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

[Sanwizard]

SDG7: The Impossible Energy Transformation

The alleged purpose of the United Nation's (UN's) Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) is to "ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all." The real impacts of its implementation couldn’t be more different.

unlimitedhangout.com

An excellent summary on the Economics behind this scam. This explains the system of "Carbon Credits" that will essentially allow banksters to make money from thin air, while at the same time achieving total control over everyone's activity.

Make sure to read the entire article, here is just small part at the end.

--

There is no evident rationale for the claim that CO2 emissions from burning wood pellet biomass should be zero. The IPCC and the EU ETS hierarchy simply decree they are. And because they say so, Drax and the UK government can designate their wood-fired power station as “green.”

The pellets for Drax’s Selby plant are shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, in the immense volume required, in huge diesel-powered tankers from North America. None of the energy costs of the forestry, logging operations, processing and transport of the produced wood pellets are factored into either the IPCC’s or the EU ETS’ “calculations.”

But that is no impediment for Drax, which has signed the largest carbon credit deal in history. The International Centre for Carbon for Sustainable Carbon reported:


Drax will earn these carbon credit “certificates” by emitting more CO2 from wood pellets than it would if it were burning coal. Companies like Cemex, the US concrete manufacturing giant; Alphabet (Google’s parent company) with offices and energy networks spread across the globe; the car manufacturer General Motors; and the oil giant Shell can then buy the Drax credits, thus reducing their “carbon footprint” and also claiming they are “green.”

This arrangement will help Cemex et al. export their goods and services into the EU market. They can exchange their purchased carbon credits for the necessary carbon removal certificates. Both the EU and these global corporations can claim they have reduced their carbon footprint without actually reducing their CO2 emissions at all.

None of this blatant duplicity undermines the UK government’s enthusiasm for its “net zero” policy. Following its post pseudopandemic pledge to “build back greener,” the UK government’s Net Zero Strategy epitomised the SDG7 deceit:


Keep in mind, though: “Negative emissions” are achieved by “offsetting” more emissions than are produced, not by reducing emissions. Anyone who dares question this “sustainable development” model is castigated as a climate or science “denier.” Climate change is the new global religion. Doubting what we are told about it—and ordered to believe about it—is heresy.

Meanwhile, climate alarmist celebrities fly around the world in their private jets, lecturing us on how we need to reduce our carbon footprints because, unlike displaced Congolese farmers, they have the wealth to “offset” them by planting some trees.

The alarmists’ delusional, empty rhetoric completely ignores the immense danger to humanity that sustainable development and the mindless pursuit of SDG7 represents.

Could it be that, for all their virtue signalling, they haven’t a clue as to the havoc that sustainable development is wreaking on all life?

What a freaking scam carbon credits are! They will make you pay for breathing! These asshats are worse than Nazis.

 

[aenyc]

Is It Time To Ban Electric Vehicles?​

The New York Fire Department recently reported that so far this year there have been 108 lithium-ion battery fires in New York City, which have injured 66 people and killed 13. According to FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh, “There is not a small amount of fire, it (the vehicle) literally explodes.” The resulting fire is “very difficult to extinguish and so it is particularly dangerous.”
Last year there were more than 200 fires from batteries from e-bikes, EVs, and other devices.

A fire ignited at an e-bike shop and killed four people near midnight on the morning of June 20. Two individuals were left in critical condition. The fire commissioner has warned New Yorkers that such devices could be very dangerous and typically explode in such a way that renders escape impossible.

FDNY also reports that in just three years, lithium-ion battery fires have surpassed those started by cooking and smoking as the most common causes of fatal fires in New York City. It’s happening all over the country as these blazes have become commonplace. Cars and e-bikes are randomly blowing up in driveways and garages.


Now let’s be honest: 13 deaths in a city the size of New York with some 8 million people is hardly an epidemic. Regulations should always be based on a cost versus benefit calculation, or there would be no cars at all.

And yet the same scaremongers on the left who have zero tolerance and want bans for small risks when it comes to everything from swimming pool diving boards, gas stoves, plastic straws, vaping, fireworks, and so on, have a surprisingly high pain threshold when it comes to people dying or suffering critical injured from “green” electric battery fires.

