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

[aenyc]

The goal of the globalists will be to move swiftly into other crisis events, whether real or fabricated, to bring the population to heel. Enter today’s climate change hysteria…

The covid agenda and the climate change agenda are very similar in that they rely on a core fallacy. The lie is that these events are actually dictated by human behavior, and thus human behavior must be controlled in the name of the “greater good.” The idea goes beyond this, though, into the realm of collectivism; for the globalists and leftists assert that each individual action affects the lives of the rest of the population in a great and unedning hive. Therefore, every single person must have their lives micromanaged by the state to prevent some kind of chain reaction that leads to catastrophe for the precious bug colony.

This was the claim during the covid farce, and it’s also the claim for climate change and carbon restrictions. They have fabricated yet another excuse for eliminating personal freedoms. For covid it was the air we each breath out that would supposedly destroy public health, and for climate change it is once again the air we breath out that will supposedly destroy the world. Coincidence? I think not.

During the lockdowns, numerous globalists and globalist connected climate researchers publicly expressed joy at the suggestion that covid lockdowns could be useful for reducing carbon emissions. The phrase “climate lockdowns” started circulating around major conferences and in various globalist funded studies.

These studies obviously show a precipitous drop in human based carbon emissions during the lockdowns, but still do not provide any evidence that man-made emissions actually cause climate changes. This remains the underlying con game of the climate narrative – Climate researchers with access to billions in government funds and think-tank funds happily operate on the ASSUMPTION that emissions cause warming, when in fact they have zero evidence to support this position. Correlation is not causation.

This summer, the media has been relentlessly pounding the climate propaganda drum to a degree that mimics the covid propaganda of a couple years ago. The nihilistic reports of impending “global boiling” are built upon a house of cards. Almost all climate crisis claims are based on records of a little over 100 years old. The Earth’s climate history is vast and there have been numerous warming periods much hotter than today. All of these warming events occurred during periods of ample animal and plant life and without human industry to blame.

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.

 

[MurphyGuy]

The goal of the globalists will be to move swiftly into other crisis events, whether real or fabricated, to bring the population to heel. Enter today’s climate change hysteria…

The covid agenda and the climate change agenda are very similar in that they rely on a core fallacy. The lie is that these events are actually dictated by human behavior, and thus human behavior must be controlled in the name of the “greater good.” The idea goes beyond this, though, into the realm of collectivism; for the globalists and leftists assert that each individual action affects the lives of the rest of the population in a great and unedning hive. Therefore, every single person must have their lives micromanaged by the state to prevent some kind of chain reaction that leads to catastrophe for the precious bug colony.

This was the claim during the covid farce, and it’s also the claim for climate change and carbon restrictions. They have fabricated yet another excuse for eliminating personal freedoms. For covid it was the air we each breath out that would supposedly destroy public health, and for climate change it is once again the air we breath out that will supposedly destroy the world. Coincidence? I think not.

During the lockdowns, numerous globalists and globalist connected climate researchers publicly expressed joy at the suggestion that covid lockdowns could be useful for reducing carbon emissions. The phrase “climate lockdowns” started circulating around major conferences and in various globalist funded studies.

These studies obviously show a precipitous drop in human based carbon emissions during the lockdowns, but still do not provide any evidence that man-made emissions actually cause climate changes. This remains the underlying con game of the climate narrative – Climate researchers with access to billions in government funds and think-tank funds happily operate on the ASSUMPTION that emissions cause warming, when in fact they have zero evidence to support this position. Correlation is not causation.

This summer, the media has been relentlessly pounding the climate propaganda drum to a degree that mimics the covid propaganda of a couple years ago. The nihilistic reports of impending “global boiling” are built upon a house of cards. Almost all climate crisis claims are based on records of a little over 100 years old. The Earth’s climate history is vast and there have been numerous warming periods much hotter than today. All of these warming events occurred during periods of ample animal and plant life and without human industry to blame.

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.

