Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,063
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
Consumers Are Rejecting The Great Reset
A friend got a rental of a Tesla over the holidays. It’s undoubtedly the industry standard for EVs and a complete blast to drive. The problem: It’s not a practical car at all. He was driving in the cold, and the car was nearly drained after two hours. Searching for a charge was no easy task. The first one didn’t work. The second one stated that it would be charged in 10 hours, which he didn’t have. The third one charged in one hour but that was a full hour wasted.His conclusion: This is indeed a glorified golf cart designed to keep you at home and under the thumb of the manufacturer. And this is just a test. The repairs are worse. Keep in mind that this is the best the industry has to offer. The other manufacturers of these things make products not nearly as high-rated, which is why so many of them are sitting on lots unsold and why orders for the machines are plummeting.
It seems like the EV craze has peaked already. Growth in gas cars is now far higher than electrics, flipping a trend from 12 months ago. Finally, consumers are figuring it out. This is a good second car, provided you’re driving in your own town, you have a hook-up at home and can charge it overnight, and you don’t suddenly have to go out of town. It’s a toy, sometimes a fun one, but not a real car. For that, you need gas.
The idea that this car is going to transition the United States to “clean energy” is absurd. If every car were electric, the grid would crash and rationing would be the norm. And maybe that’s the whole point. You drive only with permission. Nothing about your transportation is within your control. Authorities will decide everything for you. It’s a perfect strategy for creating a society of dependents.
Fortunately, consumers aren’t playing along. We still live with the remnants of a capitalist system whereby manufacturers have to make profits. So that’s a serious problem for the whole industry. It could very well collapse in 2024.
Sure, Tesla will still be around making luxury cars and trucks for well-to-do urbanites, and bless them for it. But it’s not for everyone. It isn’t even for anyone who has a long way to go. Even now, the only substantial pockets of broad ownership (above 20 percent) are California and D.C. The heartland knows better and so do people in very cold latitudes.
As long as we’re on the topic of fails, consider fake meat. Remember how it was going to replace real meat? Well, take a look at the grocery stores today. This is another product that has peaked. The stock for Beyond Meat was $196 in 2019. It has fallen and fallen. Today it’s a bargain at $8.72, with no one being particularly interested. It looks like this one isn’t long for this world either, which makes you wonder why muckety-mucks are still pushing this nonsense on us. Consumers aren’t having it anymore.
The same goes for COVID-19 vaccines, for which your tax dollars paid. The companies have stock sales and patents and a seeming public demand. Except for one thing: They don’t work. They’re also highly dangerous. This is an incredible disaster for both Moderna and Pfizer. The Pfizer stock is down to $28 from $59 in two years. Moderna has fallen to $100 from $384 in the same timeframe. They’re both sitting on massive stockpiles of these vaccines, with almost no remaining public demand for their endless boosters. They also face lawsuits with claims that the companies wildly exaggerated the benefit. In any case, they were never necessary for the vast majority of people and certainly not for children. They paid off the Food and Drug Administration to give them permission to even sell products that would never have been approved under normal conditions.
Once again, we have the remnants of capitalism to thank for this. Government tried to force everyone to get the vaccine. They succeeded among some segments of the population for a time. They also enlisted Hollywood stars and every manner of “influencer” (I hate that term) to browbeat people into getting them. Whole cities (New York, New Orleans, Chicago, and Boston) were even shut to the unvaccinated. At the very least, the companies and cooperating government officials should apologize for this disaster.
And so long as we’re engaged in this fit of schadenfreude, consider Mark Zuckerberg’s alternative to X (Twitter) called Threads. It came out earlier this year to great fanfare. Here’s a social media service that’s thoroughly censored! As if that’s some kind of marketing pitch. It was always ridiculous. It started with 4 million users, mostly by drafting the users of Instagram. Today it’s down to 1 million, but even they’re hardly active at all.
For my part, when I saw how Instagram was being abused, I immediately deleted my account and a thousand images with it. What a relief! As it turns out, I hated that thing anyway. Good riddance!
Threads was a disaster for this company, adding to the other disaster of Mr. Zuckerberg’s Metaverse itself, which is completely empty and boring. It turns out that Mr. Zuckerberg isn’t a good businessman at all. Maybe the movie The Social Network was correct that he merely stole the whole idea of Facebook itself. He never really had business acumen. And speaking of Facebook, good grief, what happened to this thing? There’s essentially no reach on the platform.
Facebook has turned into nothing more than an advertising platform that markets your data. It’s really only useful for its marketplace. Otherwise, what’s the point of this thing anymore? It’s a wonder that its stock price hasn’t been hit, not just yet.
Another piece of toast this year has been online learning. Frankly, people are sick of it. Classrooms should be real. The fakery of remote classes is obvious to one and all.
Even DEI has hit the skids! Wisconsin just dialed back all funding and froze the programs.
Are you noticing a pattern here? Markets in the real world are rejecting the “Great Reset.” Whether eating bugs, driving EVs, munching fake meat, or living in the metaverse with censorship, none of it’s working. We can only hope that this trend continues in 2024 and that it bankrupts the companies that threw themselves into the whole racket. Let’s hope the consumer marketplace can render its final judgment before all of this jazz becomes mandatory, which is the real goal.