Or consider this: In 1965, Ralph Nader almost single-handedly helped ban the popular Chevrolet Corvair—famous for its engine placed in the back trunk of the car. Nader’s bestselling shock book “Unsafe at Any Speed” declared the car was deadly. But there was no real evidence of that claim, and to this day there are no reliable statistics on how many passengers—if any—died in Corvairs from rear-end accidents.

What is indisputable is that EVs will cause far more deaths than Corvairs ever did.

One other example: There have been more fatalities in just one city in a single year from lithium-ion batteries in cars than all the people who died from the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident—which was zero.

Yet, after the accident, thanks to the environmentalists’ fear campaign (with the help of the blockbuster anti-nuke movie “The China Syndrome”), no domestic nuclear plants were built for three decades. That is despite the fact that nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases.

But with EVs, the greens are pushing aside any concerns about the collateral damage of deaths and injuries. Biden wants to mandate that nearly ALL new cars sold in the United States be EVs by 2032. If that happens, many thousands of Americans may die or will be injured from electric vehicle fires.

All this is especially hypocritical because once upon a time the left’s mantra was “no trading blood for oil.” Now they are willing to trade blood in exchange for getting Americans to stop using oil. An irony of all this is that because of all the energy needed to produce windmills, solar panels, and electric batteries, new studies are showing that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to this “net zero” transition is close to zero. It turns out, green energy causes some pollution, too.

For the record, I’m not in favor of the government banning EVs or e-bikes or just about anything. I just believe that we should make policy decisions based on real and factual risk assessments, not false scares and sensationalism.

As for the future of EVs, maybe it’s time for Ralph Nader to write a sequel to “Unsafe at Any Speed.”

 

[LeoThomson]

Is It Time To Ban Electric Vehicles?​

The New York Fire Department recently reported that so far this year there have been 108 lithium-ion battery fires in New York City, which have injured 66 people and killed 13. According to FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh, “There is not a small amount of fire, it (the vehicle) literally explodes.” The resulting fire is “very difficult to extinguish and so it is particularly dangerous.”
Last year there were more than 200 fires from batteries from e-bikes, EVs, and other devices.

A fire ignited at an e-bike shop and killed four people near midnight on the morning of June 20. Two individuals were left in critical condition. The fire commissioner has warned New Yorkers that such devices could be very dangerous and typically explode in such a way that renders escape impossible.

FDNY also reports that in just three years, lithium-ion battery fires have surpassed those started by cooking and smoking as the most common causes of fatal fires in New York City. It’s happening all over the country as these blazes have become commonplace. Cars and e-bikes are randomly blowing up in driveways and garages.


Now let’s be honest: 13 deaths in a city the size of New York with some 8 million people is hardly an epidemic. Regulations should always be based on a cost versus benefit calculation, or there would be no cars at all.

And yet the same scaremongers on the left who have zero tolerance and want bans for small risks when it comes to everything from swimming pool diving boards, gas stoves, plastic straws, vaping, fireworks, and so on, have a surprisingly high pain threshold when it comes to people dying or suffering critical injured from “green” electric battery fires.

Or consider this: In 1965, Ralph Nader almost single-handedly helped ban the popular Chevrolet Corvair—famous for its engine placed in the back trunk of the car. Nader’s bestselling shock book “Unsafe at Any Speed” declared the car was deadly. But there was no real evidence of that claim, and to this day there are no reliable statistics on how many passengers—if any—died in Corvairs from rear-end accidents.

What is indisputable is that EVs will cause far more deaths than Corvairs ever did.

One other example: There have been more fatalities in just one city in a single year from lithium-ion batteries in cars than all the people who died from the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident—which was zero.

Yet, after the accident, thanks to the environmentalists’ fear campaign (with the help of the blockbuster anti-nuke movie “The China Syndrome”), no domestic nuclear plants were built for three decades. That is despite the fact that nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases.

But with EVs, the greens are pushing aside any concerns about the collateral damage of deaths and injuries. Biden wants to mandate that nearly ALL new cars sold in the United States be EVs by 2032. If that happens, many thousands of Americans may die or will be injured from electric vehicle fires.