Study finds economic inequality promotes belief in conspiracy theories​

Study finds economic inequality promotes belief in conspiracy theories

New findings published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology indicates that economic inequality increases susceptibility to belief in conspiracy theories. The research provides evidence that the perception of societal breakdown is a key pathway between inequality and conspiracy beliefs.

www.psypost.org

 

[svetz]

 

[svetz]

Texas eighth graders will soon be required to learn about climate change​

...students ought to learn about the benefits of burning fossil fuels...

...Many critics say the new curriculum standards, called the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, don’t go far enough to teach kids that climate change is caused by human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels. And while the TEKS changes will require eighth graders to describe how human activities “can” influence climate, students won’t be required to learn about how “a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions” could mitigate climate change

Opinion: Keep going Texas! Hate it when Florida is #1 (see also https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/educa...ould-know-prageru-kids-videos-florida-schools).

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers​

teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package ... that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy,

...“It’s not science, but it’s dressed up to look like science,” said NCSE executive director Ann Reid. “It’s clearly intended to confuse teachers.”

London Traffic blocked at Department for Education during call for national curriculum changes​

More than 100 teachers, academics and students have blocked traffic and staged mock climate classes outside the Department for Education in a protest against the underplaying of environmental problems in the national curriculum.

Jacksonville FL Students protest Climate denial​

More than 100 demonstrators gathered in the bright morning sun to advocate for climate policy change ahead of next year’s election... A 7-year-old girl took the stage at Hemming Park on Friday morning to speak about [climate change]...

 

[aenyc]

Dimming The Sun – The Real Global Warming Emergency​

The world wide web is perfectly designed to spread despair, gloom, despondency and the opinions of all those who don’t know what they’re talking about. One product of this unlooked-for attribute is a continuous daily avalanche of global warming doom.

Every instance of drought, gales, hurricanes, forest fires and floods are now apparently the result of global warming. Weather has seemingly been gentle, mild and unchangeable until the last 50 years.

Quite suddenly (in climatic terms) we had that infamous statement from the UN Secretary-General: ‘the era of global warming has ended and the era of global boiling has arrived.’ ‘This newspaper,’ said the pontifical Guardian newspaper, ‘is right to speak of a climate crisis or emergency.’

July really got them going. ‘Some news outlets [source not given] have reported that daily temperatures have hit a 100,000 year high.’ The claims couldn’t get more ridiculous, you might think, but they did. ‘Scientists [source again not given] are predicting that July will likely be the warmest in human civilisation’s history.’

These everyday nonsensical postings are seized on by other parts of the media and are world-wide within minutes of them first appearing. ‘Nonsensical’ because daily (and therefore monthly) temperatures have only been recorded world-wide since about 1880, and even now are dubious because of the huge gaps in the spread of temperature measurements over both land and sea.

Meanwhile, some scientists have noted that in spite of Emission Reduction Resolutions being signed off at every annual UN Conference of the Parties from 1995 (COP1) to 2023 (COP27), emissions have risen constantly throughout. This is because governments, presidents and dictators have all understood that their people demand not only shelter and food but also a constant supply of electricity. The cheapest and quickest way to provide this is by way of fossil-fuelled power stations.

Those scientists have therefore come up with other ways to save the world from what they see as imminent climate doom. What about dimming the sun, for instance? Solar Radiation Management (SRM) includes marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, space-based techniques, and stratospheric aerosol scattering. SRM aims to cool the Earth (or stop temperatures rising) by reflecting a small percentage of sunlight back into space.

A UN Environment Programme report earlier this year said that ‘measures such as SRM are being raised in scientific and public discourse since global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not on track to meet the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal.’

The White House recently asked the US Office of Science and Technology to ‘provide a research plan for solar and other rapid climate interventions.’ More worryingly the world’s richer people have joined in. George Saros says cloud brightening (to reflect more sunlight) would be his preferred method. Bill Gates has backed a Harvard project to spray calcium carbonate into the high atmosphere. Jeff Bezos ‘is using Amazon’s supercomputer capabilities to model the effects of plans to inject huge amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.’