In the meantime, let’s be grateful for every amount of capitalism we have remaining, because markets mean consumer choice. And when given the choice, we know now that consumers don’t like Klaus Schwab’s plans for our lives, no matter how much Bill Gates endorses them.
Cargo ship carrying burning lithium-ion batteries reaches Alaska, but kept offshore for safety
U.S. Coast Guard said a large cargo ship with an active fire in its hold is being kept offshore of an Alaska port as a precaution while efforts are undertaken to extinguish the flames.
apnews.com
Some good news, lol
What a surprise – European climate zealot politicians are not practicing what they are preaching.
As far as I can tell, the core problem is too much economic activity has been outsourced to low cost centres like China, including the manufacture of renewable energy components. Chinese manufacturing costs are lower than Europe, because China uses cheap coal power and possibly also uses slave labor to manufacture energy intensive solar panels and wind turbine components. But the European economy is doing so badly that Chinese prices have risen relative to the European economy, to the extent that European companies are struggling to afford Chinese imports. This in turn is triggering job losses and severe slowdowns in Europe’s green energy sector.
What about manufacturing green energy components in Europe instead of importing from China? Europe has so far failed to replace Chinese imports with their own manufactured products, because manufacturing solar panels and wind turbine components is energy intensive. European energy is too expensive to competitively manufacture green energy components, even in the context of rising import prices. Arguably German green energy is too expensive for any kind of manufacturing, German industrial production is currently suffering a severe contraction, likely caused by disruption of Russian gas supplies, and the complete failure of renewable energy to fill the hole left by the withdrawal of Russian energy.
Germany may receive some energy price relief in 2024, though not from renewables. Norway has agreed to supply enough gas to replace what Germany used to import from Russia. But Norway has other customers like Britain who are also desperate for Norwegian gas, so it’s likely the price Germany pays for Norwegian gas will likely be higher than what Russia used to charge.
The Chinese economy is also unravelling, but for a different reason. The Chinese housing sector is collapsing, and that collapse is threatening to drag down the entire Chinese economy. Structural problems such as a local government debt crisis, from excessive debts incurred by ambitious local politicians desperate to meet communist central government growth targets, and the close tie between local government finances and income from housing development land sales, are also weighing on the Chinese economy.
There may be a sliver of opportunity for Germany in 2024, Norwegian gas may revive hopes of local manufacture of energy intensive renewable components. But China’s economic woes won’t last forever. Whatever happens to German manufacturing, the continued European dependence on fossil fuel, and the complete failure of renewables to deliver a viable end to end renewable based economy, which includes extraction, manufacture and replacement of renewable components all powered by an entirely renewable energy based supply chain, speaks volumes about Europe’s structural failure to hit its climate targets.
“Lack of Commitment” Threatens Europe’s Net Zero Progress
What a surprise – European climate zealot politicians are not practicing what they are preaching.
As WUWT reported recently, it could be a lot worse than Euronews is letting on. The German Renewable Energy sector is on the brink of collapse.
As far as I can tell, the core problem is too much economic activity has been outsourced to low cost centres like China, including the manufacture of renewable energy components. Chinese manufacturing costs are lower than Europe, because China uses cheap coal power and possibly also uses slave labor to manufacture energy intensive solar panels and wind turbine components. But the European economy is doing so badly that Chinese prices have risen relative to the European economy, to the extent that European companies are struggling to afford Chinese imports. This in turn is triggering job losses and severe slowdowns in Europe’s green energy sector.
What about manufacturing green energy components in Europe instead of importing from China? Europe has so far failed to replace Chinese imports with their own manufactured products, because manufacturing solar panels and wind turbine components is energy intensive. European energy is too expensive to competitively manufacture green energy components, even in the context of rising import prices. Arguably German green energy is too expensive for any kind of manufacturing, German industrial production is currently suffering a severe contraction, likely caused by disruption of Russian gas supplies, and the complete failure of renewable energy to fill the hole left by the withdrawal of Russian energy.
Germany may receive some energy price relief in 2024, though not from renewables. Norway has agreed to supply enough gas to replace what Germany used to import from Russia. But Norway has other customers like Britain who are also desperate for Norwegian gas, so it’s likely the price Germany pays for Norwegian gas will likely be higher than what Russia used to charge.
The Chinese economy is also unravelling, but for a different reason. The Chinese housing sector is collapsing, and that collapse is threatening to drag down the entire Chinese economy. Structural problems such as a local government debt crisis, from excessive debts incurred by ambitious local politicians desperate to meet communist central government growth targets, and the close tie between local government finances and income from housing development land sales, are also weighing on the Chinese economy.
There may be a sliver of opportunity for Germany in 2024, Norwegian gas may revive hopes of local manufacture of energy intensive renewable components. But China’s economic woes won’t last forever. Whatever happens to German manufacturing, the continued European dependence on fossil fuel, and the complete failure of renewables to deliver a viable end to end renewable based economy, which includes extraction, manufacture and replacement of renewable components all powered by an entirely renewable energy based supply chain, speaks volumes about Europe’s structural failure to hit its climate targets.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,212
There is no doubt in my mind this guy is genuine ..... and genius level thinking ...... Not talking about Tucker.