All this is especially hypocritical because once upon a time the left’s mantra was “no trading blood for oil.” Now they are willing to trade blood in exchange for getting Americans to stop using oil. An irony of all this is that because of all the energy needed to produce windmills, solar panels, and electric batteries, new studies are showing that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to this “net zero” transition is close to zero. It turns out, green energy causes some pollution, too.

For the record, I’m not in favor of the government banning EVs or e-bikes or just about anything. I just believe that we should make policy decisions based on real and factual risk assessments, not false scares and sensationalism.

As for the future of EVs, maybe it’s time for Ralph Nader to write a sequel to “Unsafe at Any Speed.”

 

[aenyc]

This is how the parasite class buys the entire governmental institution, top to bottom.​

Those who pay, order the music.

Germany Has Partnered With Gates Foundation to Tune of Billions Of Euros​

The headline of a recent LifeSiteNews article declared that the “German Government funds several Gates Foundation projects to the tune of 3.8 million euros”. This is a somewhat curious revelation, but not surprisingly, given the relatively paltry sum, it did not inspire more than a flurry of interest on social media. In fact, the actual total cited in the German source for the article is not €3.8 million, but €3.8 billion.

Furthermore, although the correct sum is far more imposing, it needs to be stressed that the funding in question is not in fact funding of Gates Foundation projects or programmes per se, but rather German co-funding of projects or programmes in which the Gates Foundation is also involved.

LifeSiteNews eventually corrected the erroneous figure in its headline, but only after several days, by which time the initial buzz had passed. Although the preview has updated, the confusion is still apparent in the below tweet by the article’s author. This is particularly odd given that the author is Austrian and hence surely knows that Milliarden, the figure cited in the German source for the article, is billions, not millions. Furthermore, the correct figure was cited in the body of the text, if albeit with an erroneous conversion into millions, rather than billions of dollars.

This is massive and very few people are reporting on it:

German gov’t funds several Gates Foundation projects to the tune of 3.8 million euros, a parliamentary inquiry revealed.https://t.co/6Knt9rfjd8

Thanks to @transparenztest and @TOysmueller for drawing attention to this
— Andreas Wailzer (@Andreas_Wailzer) August 3, 2023

The source is an article on the German website Transparenztest (Transparency Test), which in turn cites funding data furnished by the German Government itself in a June 29th written response to a parliamentary query on German cooperation with private foundations.

Transparenztest calculated the €3.8 billion total based on German Government data. This total includes both funding for joint German Government/Gates Foundation projects and non-project-linked German contributions to programmes. Unfortunately, however, Transparenztest has misconstrued the nature of the latter funding.

Virtually all the programme funding consists not of German funding for Gates Foundation programmes per se, but rather of German co-funding for programmes in which the Gates Foundation is also, to a greater or lesser extent, involved.

The project funding involves nine joint projects of the Gates Foundation and the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The total project funding comes to nearly €450 million. The project funding covers a period from 2017 (the earliest start date) to 2025 (the latest completion date).

The more copious programme funding involves 22 programmes and comes to nearly €3.4 billion. The funding is spread out over a period of more than 25 years from 2002 (the earliest start date) to 2030 (the latest completion date), although, as Transparenztest stresses, most of the grants are more recent. Here too, most of the funding comes from the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, although a few of the grants were made by the Ministry of Education and Research.

Some of the programme entries in the German Government data identify the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMFG) as one sponsor among others, whereas other entries list it as the sole sponsoring ‘foundation/organisation’. See, for instance, column two in the below excerpt from the data:

In keeping with the subject of the parliamentary query, however, this appears only to mean that the Gates Foundation is the sole private sponsor involved. Virtually all the programmes involve significant public sponsorship, not only from Germany, but also from many other countries and international organisations.

 

[LeoThomson]

This is how the parasite class buys the entire governmental institution, top to bottom.​

Those who pay, order the music.

Germany Has Partnered With Gates Foundation to Tune of Billions Of Euros​

The headline of a recent LifeSiteNews article declared that the “German Government funds several Gates Foundation projects to the tune of 3.8 million euros”. This is a somewhat curious revelation, but not surprisingly, given the relatively paltry sum, it did not inspire more than a flurry of interest on social media. In fact, the actual total cited in the German source for the article is not €3.8 million, but €3.8 billion.