Back in 1978, the United Nations published the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. It seems they could already see the possibility of ‘weather wars’. Could SRM experiments be construed as hostile by nations not involved?

While some groups argue for sun-dimming others are warning of the dangers. ‘The risks of research,’ said the June issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, ‘are not always communicated by solar radiation management research advocates …

Idealized climate models, in particular, can erroneously misrepresent stratospheric aerosol injection as technology that can be centrally designed and easily deployed.’

There are many other similar concerns. 440 scientists and other academics have signed an open letter calling for ‘immediate political action … to prevent the normalization of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option.’ That UNEP report quoted above also said that ‘SRM is not yet ready for large-scale deployment to cool the Earth.’

Another website commented that ‘scientists worry that studying how to shade the Earth from some of the sun’s heat is a slippery slope toward deployment of solar radiation management without fully understanding the risks.’

But the temptation for some groups to save the world is proving too strong to resist. One earlier SRM research project was SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) from a group of UK universities and organisations, which ran from 2010-2013. Another SCoPEX, from Harvard, got as far as a proposed field trial in Sweden in March 2021 but the Swedish government stopped it under pressure from indigenous people and environmental groups.

Here in the UK last September, according to the March 2023 MIT Technology Review, ‘researchers … launched a high-altitude weather balloon that released a few hundred grams of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, a potential scientific first in the solar geoengineering field.’ There was a second flight in September from the launch site in Buckinghamshire. Andrew Lockley, an independent researcher previously affiliated with University College London, led the project.

A US company, Make Sunsets, has so far launched 22 balloons which, it claims, has offset 3,411+ ton-years of warming. Their system is basic, using a balloon, parachute and telemetry equipment very similar to the radio-sonde layout used by meteorologists for many years. The reflective particles are inserted into the balloon before inflation, the balloon expands as it ascends, eventually bursts, and the particles are scattered into the stratosphere, probably more than 60,000 feet above the earth. The parachute brings the instrument pack down gently (if it opens properly).

‘The science and math back us up,’ their website claims, ‘but we also recognize that there are unknowns and risks associated with stratospheric aerosol injection … By purchasing a Cooling Credit [£9 or $10], your funds will be used to release at least 1 gram of our “clouds” into the stratosphere on your behalf, offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon dioxide for 1 year.’

Dimming the sun will mean ever larger experiments conducted on the very air we breathe and the atmosphere we live in. Once initiated they will be impossible to control. Computers have not yet been invented that could accurately forecast the precise results worldwide. Any subsequent extreme weather will be seen as a direct consequence and the nation responsible for hosting the experiments could be sued for hundreds of billions in damages.

There’s more to worry about here than the so-called global warming emergency.

 

[Bob B]

What a surprise .... no mention of the eruption that has had a massive effect on the climate.

 

[aenyc]

What a surprise .... no mention of the eruption that has had a massive effect on the climate.

It doesnt benefit the narrative.

 

[aenyc]

Calling Climate Sceptics ‘Climate Deniers’ is an Admission You’ve Lost the Argument​

Almost everyone who has ever commented on climate change policy issues from a skeptical perspective has experienced being attacked personally as a ‘climate denier’. The insult is intended as a way to immediately shut down discussion by portraying the skeptic as not only wrong but beneath contempt because he or she has done something that can be compared in its evil and despicability with denying the Nazi holocaust. Far too often, the insult works, even in discussions before regulatory bodies where the level of debate should be based on facts, credible arguments, and mutual respect.

Rarely does anyone stop to analyse why the insult is completely misplaced as well as misinformed.

Let’s start at the beginning. The advocates of government action to virtually eliminate human-related greenhouse gas emissions generally believe that such emissions are harmful and, unless sharply reduced, will cause catastrophic global warming sometime over the next century and beyond. They further claim that this emissions reduction can be achieved by all the countries of the world given current and likely-to-be-available technologies at a moderate cost. Within OECD countries that represent a 32% (and declining) share of global GHG emissions, a further claim is that citizens should take extraordinarily expensive measures to reduce their emissions even if the rest of the world does not.