"I'd much rather have questions I can't answer than science that can't be questioned"
Oh, and here is the website he mentions but is hard to understand. https://www.ceres-science.com/
Article about the sun ..... with links to studies that are the reasons for their conclusions.
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/has-the-sun-s-true-role-in-global-warming-been-miscalculated
"I'd much rather have questions I can't answer than science that can't be questioned"
Oh, and here is the website he mentions but is hard to understand. https://www.ceres-science.com/
Article about the sun ..... with links to studies that are the reasons for their conclusions.
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/has-the-sun-s-true-role-in-global-warming-been-miscalculated
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Anyone who thinks science can't be questioned should be ignored. Same is true for those who ignore science.
A conman wouldn't be good at his job if people didn't believe him.
Oh brother.
Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. They are just molecules like any other molecules. Why is ice in space? Hydrocarbons are just carbon atoms linked with hydrogen atoms (caveat for purists: coal is a bit different, primarily carbon). Both atoms are not uncommon in space. Plants and animals store hydrocarbons as "fat" and concentrate carbon (we're carbon-based after all), nature over time did the rest and that's why they are frequently referred to as fossil fuels. But they don't require a biological presence to form. Even us silly humans can make hydrocarbons in the lab. (ref).
Couldn't listen to any more Tucker beyond that, he's just too stupid.
Possibly this NASA article on Titan? Titan has a lot of hydrocarbons and an incredibly interesting environment. Personally, I think Enceladus is more interesting (liquid water on a moon), but probably because we know so little.
https://www.ceres-science.com/
Thanks for that link! I went to the lead author's website and found this interesting bit:
Where they differ is whether it's the sun or human-caused. So, at least they agree there is global warming.
Of course, there's also what NASA says:
The thing is, most of the visible temperature gains have been in the last five decades and it's been accelerating. But, as anyone with solar panels can tell you, the sun's overall output during its 11-year cycles hasn't been changing much during that time. Again, from NASA:
Ahem, NO, LOL
Most definitely not!
No, Arctic Sea Ice Isn’t Shrinking – The Daily Sceptic
Further scientific evidence has emerged showing that summer sea ice in the Arctic has shown no significant decline since 2007, contradicting the alarmist claims of the Net Zero zealots.
dailysceptic.org
In fact: Politics plays a major role in science. The cancel culture origin.Ahem, NO, LOL
Most definitely not!
No, Arctic Sea Ice Isn’t Shrinking – The Daily Sceptic
Further scientific evidence has emerged showing that summer sea ice in the Arctic has shown no significant decline since 2007, contradicting the alarmist claims of the Net Zero zealots.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,212
If you only listened to the first part of the video ... You missed the best part. The part about hydrocarbons was just a warmup .... He was just point out how the inflammatory term ... fossil fuels ... is a misnomer.
Anyone who thinks science can't be questioned should be ignored. Same is true for those who ignore science.
A conman wouldn't be good at his job if people didn't believe him.
Oh brother.
Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. They are just molecules like any other molecules. Why is ice in space? Hydrocarbons are just carbon atoms linked with hydrogen atoms (caveat for purists: coal is a bit different, primarily carbon). Both atoms are not uncommon in space. Plants and animals store hydrocarbons as "fat" and concentrate carbon (we're carbon-based after all), nature over time did the rest and that's why they are frequently referred to as fossil fuels. But they don't require a biological presence to form. Even us silly humans can make hydrocarbons in the lab. (ref).
Couldn't listen to any more Tucker beyond that, he's just too stupid.
Possibly this NASA article on Titan? Titan has a lot of hydrocarbons and an incredibly interesting environment. Personally, I think Enceladus is more interesting (liquid water on a moon), but probably because we know so little.
https://www.ceres-science.com/
Thanks for that link! I went to the lead author's website and found this interesting bit:
Where they differ is whether it's the sun or human-caused. So, at least they agree there is global warming.
Of course, there's also what NASA says:
The thing is, most of the visible temperature gains have been in the last five decades and it's been accelerating. But, as anyone with solar panels can tell you, the sun's overall output during its 11-year cycles hasn't been changing much during that time. Again, from NASA:
He isn't talking about a variable sun effect in the typical fashion .... He is talking about how the sun actually has a variable output. They have been able to chart these variabilities with a special camera they have developed.
There are studies linked on his website and his articles.
He also .... like many others .... sees that islanding is corrupting the global temperature numbers. He has numbers just using rural temperatures unaffected by islanding and gets completely different results from the IPCC ..... kinda like the videos this guy makes where he points out the a LOT of the temperature data they are using is affected by islanding or simply made up.
I am well aware that many of a certain political persuasion are going to be triggered by anything Tucker ..... Tucker actually talks very little and just asks pointed questions.
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,063
Could never understand how the global warming enthusiasts "debunk" urban heat island.
Not even that, a thermometer on a mountain top, said mountain top gets logged, you can see the temperature change on the thermometer from and adjacent forest being logged but yeah...buildings and pavement make no difference.
Oh wait no......they "correct" for it, leaving them chances to fudge the data.
So frustrating.