Furthermore, although the correct sum is far more imposing, it needs to be stressed that the funding in question is not in fact funding of Gates Foundation projects or programmes per se, but rather German co-funding of projects or programmes in which the Gates Foundation is also involved.

LifeSiteNews eventually corrected the erroneous figure in its headline, but only after several days, by which time the initial buzz had passed. Although the preview has updated, the confusion is still apparent in the below tweet by the article’s author. This is particularly odd given that the author is Austrian and hence surely knows that Milliarden, the figure cited in the German source for the article, is billions, not millions. Furthermore, the correct figure was cited in the body of the text, if albeit with an erroneous conversion into millions, rather than billions of dollars.


The source is an article on the German website Transparenztest (Transparency Test), which in turn cites funding data furnished by the German Government itself in a June 29th written response to a parliamentary query on German cooperation with private foundations.

Transparenztest calculated the €3.8 billion total based on German Government data. This total includes both funding for joint German Government/Gates Foundation projects and non-project-linked German contributions to programmes. Unfortunately, however, Transparenztest has misconstrued the nature of the latter funding.

Virtually all the programme funding consists not of German funding for Gates Foundation programmes per se, but rather of German co-funding for programmes in which the Gates Foundation is also, to a greater or lesser extent, involved.

The project funding involves nine joint projects of the Gates Foundation and the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The total project funding comes to nearly €450 million. The project funding covers a period from 2017 (the earliest start date) to 2025 (the latest completion date).

The more copious programme funding involves 22 programmes and comes to nearly €3.4 billion. The funding is spread out over a period of more than 25 years from 2002 (the earliest start date) to 2030 (the latest completion date), although, as Transparenztest stresses, most of the grants are more recent. Here too, most of the funding comes from the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, although a few of the grants were made by the Ministry of Education and Research.

Some of the programme entries in the German Government data identify the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMFG) as one sponsor among others, whereas other entries list it as the sole sponsoring ‘foundation/organisation’. See, for instance, column two in the below excerpt from the data:

In keeping with the subject of the parliamentary query, however, this appears only to mean that the Gates Foundation is the sole private sponsor involved. Virtually all the programmes involve significant public sponsorship, not only from Germany, but also from many other countries and international organisations.

 

[Sanwizard]

View attachment 163031

Leo, please stop with the bogus fact check crap. We get it. Any facts you dont agree with is right bias.

 

[LeoThomson]

Leo, please stop with the bogus fact check crap. We get it. Any facts you dont agree with is right bias.

There is nothing bogus about the fact checkers. Facts are not left wing or right wing, but now you mention it, it is interesting that those conspiracy/pseudo science sites tend to cater to right wingers, are right wingers really more guilible?

 

[grizzzman]

Yeah, that dude can spend other peoples money like there is no tomorrow. If somebody stubs a toe? 10 billion, with 10% to the big guy. Isnt that money for Ukraine though? I hear biden has plans to bail out their pension system.

He has already accomplished that.

US taxpayers are chumps.

Sucks to be a chump eh?

 

[grizzzman]

There is nothing bogus about the fact checkers. Facts are not left wing or right wing, but now you mention it, it is interesting that those conspiracy/pseudo science sites tend to cater to right wingers, are right wingers really more guilible?

Your opinion. I disagree.

 

[LeoThomson]

Your opinion. I disagree.

Your disagreement doesn't make the lies any more true.

 

[LeoThomson]

He has already accomplished that.

Sucks to be a chump eh?

That is what all governments do, they spend tax payer money. The reason governments run (most commonly) a deficit is because their revenue doesn't match their expenditure. You can fix that by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or a combination of the two. The problem is that there are people who claim all tax is theft and how can one possible have a reasoned argument with those people when they also rely on many of the things governments provides them?

 

[aenyc]

Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again​

(reminds you of someone you know here? )



One would think that the public relations fiasco that stuck climate science (and sullied the reputation of science in general) as a result of ClimateGate back in 2009 would restrain climate scientists from attempting to suppress published peer-reviewed studies that they “don’t like” or the conclusions of which are “not helpful” to their climate crisis advocacy positions.

But, it appears that Michael Mann and his cronies are at it again forcing the retraction of a paper published last January (2022), in the European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP), a peer-reviewed academic journal (one of the 2,900 journals published through Springer Nature). That paper is titled, “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” by Gianluca Alimonti, Luigi Mariani, Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci. [hereafter, Alimonti (2022)].