To believe this, one would have to accept a long series of related arguments.

I will divide the arguments, posed as questions, broadly into two parts: the ‘science’ series (and sub-series) and the economics/technology series.

The Science Series​

Is it true that current global trends indicate global warming and other related environmental changes?

How much have ‘average global temperatures’ changed during the period since the industrial revolution?

• Is there such a thing as ‘average global temperatures’?
• How does one measure global temperatures in history and are these accurate?
• How does one measure average global temperatures today, by surface instruments on land and sea, or by satellites, or some combination of the two?

Do the changes in global temperatures show any strong connection/causation with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

• Have the changes in temperatures observed to date preceded or followed the changes in GHG concentrations?
• Historically, when GHG concentrations were higher than today, were temperatures higher or lower?
• Is there any clear connection in physics and chemistry between increased carbon dioxide concentrations and higher temperatures?
• Is there any way clearly to distinguish between the effects of increased GHG concentrations and other global factors including solar trends, ocean cycles, and cloud chemistry?

Do other global environmental trends show a connection/causation relationship with increased GHG concentrations?

• Are sea levels rising faster than they have over the last few centuries?
• Is the amount of polar ice declining?
• Are the glaciers melting faster than they have for several centuries?
• Is the ocean PH level (degree of acidity or baseness) changing at a level that should cause concern?
• Are extreme weather events increasing in number and intensity?
• Is there any way, with respect to any of these questions, clearly to distinguish between the effects of increased GHG concentrations and other global factors such as solar trends, ocean cycles, and retreat from the last Ice Age?

Can we predict with any confidence what will be the effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations over the long term?

• How good are the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models that attempt to predict future climate changes?
• If we use these models, do they adequately explain even the changes that have occurred in the past?
• Do the predictions of the models since 1990 come close to replicating what has actually happened?
• Is there any evidence that the models, and the data fed into them, are being manipulated to make a more alarming case?
• Is it possible independently to replicate the results of the methodologies that some climate scientists use to show there is a problem?

The Economic/Technology Series​

How large a share do fossil fuels now have of global energy use, especially as compared to non-fossil energy sources such as nuclear energy, hydro power, biomass (wood and dried animal dung), and ‘renewable’ energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal?

• How does that share differ by area, especially between the industrialized countries and the less developed countries?

What is the potential, under current economic, technological and political conditions to replace fossil fuels over the next 30 years?

• What evidence is there, based on more than 30 years of climate conferences and commitments to reduce emissions, that the countries of the world are actually reducing emissions?
• What do the most authoritative sources of projections of future global energy supply, demand and projections, say about the likely levels of GHG emissions by 2050?
• Will countries be prepared to significantly increase electricity generation by nuclear reactors?
• Will countries like China, India, those in Southeast Asia, and eventually Africa be prepared to forego using coal, the cheapest and most secure source of energy for large scale electricity generation?
• Does the history of energy transitions provide evidence that complete transitions can be accomplished within 30 years, the timeframe within which climate activists insist the changes must occur?
• Will the price of fossils fuels, and especially coal and natural gas, continue to fall because of the high supply, thus giving consumers far less incentive to switch to other fuels?
• What will be the rate of turnover in the capital stock (of buildings, factories, infrastructure, vehicles, etc.) that will determine the rate of long-term change?
• Is it likely that there will be technology breakthroughs to lower the cost of non-carbon energy sources (e.g. grid-level energy storage technologies)? If so, how long will it take to commercialize and mass market those technologies?
• As complete decarbonization of the economy of a country or of the world depends on completely electrifying every economic sector and eliminating the use of hydrocarbons in electricity generation, is this feasible in technological or economic terms?
• How willing will governments and taxpayers be to continue paying immense subsidies to non-fossil fuel energy sources to increase their rate of use?
• For each OECD country, will the costs of climate action exceed the benefits in terms of global emissions levels and temperature/climate changes?