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,063
I can see it now, even on local Facebook groups.
People's language is now "dealing with the increasing storms and flood events".
The weather and flooding (other than snow!) has been the most tame it has ever been in my entire life.
When talking about our local area where we have large trees and a valley that floods. The transplants that moved here 10 years ago talking about how bad the storms and flooding in the area have gotten. ?
The propaganda is working.
People's language is now "dealing with the increasing storms and flood events".
The weather and flooding (other than snow!) has been the most tame it has ever been in my entire life.
When talking about our local area where we have large trees and a valley that floods. The transplants that moved here 10 years ago talking about how bad the storms and flooding in the area have gotten. ?
The propaganda is working.
I measured the sun recently when bought some more solar panels that were new on the market and offered at a great sale price plus shipped by fedex and ups. Amazon and Ebay. I was impressed they are lightweight. They have decent product face value the packaging is faulty but UPS - Fedex were rough on one particular package. We measure the sun daily with solar. Right? ??
I CONSIDERED These the latest greatest for affordable solar generation.
Full sun ~224 watts was Not bad for an advertised 195 watt bi-facial rated panel in full sun. Not so for the busted panel which put out “0” for power …bad packaging…..hmm 1 lick - damaged area and done. Would not want to put all my eggs in one basket. These eco panels are much lighter then my commercial grade bi-facial panels. The commercial grade panels lose similar power behind heavy over cast clouds. Heat changes output too. Hmmm direct sun generated heat degrades power too. Host of variables.
I wonder what a hail storm will do to these cheaper panels? ?? Imagine depending on these as an only source of power to recharge system - power output. I think this is good example why smart ppl should use everything at disposal to exist. Back ups to back ups. Why be numb skulls and try to eliminate a power source. None the less some Ppl want to regulate us to just this…solar…type of power. Clouds reduce power output significantly and being damaged for these type panels mean 0 power output. Batteries are storage. So SOL when batteries die.
Oh and read that crude oil is made from other natural means vs the old story of dinosaurs.… oil. According to US Energy Dept crude developed before the dinosaurs. Crude regenerates.
Oil and petroleum products explained - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
An introduction to crude oil and the products that are produced from crude oil refining.
“‘There have been numerous reports in recent times, of oil and gas fields not running out at the expected time, but instead showing a higher content of hydrocarbons after they had already produced more than the initially estimated amount. This has been seen in the Middle East, in the deep gas wells of Oklahoma, on the Gulf of Mexico coast, and in other places. It is this apparent refilling during production that has been responsible for the series of gross underestimate of reserves that have been published time and again, the most memorable being the one in the early seventies that firmly predicted the end of oil and gas globally by 1987, a prediction which produced an energy crisis and with that a huge shift in the wealth of nations. Refilling is an item of the greatest economic significance, and also a key to understanding what the sources of all this petroleum had been. It is also of practical engineering importance, since we may be able to exercise some control over the refilling process.Recharging of Oil & Gas Fields“‘
Are Oil Wells Recharging Themselves? | OilPrice.com
a look at the idea that oil wells can recharge over time. There are two possible methods in which an oil well may recharge; biogenic production, or abiogenic production
oilprice.com
So after reading that most ppl should realize they were Flanked by liars for the profits….. and controlled. Will they realize it or not? Gullible ppl will buy the story. Easy to do since they were not effected by those gas wars from personal experience. I bet you remember it Bob. ?? Some ppl were not even born yet.
Toyota and Honda profitted …..American car makers were sabotaged. US Workers lost their jobs. The USA economy was sabotaged. Accident Didn’t know? BS.
I lived through the gas wars. Bob what kind of dinosaur did you ride? Hahaha ??
Dr Soon in your video link is a smart man. The group that opposes him uses children funds and monies from Rockefeller Foundation which made their money from Standard Oil. That group also sues cities States and such in court and takes monies in that process from tax payers. They are crap head - money wranglers. Their primary other funder is a Philopatry - English Billionaire Hohn.
Center for Climate Integrity (CCI)
Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) - InfluenceWatch
The Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) is a left-of-center environmentalist organization that advocates in support of left-of-center policy aimed at addressing climate change. CCI has claimed that the world has less than 15 years before facing consequences of “existential proportions” related to...
www.influencewatch.org
Hohn is a real piece of work:
Christopher Hohn - InfluenceWatch
Christopher Hohn is an English hedge fund manager and billionaire philanthropist with a personal fortune of £1.2 billion (approximately $1.56 billion) as of 2019 and a net worth of $5 billion as of 2020. Hohn is known for personally contributing £50,000 (approximately $65,000) to the radical...
www.influencewatch.org
think both Dr Soon and Hohn was connected to Harvard. Did one of them plagerize like the Harvard President that is resigning? to much to much to much
Dr Soon went on about the covid lock downs not working either Explains they used it to scare ppl. The whole theme behind climate change is fear and scare. Wow TRUTH…. ???
Does this Billionaire Hohn have an under ground shelter with blast doors?
Dr. Soon sounds like a real person looking to a bright future.…. Just opposite of the doom gloom Billionaire 1%.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,555
Is "Fewer humans" an alternative you take seriously?
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,063
It's what "they" want.