The journal’s website version of the paper currently shows this banner:

The inestimable Roger Pielke Jr. covers the ongoing story on his substack piece: “Think of the Implications of Publishing — A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate science” first published on Jul 17, 2023. Do read Pielke’s piece for his insight into all the gory details.

Alimonti and his co-authors wrote and re-wrote addenda attempting to satisfy complaints, but these were rejected despite their validity.

Prominent media (both partner members of the Covering Climate Now climate crisis propaganda news cabal) published attack articles, denigrating the authors and quoting the very same climate scientists that called for retraction. The Guardian (Graham Readfearn) here and Agence France-Presse appearing at phys.org here. So, it is not just Pielke Jr.’s “activist journalists” – it is the media outlets themselves which are climate-crisis activists / propagandists, colluding and cooperating with one another in a concerted attack effort.

The only climate scientists to speak out about this suppression of good science are Judith Curry (in a tweet) and Roger Pielke Jr. (here and here).

It looks like Springer Nature’s journal European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP) is going to move and retract the paper – because they have allowed themselves to be bullied by the same crew (and/or their activist descendants) that brought us ClimateGate fourteen years ago.

Where are the rest of the climate scientists? Hiding behind their academic desks, trembling lest the bullies target them also?

The full conclusion, which the Climate Crisis Advocates say should not have been published, and thus, must be retracted, is this:


“Fearing a climate emergency without this being supported by data, means altering the framework of priorities with negative effects that could prove deleterious to our ability to face the challenges of the future, squandering natural and human resources in an economically difficult context, even more negative following the COVID emergency. This does not mean we should do nothing about climate change: we should work to minimize our impact on the planet and to minimize air and water pollution. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.”

And

“We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change is not an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised.”

 

[grizzzman]

Your disagreement doesn't make the lies any more true.

Or yours.......

 

[aenyc]

Or yours.......

I agree, Leo, as someone who still believes in the jabs in 2023 after everything that came out (at least publicly on this forum), his credibility is pretty much zero.

 

[Sanwizard]

That is what all governments do, they spend tax payer money. The reason governments run (most commonly) a deficit is because their revenue doesn't match their expenditure. You can fix that by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or a combination of the two. The problem is that there are people who claim all tax is theft and how can one possible have a reasoned argument with those people when they also rely on many of the things governments provides them?

I saw an interesting question recently. How many countries can you name that tax their citizens so they can send money to the US? Not for buying things, but similar to what Biden is doing for Ukraine.

 

[Sanwizard]

Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again​

(reminds you of someone you know here? )

View attachment 163037

One would think that the public relations fiasco that stuck climate science (and sullied the reputation of science in general) as a result of ClimateGate back in 2009 would restrain climate scientists from attempting to suppress published peer-reviewed studies that they “don’t like” or the conclusions of which are “not helpful” to their climate crisis advocacy positions.

But, it appears that Michael Mann and his cronies are at it again forcing the retraction of a paper published last January (2022), in the European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP), a peer-reviewed academic journal (one of the 2,900 journals published through Springer Nature). That paper is titled, “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” by Gianluca Alimonti, Luigi Mariani, Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci. [hereafter, Alimonti (2022)].

The journal’s website version of the paper currently shows this banner:

The inestimable Roger Pielke Jr. covers the ongoing story on his substack piece: “Think of the Implications of Publishing — A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate science” first published on Jul 17, 2023. Do read Pielke’s piece for his insight into all the gory details.

Alimonti and his co-authors wrote and re-wrote addenda attempting to satisfy complaints, but these were rejected despite their validity.

Prominent media (both partner members of the Covering Climate Now climate crisis propaganda news cabal) published attack articles, denigrating the authors and quoting the very same climate scientists that called for retraction. The Guardian (Graham Readfearn) here and Agence France-Presse appearing at phys.org here. So, it is not just Pielke Jr.’s “activist journalists” – it is the media outlets themselves which are climate-crisis activists / propagandists, colluding and cooperating with one another in a concerted attack effort.

The only climate scientists to speak out about this suppression of good science are Judith Curry (in a tweet) and Roger Pielke Jr. (here and here).