The ‘denier’ insult effectively boils all these questions (and more) down to the single issue of whether one believes that human GHG emissions are harmful and should be reduced. In other words, it represents a gross over-simplification of an extremely important public policy issue.
It demonstrates the ignorance of the person hurling the insult and appeals to those who share this ignorance.

Finally, it represents an attempt to shut down discussion before it proceeds to cover the many issues listed above. One can only speculate as to why the advocates of complete transformation of the energy system are so unwilling to engage in rational discussion and debate. Are they fearful that the merits of their arguments will be shown through debate to be so weak as to be non-credible? Do they favour propaganda over information and analysis? If so, of which political movement does that remind us?

 

[svetz]

What a surprise .... no mention of the eruption that has had a massive effect on the climate.

Probably because, while it did have an impact, the impact wasn't that big overall. See posts #3,525 & #3,544

 

[Bob B]

Probably because, while it did have an impact, the impact wasn't that big overall. See posts #3,525 & #3,544

You can only have that opinion if you didn't closely read the study I posted that has the newest data.P

Read this study with an open mind.

Long-term surface impact of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai-like stratospheric water vapor injection

The amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere after the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai (HTHH) was unprecedented, and it is therefore unclear what it might mean for surface climate. We use climate model simulations to assess the long-

www.authorea.com

 

[aenyc]

Look at what they DO, not what they SAY (Because they are ALL hypprocrites).

Millions Of Brits Told Not To Heat Homes At Night As Part Of 'Net Zero' Climate Goals​

Britain's Climate Change Committee (CCC) has urged millions of Britons to not heat their homes in the evening to help the government hit its net zero target.



No, they aren't urging elites to ditch their private jets for commercial, or not to burn 1,000 of fuel taking the yacht out for a jaunt. Chris Stark, head of the CCC, wants ordinary citizens to turn off their electric heaters (heat pumps) at night as part of a wider drive to deliver "emissions savings," which includes a shift away from gas boilers - which Chris, a hypocrite, still has.

Critics boil

"The grid is already creaking and daft ideas like this show just how much worse it will become," Andrew Montford, the director of Net Zero Watch, told The Telegraph. "It's clear that renewables are a disaster in the making. We now need political leaders with the courage to admit it."

And according to Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, head of his party's Net Zero Scrutiny group, "It is becoming clear that adherence to judicable Carbon Budgets and edicts coming from the CCC are developing into farce."

"The Climate Change Act 2008 will require amendment to free us from madcap and impractical targets foisted upon the population by long departed politicians.

"This latest advice to freeze ourselves on cold evenings merely shows the truth that the dream of plentiful and cheap renewable energy is a sham.

"I came into politics to improve all aspects of my constituents’ lives, not make them colder and poorer," he told The Telegraph.

Lower bills?

The CCC insists that following the advice means "homes will still be warm, but bills can be lowered," adding "This is a demonstration of homeowners benefiting from periods of the day when electricity is cheaper."

"Using electricity to heat a home opens the prospect of choosing a time when prices are lower, something that’s not possible with a gas boiler," he continued, adding "Smart heating of homes like this also makes the best possible use of the grid and supports greater use of cheap renewable generation."

The advice follows a furore over Government plans to ban the installation of new oil powered boilers from 2026 and force homes into adopting heat pumps.
Downing Street has hinted it is now set to U-turn amid warnings the move would increase rural fuel poverty and put more strain on the struggling electricity grid.
The CCC is an independent body set up by ministers in 2008 to advise the Government on how to hit its climate targets.
In its latest report, the committee criticises No 10 over its “worryingly slow” action on climate.
It states that Downing Street’s support for new oil and coal exploration and the expansion of airports meant Britain was no longer a global green leader. -The Telegraph

Last month Stark, the head of the CCC, admitted that he still has a gas boiler at home instead of an electric heat pump (gasp!). And he's not alone.