Global warming enthusiasts liberals like Svetz believe they are in the elite "science" club and will be allowed to thrive once Maga and It's followers are destroyed.
He and they don't understand their role is useful idiot to help implement these policies.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
If you can pull out discussion items power to you Bob! Let's discuss them and thank you for understanding me not wanting to waste time on videos like that.
To me a warmup like that is just a sales gimmick to get you to buy into their idea by making a big reveal of an obvious truth. If the first thing is true, then the second must be too. It's BS theatrics. Real science doesn't need that.
Sure, if you look at the maximum energy from a flare you might conclude the Earth's surface should be a burnt-out cinder. Why aren't we? Because most of the energy is reflected back into space. Or, did he forget to mention that or show how it was accounted for? A great example of a high-energy solar event is the Carrington Event, one of the most massive earth-impacting solar events ever recorded. It caused buildings to catch fire. Yet, there was no significant global temperature blip in 1859 or runaway like there is now. | Solar input (yellow) & Global Temperature (Red) |
But it all averages out. As far as stars go, ours is pretty stable going through 11-year cycles. The graph just above shows solar energy vs. temperature. But if overall solar activity is down in the last two decades, why didn't temperature go down?
That's not to say solar events have no impact, just that they haven't been ignored. NASA writes about it here:
I have two problems with that. First, the IPCC doesn't do experiments so they don't have results. Instead, they assemble data from the scientific community and have panels that assemble it. So It's not source A vs. Source B. It's Source A vs. thousands of sources funded from people all over the world.
The second is if they get different results from the scientific community as published via the IPCC then they're just idiots because historically, the predicted temperatures in the IPCC assessment reports have ALWAYS been within the predicted tolerances. The chart below is from one of their old reports, I added the red dots based on NOAA values.
I again didn't look at the video you linked, but that was because I saw the guy is a mouthpiece for the CO2 Coalition, that is he's paid to get you to believe that climate science is bogus. Follow the money of the guy you're choosing to believe ... it leads to the fossil fuel industry.
Wow. Where the hell did that come from? For the record, I think it's stupid.
If it's something you take seriously you might be interested in #525 Would Reducing the population help or not.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,555
I raised the question because you mentioned more land for agriculture to create food for humans. Meaning, something that would support an even larger human population than we have today.
I believe the best solution is fewer humans.
And I am anything but stupid.
Human population has been rising exponentially for a very long time.
Wild animal populations have been declining.
I think that is a very big problem. At some human population, Earth could support them with food, with either no cultivation or moderate level of cultivation, not relying on hybrid/GMO monoculture and (presumably limited) fossil fuel and ground water to feed it. The damage they cause by cutting, burning, etc. could be metabolized.
#525? Watched it once. I think it is absolutely stupid to suggest that lower human population would not be better for reduced damage to the environment.
Humans do not cause climate change. The entire "Antropogenic" Climate change is based on FAULTY COMPUTER MODELS (just like the plandemic) and have a single goal - to reduce YOUR standard of living or to get rid of you entirely.
wattsupwiththat.com
wattsupwiththat.com
dailysceptic.org
dailysceptic.org
dailysceptic.org
wattsupwiththat.com
alt-market.us
www.minds.com
economicprism.com
Modeling Gone Wild • Watts Up With That?
Every once in awhile I read a news release and do a facepalm. I note that "simulations" are not "evidence" and chaos (and uncertainty) works backward in time too. - Anthony From EurekAlert - Venus had Earth-like plate tectonics billions of years ago, study suggests Simulations produced by a...
wattsupwiththat.com
Corruption Of Science By Money And Power
One might ask if the Rockefeller Foundation, once a friend of science, society and industry, is now a powerful enemy.
wattsupwiththat.com
Nobel Physics Laureate 2022 Slams 'Climate Emergency' Narrative as "Dangerous Corruption of Science" – The Daily Sceptic
The co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize has launched an excoriating attack on the 'climate emergency' narrative, calling it a "dangerous corruption of science that threatens the well-being of billions of people".
dailysceptic.org
Climate Models Come With 'Dangerous' CO2 Warming Baked In, Code Review Finds – The Daily Sceptic
An expert review of NASA's climate model code has found that it comes with 'dangerous' warming from CO2 baked in despite consistently over-shooting the actual measured temperatures.
dailysceptic.org
NASA Climate Model Fails at Basic Physics, Report Finds – The Daily Sceptic
A new paper examines the computer code inside NASA's Model E climate simulation and finds that it doesn't even reproduce basic physics correctly. So how will it get 50-year climate predictions right?
dailysceptic.org
Failed Prediction Timeline
FilterTopic1.5 Degree ThresholdAcid RainArctic Sea IceBiodiversityClimate ChaosClimate ModelsDroughtsEnvironmental Disaster/PollutionEnvironmental RefugeesFamineHeat WavesHurricanesLandfillsMelting…
wattsupwiththat.com
From Covid To Climate Change: Vehicles For Global Authoritarianism - Alt-Market.us
By Brandon Smith As I have noted in the past, the western world came within a knife’s edge of being...
alt-market.us
Absolute Zero: The Global Agenda Revealed | Minds
by James Corbettcorbettreport.comAugust 21, 2021As anyone who's been paying attention will know, Imperial College London played a key role i...
www.minds.com
Are You Willing to Starve for the Greater Good? | Economic Prism
economicprism.com
Electric Double Decker Bus Bursts into Flames in London Rush Hour
An electric double decker bus burst into flames in London this morning, causing rush hour chaos as terrified witnesses reported hearing a “huge bang”. The Mail has more.Daily Sceptic regular contributor Guy de la Bédoyère said: “I took that bus (no. 200) every day as a kid in the 1960s through Wimbledon. I’ll tell you this for nothing: it never burst into flames.”