It looks like Springer Nature’s journal European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP) is going to move and retract the paper – because they have allowed themselves to be bullied by the same crew (and/or their activist descendants) that brought us ClimateGate fourteen years ago.

Where are the rest of the climate scientists? Hiding behind their academic desks, trembling lest the bullies target them also?

The full conclusion, which the Climate Crisis Advocates say should not have been published, and thus, must be retracted, is this:


“Fearing a climate emergency without this being supported by data, means altering the framework of priorities with negative effects that could prove deleterious to our ability to face the challenges of the future, squandering natural and human resources in an economically difficult context, even more negative following the COVID emergency. This does not mean we should do nothing about climate change: we should work to minimize our impact on the planet and to minimize air and water pollution. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.”

And

“We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change is not an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised.”

I remember laughing out loud when the climate scientists took a ship to the northern polar region to document the melting of the ice caps, became stuck in the ice cap, due to very cold weather that month.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I saw an interesting question recently. How many countries can you name that tax their citizens so they can send money to the US? Not for buying things, but similar to what Biden is doing for Ukraine.

That's an easy one to answer.. Why would you even ask such a question if its so easy to look up?

List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Damn that's a long list...

 

[Sanwizard]

That's an easy one to answer.. Why would you even ask such a question if its so easy to look up?

List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Damn that's a long list...

I said to the US. As an example, which countries are sending money to Maui to help with that disaster?

 

[LeoThomson]

Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again​

(reminds you of someone you know here? )

View attachment 163037

One would think that the public relations fiasco that stuck climate science (and sullied the reputation of science in general) as a result of ClimateGate back in 2009 would restrain climate scientists from attempting to suppress published peer-reviewed studies that they “don’t like” or the conclusions of which are “not helpful” to their climate crisis advocacy positions.

But, it appears that Michael Mann and his cronies are at it again forcing the retraction of a paper published last January (2022), in the European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP), a peer-reviewed academic journal (one of the 2,900 journals published through Springer Nature). That paper is titled, “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” by Gianluca Alimonti, Luigi Mariani, Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci. [hereafter, Alimonti (2022)].

The journal’s website version of the paper currently shows this banner:

The inestimable Roger Pielke Jr. covers the ongoing story on his substack piece: “Think of the Implications of Publishing — A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate science” first published on Jul 17, 2023. Do read Pielke’s piece for his insight into all the gory details.

Alimonti and his co-authors wrote and re-wrote addenda attempting to satisfy complaints, but these were rejected despite their validity.

Prominent media (both partner members of the Covering Climate Now climate crisis propaganda news cabal) published attack articles, denigrating the authors and quoting the very same climate scientists that called for retraction. The Guardian (Graham Readfearn) here and Agence France-Presse appearing at phys.org here. So, it is not just Pielke Jr.’s “activist journalists” – it is the media outlets themselves which are climate-crisis activists / propagandists, colluding and cooperating with one another in a concerted attack effort.

The only climate scientists to speak out about this suppression of good science are Judith Curry (in a tweet) and Roger Pielke Jr. (here and here).

It looks like Springer Nature’s journal European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP) is going to move and retract the paper – because they have allowed themselves to be bullied by the same crew (and/or their activist descendants) that brought us ClimateGate fourteen years ago.

Where are the rest of the climate scientists? Hiding behind their academic desks, trembling lest the bullies target them also?

The full conclusion, which the Climate Crisis Advocates say should not have been published, and thus, must be retracted, is this:


“Fearing a climate emergency without this being supported by data, means altering the framework of priorities with negative effects that could prove deleterious to our ability to face the challenges of the future, squandering natural and human resources in an economically difficult context, even more negative following the COVID emergency. This does not mean we should do nothing about climate change: we should work to minimize our impact on the planet and to minimize air and water pollution. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.”

And

“We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change is not an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised.”

Watts Up with That - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[MurphyGuy]

I said to the US. As an example, which countries are sending money to Maui to help with that disaster?

Why would anyone send money to the richest country on the planet?

When you donate money, do you give it to the poor or to the richest person on the planet?

 

[Sanwizard]

Why would anyone send money to the richest country on the planet?

When you donate money, do you give it to the poor or to the richest person on the planet?