"I have a gas boiler. I wish I didn’t, but I live in a flat and heat pumps are a very difficult thing to put in there," he told the Commons environmental audit committee. "The gas boiler guy who comes round and fixes my gas boiler – it breaks very often – tells me they will never work."

Do as Chris says, not as Chris does.

 

[svetz]

You can only have that opinion if you didn't closely read the study I posted that has the newest data.P

I'm really sorry Bob, but you can only have that opinion by ignoring what you choose not to believe.

In regards to warming the study says that some regions of the planet may experience a 1.8°C average higher than normal by winter 2026 and that it will build up and then diminish to zero impact in ~7 years. But we have already experienced close to that regionally making the overall impact small.

Furthermore, this study is a follow-up study to determine regional impacts. Their previous study on the global impact said:

...could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035°C....

El Niño is at around 1°C impact globally, so it is having a far bigger impact this year and probably next year too.

Comparing Natural sources vs Human-Caused​

Think about it. The natural cycle takes 1000s of years to change because carbon sources are balanced with carbon sinks. It's not like volcanic activity is 100x higher now than it was in the Roman era. Now suddenly, in the last 60 years, it starts taking off. The math from heating due to GHGs corresponds to the temperature increase and the atmospheric concentrations. The correlation of anthropomorphic change is clear:

​

 

[aenyc]

He is an incredible shill! He ignores any contrarian post or opinion. Classic progressive liberal

Major Media Plans a Massive Collusion-fest to “Get their Stories Straight” on Climate Change - ClimateRealism

The Columbia Journalism School of New York City has announced a media seminar “Climate Changes Everything – Creating a Blueprint for Media Transformation” to be held September 21 and 22, 2023. The tagline for it reads: “Join leading journalists from around the world for an unprecedented...

climaterealism.com

Major Media Plans a Massive Collusion-fest to “Get their Stories Straight” on Climate Change​

Despite decades of coordinated effort by the most-powerful media outlets in Western society, voters still put “climate change” dead last of their priority list in polls. That is something significant that the media is ignoring with this new push. Or, perhaps it worries them.

It could be the progressive elites that control global information are so worried that voters “simply don’t care” enough about climate that they feel the need to redouble their coordinated efforts to hyperbolize the climate crisis. This arguably good news, suggesting that efforts like those undertaken daily at Climate Realism, WattsUpWithThat, and many other climate realist efforts for the past three decades have not been in vain. This principled and often lonely work of climate realists to speak truth to power has been effective, at least when you compare it to the sort of budgets these media giants have.

The low-funded David has struck the massively funded Goliath … if not with a kill shot, at least one that wounded him and got him worried that he might lose. The bravery of climate skeptics worldwide has proven more powerful than media because we have the truth on our side. Why? Because of what Goliath didn’t expect from us: climate skeptics have the courage to say the truth, and never stop no matter the cost.

While the Media writes about the supposed “consensus” and “settled science,” climate realists point out that consensus is a political, not scientific term and that science is never “settled.” On the question of catastrophic climate change, following the scientific method, testing theories against data, indicates that no such crisis is in the offing. Most types of extreme weather events are not getting worse.

The only thing keeping the “climate crisis” narrative afloat this long is the influence of wealthy elites in Western nations and the power-hungry politicians beholden them who keep pouring taxpayers money into the climate scheme for the purposes of gaining power by trying to control energy. Eventually, the climate panic will end. The Soviet Union was considered even more permanent than the United States and the Western capitalist model, for at least two generations. Yet it fell, like the climate crisis will, because the “science” of communism and socialism was as fraudulent as the “science” that says humans are causing a climate catastrophe.

