL
How many millions died in the ocean this year?
Its stupid shit like that which makes people laugh at climate change.

31,536,000 x 5 bombs this year?

If that were true, the oceans would have boiled off the earth, and the surface of the earth would be hotter than the Sun.
Dont believe everything you read son.

Sanwizard said:

Five nukes a second for a year? LOL
How many millions died in the ocean this year?
Its stupid shit like that which makes people laugh at climate change.

31,536,000 x 5 bombs this year?

If that were true, the oceans would have boiled off the earth, and the surface of the earth would be hotter than the Sun.
Dont believe everything you read son.

Click to expand...

What is the nuclear bomb equivalent of the Sun's irradiation upon the surface of the earth each day?

Checkthisout said:

What is the nuclear bomb equivalent of the Sun's irradiation upon the surface of the earth each day?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that the numbers get big when you include the entire Earth land mass facing the Sun, thats why Solar works. I am laughing at a year of sunny days compared to exploding over one hundred and fifty seven MILLION atomic bombs.
Its a bit different in destructive power over sunshine, and the sun does not cause a nuclear winter.
The funny thing is, as the sun ages and expands, that will most likey be the cause of earths demise.

Navigator CO2 Ventures cancels carbon-capture pipeline project in US Midwest​

A small win for sanity

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/

Oct 20 (Reuters) – Navigator CO2 Ventures has canceled its Heartland Greenway pipeline project aimed at capturing 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually from Midwest ethanol plants and storing it permanently underground, the company said on Friday, citing “unpredictable” state regulatory processes.
The cancellation of one of the biggest projects of its kind is a setback to the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in the U.S., which are a pillar of President Joe Biden’s climate strategy. It is also a blow to the ethanol industry, which sees CCS as key to cutting emissions from producing the fuel.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/

Click to expand...

It was local farmers and environmentalists combined in an unusual alliance.

“The people united to resist Navigator at every level in every corner of every state and we won,” said Jess Mazour, an Iowa organizer with the Sierra Club environmental group, which opposes carbon pipelines.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/

Click to expand...

The large CCS pipeline project from Summit Carbon Solutions continued although also facing strong opposition.

Summit said in a statement that it is “well-positioned to add additional plants and communities to our project footprint.”
Summit recently said its pipeline will start operating in 2026, a delay from its initial timeline of 2024.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/navigator-co2-ventures-cancels-carbon-capture-pipeline-project-us-midwest-2023-10-20/

Click to expand...

Are You Prepared for Power Cuts This Winter?​

Last week I was in France for a few days and noticed that the French Government was planning to impose power supply restrictions on certain types of home.

On returning to the U.K., I found a letter from Scottish and Southern Electricity explaining to its customers how they should prepare for power cuts here in Britain:


I also see that the Dutch are about to start rationing electricity this winter, and other European countries may follow, as they did last year.

It would seem that those crazy conspiracy theorists who predicted that our rulers’ saving-the-planet Net Zero policies would result in electricity supply shortages were right.

It’s extraordinary how so many of yesterday’s ‘conspiracy theories’ turn out to be today’s reality.

Are you prepared for power cuts to your home and business this winter? You’d better be.