Is France Quietly Ditching Renewable Energy Targets?
First published JoNova, NetZeroWatch; Greens are furious the wrong kind of zero carbon energy is being prioritised?What is going through the minds of activists who object to nuclear energy? France already gets most of its electricity from nuclear reactors, it wouldn’t take much more capacity for France to get 100% of its electricity from zero carbon nuclear.
Yet greens are wailing that renewables appear to be downgraded?
Why? What is so important about renewables? Why should any green care whether the emission reductions are achieved by nuclear energy rather than renewables? Haven’t they got a planet to save?
Energy Lease Hypocrisy: Biden Uses Taxpayer Protections to Prop Up Wind, Gut Oil
What constitutes a “proven technology” with “predictable income” to the Biden administration? Apparently, it isn’t the oil and gas industry that has been powering the world, raising standards of living, and making entire nations wealthy for well over a century. On the other hand, the first-ever North American ocean wind turbine installation – unpopular with people who will have to look at it and part of a flailing, not-ready-for-primetime industry – is a sure thing to the Department of the Interior.Per a recent report, on June 15, 2021, Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) waived the customary financial assurance for decommissioning on the lease of the Vineyard Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts. Decommissioning fees are typically required for every energy lease Interior grants so that if a project fails and the lessee goes bankrupt, taxpayers aren’t stuck with cleanup costs. Vineyard first asked for a deferment in 2017 and was denied by the Trump administration, but the Biden BOEM informed Vineyard the fee was deferred for 15 years into its 20-year lease. Why?
Well, the financial assurance fees were “unnecessarily burdensome for lessees because, at that point, they have not begun receiving project income.” Besides, Vineyard used “proven wind turbine technology,” and “guaranteed electricity sales prices that, coupled with the consistent supply of wind energy, ensure a predictable income over the life of the Project.”
But a June 2023 Barrons report said of wind energy, “Financially, the industry is teetering, with a parade of companies planning to renegotiate or pull out of contracts, jeopardizing plans for projects that were expected to provide electricity for millions of homes.” What’s more, “At least eight multinational companies in three states have quietly started to back out of wind contracts, or ask to renegotiate deals in ways that will pass more costs to consumers.”
That includes Ørsted, the world’s largest offshore wind developer, which recently pulled out of two wind projects off the New Jersey coast. Its stock price was down some 50% in 2023, and the company had “$4 billion in write-downs,” according to Barrons.
As for that “proven technology,” Siemens Energy shares fell almost 40% in one day in June 2023 because of serious turbine failures – failures that “might be a symptom of a wider issue for the industry,” according to CNBC.
BOEM, it seems, was overoptimistic about Vineyard Wind. Or they just wanted to give a plucky young upstart a hand. Or they were recklessly pursuing an environmental agenda, whatever the consequences for taxpayers. The evidence points to that last option. One need only look at how BOEM has wielded federal bonding against traditional oil and gas developers.
On June 29, 2023, BOEM published a proposal to amend bonding requirements. As the Daily Caller has explained, “The old bonding rules established supplemental bonding prices for lessees based on the net worth of that lessee, among other factors … the June 2023 proposal from BOEM would shift that calculus away from net worth and instead focus on the lessee’s credit rating.”
That shift would impact the 76% of the oil and gas developers working in the Gulf of Mexico that don’t happen to be publicly traded oil giants. Politico’s E&E News says it “would also protect some of the biggest drillers in the country from cleaning up abandoned wells when smaller firms go bust.” In many cases, the Chevrons and Shells did the initial drilling and then sold their lease rights to smaller companies. Under the proposal, these small companies would incur $9 billion in insurance costs that even the surety industry itself claims would not be financially viable. BOEM wants to finalize the new rules by April.
According to agency documents FGI obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, one of the reasons the BOEM proposal falls so heavily on small independent companies is because Big Oil had a seat at the table when BOEM was dreaming it up. BOEM met with The American Petroleum Institute and major oil companies about changing the surety requirements mainly in 2021. That was the same year BOEM gave Vineyard its sweetheart deal. Meanwhile, as gas prices skyrocketed, President Biden demonized those same energy giants.
Perhaps in the hope the crocodile would eat the biggest bites last, the huge oil companies fed their smaller competitors to the Biden Administration and its appetite for shutting down domestic fossil fuel production where and when it can. The proposal would drive many companies out of the market of completely under. The administration wins. The president’s allies on the left win. Big Oil wins. And Vineyard Wind must be laughing all the way to the bank.
If hypocrisy were combustible, we’d be paying $1 per gallon at the pump.