I think Svetz will have to double down, lol

 

[MurphyGuy]

He is an incredible shill! He ignores any contrarian post or opinion. Classic progressive liberal

Major Media Plans a Massive Collusion-fest to “Get their Stories Straight” on Climate Change - ClimateRealism

The Columbia Journalism School of New York City has announced a media seminar “Climate Changes Everything – Creating a Blueprint for Media Transformation” to be held September 21 and 22, 2023. The tagline for it reads: “Join leading journalists from around the world for an unprecedented...

climaterealism.com

Major Media Plans a Massive Collusion-fest to “Get their Stories Straight” on Climate Change​

Despite decades of coordinated effort by the most-powerful media outlets in Western society, voters still put “climate change” dead last of their priority list in polls. That is something significant that the media is ignoring with this new push. Or, perhaps it worries them.

It could be the progressive elites that control global information are so worried that voters “simply don’t care” enough about climate that they feel the need to redouble their coordinated efforts to hyperbolize the climate crisis. This arguably good news, suggesting that efforts like those undertaken daily at Climate Realism, WattsUpWithThat, and many other climate realist efforts for the past three decades have not been in vain. This principled and often lonely work of climate realists to speak truth to power has been effective, at least when you compare it to the sort of budgets these media giants have.

The low-funded David has struck the massively funded Goliath … if not with a kill shot, at least one that wounded him and got him worried that he might lose. The bravery of climate skeptics worldwide has proven more powerful than media because we have the truth on our side. Why? Because of what Goliath didn’t expect from us: climate skeptics have the courage to say the truth, and never stop no matter the cost.

While the Media writes about the supposed “consensus” and “settled science,” climate realists point out that consensus is a political, not scientific term and that science is never “settled.” On the question of catastrophic climate change, following the scientific method, testing theories against data, indicates that no such crisis is in the offing. Most types of extreme weather events are not getting worse.

The only thing keeping the “climate crisis” narrative afloat this long is the influence of wealthy elites in Western nations and the power-hungry politicians beholden them who keep pouring taxpayers money into the climate scheme for the purposes of gaining power by trying to control energy. Eventually, the climate panic will end. The Soviet Union was considered even more permanent than the United States and the Western capitalist model, for at least two generations. Yet it fell, like the climate crisis will, because the “science” of communism and socialism was as fraudulent as the “science” that says humans are causing a climate catastrophe.

I think Svetz will have to double down, lol

The website this comes from was created by the Heartland Institute, which is the same propaganda firm that tried telling everyone that smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful to your health.

Even the dumbest moron on the planet would believe such nonsense.. but Russian Propaganda Trolls know that most folks don't put in the energy to look up the sources.


Aenyc is once again posting information to help Russia. That is all we get from Aenyc... Pro-Russian propaganda over and over. Just copy an paste..

 

[Bob B]

I'm really sorry Bob, but you can only have that opinion by ignoring what you choose not to believe.

In regards to warming the study says that some regions of the planet may experience a 1.8°C average higher than normal by winter 2026 and that it will build up and then diminish to zero impact in ~7 years. But we have already experienced close to that regionally making the overall impact small.

Furthermore, this study is a follow-up study to determine regional impacts. Their previous study on the global impact said:


El Niño is at around 1°C impact globally, so it is having a far bigger impact this year and probably next year too.

Comparing Natural sources vs Human-Caused​

Think about it. The natural cycle takes 1000s of years to change because carbon sources are balanced with carbon sinks. It's not like volcanic activity is 100x higher now than it was in the Roman era. Now suddenly, in the last 60 years, it starts taking off. The math from heating due to GHGs corresponds to the temperature increase and the atmospheric concentrations. The correlation of anthropomorphic change is clear:

​

So ..... Everybody is all concerned about the temperatures this summer but are totally willing to ignore an event causing a 2.7 DegF increase ..... it's only temporary. How exactly is the earth going to shed all that excess energy?

 

[MurphyGuy]

So ..... Everybody is all concerned about the temperatures this summer but are totally willing to ignore an event causing a 2.7 DegF increase ..... it's only temporary. How exactly is the earth going to shed all that excess energy?