Uh, did you not know that the US is the largest debtor nation on the planet? We are not just broke, we will NEVER be able to pay off our debt. Your government blew 32 TRILLION we can never pay back. Nothing to show for that of course, since most of it was graft to those in power.

We are Bankrupt, Kaput, finished.

 

[Sanwizard]

Uh, did you not know that the US is the largest debtor nation on the planet? We are not just broke, we will NEVER be able to pay off our debt. Your government blew 32 TRILLION we can never pay back. Nothing to show for that of course, since most of it was graft to those in power.

We are Bankrupt, Kaput, finished.

This is weird, cause if the earth warms, all of Siberia becomes farmland, so we should be able to feed more people.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Uh, did you not know that the US is the largest debtor nation on the planet? We are not just broke, we will NEVER be able to pay off our debt. Your government blew 32 TRILLION we can never pay back. Nothing to show for that of course, since most of it was graft to those in power.

We are Bankrupt, Kaput, finished.

We can entirely agree that our government(s) (both local, state and federal) spend too much money. Like a teenage girl with daddy's credit card in a shopping mall..

However, saying "we're the largest debtor nation on the planet" is pretty meaningless without context..

So lets get some context..

Here we see that we are actually 11 down the list in debt to GDP ratio.. Which is the only important ratio..

Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

I am not a national debt expert by any measure, but what I do know is that most of our debt is held by our own citizens.. About 80% of it.. and most of that is held by the super rich who spend hundreds of millions on campaigns to make the average person think they should get a tax break so they can build more factories to employ more people to make themselves richer.

Because that's what I would do...

Any debt is bad.. I run my own life with so little debt that it is inconsequential, and I have cash on hand to pay it off any time I want. Our nation should run the same way... problem is, its not that simple. I am a person and I am not in competition with anyone, whereas nations are constantly competing, and the one with the best tech rules the world.

So do we stop borrowing money and allow other nations to surpass us, or do we go into debt so we can stay ahead?

 

[grizzzman]

U.S. Loses Second Triple-A Bond Rating But Retains Its ‘License To Be Irresponsible’

Fitch waited 12 years to follow S&P in downgrading debt of the United States. Still, the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency remains unrivaled.

www.forbes.com

Fitch Ratings took away America’s triple-A credit rating this week, but it could not downgrade the almighty dollar.
The No. 3 U.S. credit rater joined larger rival Standard & Poor’s—after more than a decade—in cutting Treasury bonds from AAA to AA+ on Wednesday, citing well-known economic and political issues that weigh on the country’s finances, particularly a debt measure that is more than twice the amount of similarly rated countries.
But the U.S. has something those nations do not: “the world’s preeminent reserve currency, which gives the government extraordinary financing flexibility,” Fitch wrote in explaining the downgrade, which is based on “expected fiscal deterioration over the next three yea
Indeed, the dollar’s popularity with overseas investors and governments—it accounts for 60% of official reserves around the the world, according to S&P—gives the U.S. a “license to be irresponsible,” according to Martin Fridson, chief investment officer at Lehmann, Livian, Fridson Advisors and editor of the Forbes/Fridson Income Securities Investor newsletter.

 

[Sanwizard]

We can entirely agree that our government(s) (both local, state and federal) spend too much money. Like a teenage girl with daddy's credit card in a shopping mall..

However, saying "we're the largest debtor nation on the planet" is pretty meaningless without context..

So lets get some context..

Here we see that we are actually 11 down the list in debt to GDP ratio.. Which is the only important ratio..

Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

I am not a national debt expert by any measure, but what I do know is that most of our debt is held by our own citizens.. About 80% of it.. and most of that is held by the super rich who spend hundreds of millions on campaigns to make the average person think they should get a tax break so they can build more factories to employ more people to make themselves richer.

Because that's what I would do...

Any debt is bad.. I run my own life with so little debt that it is inconsequential, and I have cash on hand to pay it off any time I want. Our nation should run the same way... problem is, its not that simple. I am a person and I am not in competition with anyone, whereas nations are constantly competing, and the one with the best tech rules the world.

So do we stop borrowing money and allow other nations to surpass us, or do we go into debt so we can stay ahead?

Total debt is more than all the others combined. Also, look at how China and Russia are still so frugal. The BRICS gold backed economies will be eating our lunch soon.