This is the best lesson and advice can offer:
”Follow the money”
You’ll often find them playing both sides against the gullible middle while they are double fisting the cookie jars. The 1% are building underground bomb shelters with blast doors. The 1% are setting up huge power generators. The 1% are building private Amies.
The - 1% are planning on being under ground for a while so the have huge stores - hoarding.
The 1% have created this show and Tale.
Where will the 1%’er minion be? Up here dying like the rest. ???? I hope my last words are “told you so”.
”Follow the money”
You’ll often find them playing both sides against the gullible middle while they are double fisting the cookie jars. The 1% are building underground bomb shelters with blast doors. The 1% are setting up huge power generators. The 1% are building private Amies.
The - 1% are planning on being under ground for a while so the have huge stores - hoarding.
The 1% have created this show and Tale.
Where will the 1%’er minion be? Up here dying like the rest. ???? I hope my last words are “told you so”.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,212
If you can pull out discussion items power to you Bob! Let's discuss them and thank you for understanding me not wanting to waste time on videos like that.
To me a warmup like that is just a sales gimmick to get you to buy into their idea by making a big reveal of an obvious truth. If the first thing is true, then the second must be too. It's BS theatrics. Real science doesn't need that.
Sure, if you look at the maximum energy from a flare you might conclude the Earth's surface
should be a burnt-out cinder. Why aren't we? Because most of the energy is reflected back
into space. Or, did he forget to mention that or show how it was accounted for?
A great example of a high-energy solar event is the Carrington Event, one of the most
massive earth-impacting solar events ever recorded. It caused buildings to catch fire.
Yet, there was no significant global temperature blip in 1859 or runaway like there is now.
Solar input (yellow) & Global Temperature (Red)
But it all averages out. As far as stars go, ours is pretty stable going through 11-year cycles. The graph just above shows solar energy vs. temperature. But if overall solar activity is down in the last two decades, why didn't temperature go down?
That's not to say solar events have no impact, just that they haven't been ignored. NASA writes about it here:
I have two problems with that. First, the IPCC doesn't do experiments so they don't have results. Instead, they assemble data from the scientific community and have panels that assemble it. So It's not source A vs. Source B. It's Source A vs. thousands of sources funded from people all over the world.
The second is if they get different results from the scientific community as published via the IPCC then they're just idiots because historically, the predicted temperatures in the IPCC assessment reports have ALWAYS been within the predicted tolerances. The chart below is from one of their old reports, I added the red dots based on NOAA values.
I again didn't look at the video you linked, but that was because I saw the guy is a mouthpiece for the CO2 Coalition, that is he's paid to get you to believe that climate science is bogus. Follow the money of the guy you're choosing to believe ... it leads to the fossil fuel industry.
Wow. Where the hell did that come from? For the record, I think it's stupid.
If it's something you take seriously you might be interested in #525 Would Reducing the population help or not.
It's really very simple to me .... If you are ONLY willing to look at information that supports your conclusions .... You will never be informed enough to have a valid conclusion.
The guy Tucker interviewed was ANOTHER brilliant Harvard scientist who had broken free from them because he isn't willing to limit his conclusions based on who is providing funding.
Oh, and the fluctuations in solar output he is talking about has nothing to do with something as simplistic as solar flares. Have you actually looked at rural only temperature data and compared it to IPCC data?
Sanwizard
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 2,733
The IPCC is just as impotent as the UN itself. Without US taxpayer money, it would fold. I lost all respect for the WHO and WEF over the last few years also.If you can pull out discussion items power to you Bob! Let's discuss them and thank you for understanding me not wanting to waste time on videos like that.
To me a warmup like that is just a sales gimmick to get you to buy into their idea by making a big reveal of an obvious truth. If the first thing is true, then the second must be too. It's BS theatrics. Real science doesn't need that.
Sure, if you look at the maximum energy from a flare you might conclude the Earth's surface
should be a burnt-out cinder. Why aren't we? Because most of the energy is reflected back
into space. Or, did he forget to mention that or show how it was accounted for?
A great example of a high-energy solar event is the Carrington Event, one of the most
massive earth-impacting solar events ever recorded. It caused buildings to catch fire.
Yet, there was no significant global temperature blip in 1859 or runaway like there is now.
Solar input (yellow) & Global Temperature (Red)
But it all averages out. As far as stars go, ours is pretty stable going through 11-year cycles. The graph just above shows solar energy vs. temperature. But if overall solar activity is down in the last two decades, why didn't temperature go down?
That's not to say solar events have no impact, just that they haven't been ignored. NASA writes about it here:
I have two problems with that. First, the IPCC doesn't do experiments so they don't have results. Instead, they assemble data from the scientific community and have panels that assemble it. So It's not source A vs. Source B. It's Source A vs. thousands of sources funded from people all over the world.
The second is if they get different results from the scientific community as published via the IPCC then they're just idiots because historically, the predicted temperatures in the IPCC assessment reports have ALWAYS been within the predicted tolerances. The chart below is from one of their old reports, I added the red dots based on NOAA values.
I again didn't look at the video you linked, but that was because I saw the guy is a mouthpiece for the CO2 Coalition, that is he's paid to get you to believe that climate science is bogus. Follow the money of the guy you're choosing to believe ... it leads to the fossil fuel industry.