Well Bob, maybe our space probes will spread it thru the galaxy..

If you possessed a high school level knowledge of even the most basic of sciences, you might be able to figure such things out. Problem is, you don't understand even the most basic science subjects..

 

[42OhmsPA]

Well Bob, maybe our space probes will spread it thru the galaxy..

If you possessed a high school level knowledge of even the most basic of sciences, you might be able to figure such things out. Problem is, you don't understand even the most basic science subjects..

View attachment 165213

 

[MurphyGuy]

View attachment 165231

Maybe, but in Bob's case, that's not saying much.. My 10 year old is smarter than Bob.

 

[Bob B]

View attachment 165231

When Murphy has nothing of substance to say .... which is pretty much all the time .... He simply resorts to childish personal attacks.
He isn't even smart enough to realize posting the same ridiculous things over and over again simply make him look more foolish each time.
It's clear he has never had any debate experience .... well, no winning debate experience.

 

[aenyc]

Never argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[MurphyGuy]

When Murphy has nothing of substance to say .... which is pretty much all the time .... He simply resorts to childish personal attacks.
He isn't even smart enough to realize posting the same ridiculous things over and over again simply make him look more foolish each time.
It's clear he has never had any debate experience .... well, no winning debate experience.

Bob, if I said something so utterly stupid as "spreading life thru the galaxy with our space probes", I would probably throw myself out a window in utter humiliation and embarrassment.

You on the other hand fight back and spent three(?) pages arguing about it as if you might be able to eek out a sliver of correctness if you could just play the word spaghetti game.

We could not "spread life thru the galaxy with our space probes" Bob.. stop arguing. Its disturbing that you're so ignorant you can't comprehend such things.

Its like they say "Ignorant people are too stupid to know when they've lost"

This is going to follow you.. so everyone who reads anything you post knows that such information is coming from someone really really dumb.

 

[Checkthisout]

Bob, if I said something so utterly stupid as "spreading life thru the galaxy with our space probes", I would probably throw myself out a window in utter humiliation and embarrassment.

You on the other hand fight back and spent three(?) pages arguing about it as if you might be able to eek out a sliver of correctness if you could just play the word spaghetti game.

We could not "spread life thru the galaxy with our space probes" Bob.. stop arguing. Its disturbing that you're so ignorant you can't comprehend such things.

Its like they say "Ignorant people are too stupid to know when they've lost"

This is going to follow you.. so everyone who reads anything you post knows that such information is coming from someone really really dumb.
View attachment 165237

Stuck.....like my guinea hens....You're stuuuuckkk.

 

[Bob B]

I'm going to ask Murphy again .... How much did you pay the human traffickers for your Ukrainian wife?

Could someone please let me know if he answers and I will take him off ignore long enough to see.

 

[aenyc]

What i would like to know is what language does he speak with her. English proficiency is fairly low among the general population there. If she does indeed speak English, what does she do for the living in the US? Did he meet her in the US, or did she come as a bride (K visa).
His pure hatred for all things Russian is interesting (there is certainly a portion among Ukranians who feel that way and rightfully so - it was Russia that actually invaded, but the flip side is that NATO and its handlers did everything to provoke the conflict by expanding NATO borders breaking the original promise not to). The vast majority of people have relative on both sides and it is sad that each side is mostly reflecting on the propaganda that is being pushed by each side.
What most of them do not understand (even a lot of my very own relatives) is that both sides are being played and the only losers in this conflict are people of both Russia and Ukraine (and middle classes of EU and to a lesser extent US).
Both Putin and Zelenski are advancing the globalist great reset.

 

[Checkthisout]

I'm going to ask Murphy again .... How much did you pay the human traffickers for your Ukrainian wife?

Could someone please let me know if he answers and I will take him off ignore long enough to see.

I was wondering the same thing.

It's essentially written law at this point that liberals will falsely accuse others of doing of what they are ACTUALLY doing and they do it pre-emptively to give themselves time to alter evidence and cover their own tracks.