Wow. Where the hell did that come from? For the record, I think it's stupid.
If it's something you take seriously you might be interested in #525 Would Reducing the population help or not.
The UN does nothing as atrocities abound globally( all talk, no bite as Christian village kids in Africa get their heads chopped off by Muslims), the WHO LIED about COVID, and the WEF is all for the WEF, and making sure us peasants do not take up all the oxygen and food they need for their whores and yachts.
As Iran targets US soldiers and Jews, and disrupts shipping in the red sea, the UN does nothing. Screw the IPCC. We have bigger things that need attention at this time, like fixing the voting systems around the world, and stopping corrupt governments from stealing all the money while displacing their own citizens with illegal migrants.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
You'd have to link the post so I know the context.
What you quoted was beano for cows, which doesn't really change land usage and is just one possible way to way to reduce methane emissions from livestock. Livestock produces a lot of GHGs as does the agriculture needed to grow food for them in comparison to alternatives. But, there are a lot of other solutions around that issue too (there's a post somewhere in the thread showing even direct air capture (worse way to go) doesn't add that much to the cost of beef, not that you can trust my calculator skills ; -). Meat substitutes are already out there and pretty good, but I personally don't think they're quite there yet. The macronutrients are good, but micronutrients aren't 1-to-1. That's not bad, it's just different so probablly not a full 1-to-1 replacement IMO. But swapping a few meals a week out with the current generation shouldn't be a big deal (and possibly healthy as you get some variety of micronutrients). Good thing as there prices are going down while real meat prices are going up. There's also vat-grown which is a 100% match since it's the real thing (just not grown in an actual cow) but I haven't been able to try any of that yet.
I'm okay with more humans, I think we have the technology to sustain some additional growth even. But that's a personal belief and based on the science mentioned in #525; which I now know you didn't agree with. The difference between our viewpoints is that although we could be doing more, we're not. As ESS prices go down capitalism will get us to full electrification, but from what I've seen it's not quite enough (but it will stretch the problem quite a bit) and it doesn't look like it will be fast enough to be painless (e.g., not affect people's lifestyles or the economy).
It would certainly work, eliminating the Earth of all humans would revert the planet to a fully natural cycle.
I don't think it is the best solution by any means. Not when there are so many other possibilities.
Yes! I've said that a lot too! You can always find something on the internet to validate your viewpoint. But who paid for it? In the example you used, it was the oil companies. If you want to know the truth you have to dig into both sides and separate facts from innuendo and see if their conclusions match actual facts. That was what caused me to switch viewpoints as this thread went along...there was a lot to explore, still is and honestly, I do learn a lot from some of the papers you've posted (even if we don't always agree on what they say ;- ).
Bring up some concrete examples that can be discussed. I'm open to new ideas and learning things, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Just please don't expect me to watch a Tucker video or data paid for by fossil fuel-funded companies. As Hedges said, we're all smart people, we can whittle things down to the numbers to validate it.
The most common solar events are: solar wind, radio wave flux, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, coronal heating and sunspots. These are all measured, so they should be easy to discuss. I'm not sure the rest are energetic enough, but willing to learn new things!
The main numbers you see from the IPCC are global averages, not rural areas. There are some general trends (e.g., more warming at the poles), but the models get worse the smaller the area as there's too much regional variability.
I'd say the biggest crisis is fixing misinformation in our society. How can a voter or a politician know what is the right course of action without knowing the truth of the situation including economics or risk levels? People are divided on issues purposefully for their own gain. People on both sides are 100% sure they're right, polarized even. There's oodles of information available explaining why one side is right and the other is wrong (for both sides) with compelling stories. Not sure how this can be fixed and keep society "free".
I read an article not too long ago about a Chinese destroyer turning away a ship trying to provide relief to a stricken island by using water cannons and how the U.S. wimpolians sent them a strongly worded text message, probably with emojis. I was fairly outraged until I looked up the island population to see how many people were affected. Island population: zero. Turned out it was a tiny atoll barely above water that no one lived on. But, it does have a long history of fishing disputes as it's a good spot to fish; no wonder it didn't hit mainstream media. Yeah: lies, damn lies, statistics, and the internet.
You just can't trust anyone. Dieselgate. Volvo Safety scandal, Piltdown Man, Clinton/Lewinsky Affair, Watergate, pandemic information, and certainly not fossil fuel companies about climate change who on the one hand say Climate Change is real, yet fund PR campaigns and denier sites. I particularly love how, after the first republican debate where all the republican candidates said climate change was hoax, changed their "official" stance after hearing the outrage from young Republicans.
Last edited:
Never forget this gem:
Svetz thinks that everyone is too stupid to participate in the decision making process that directly effects them.
PS. IPCC is utterly corrupt organization, anything that they provide has zero credibility.
This article pretty much sums up what "Climate change" agenda is all about.
alt-market.us
"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."
Svetz thinks that everyone is too stupid to participate in the decision making process that directly effects them.
PS. IPCC is utterly corrupt organization, anything that they provide has zero credibility.
This article pretty much sums up what "Climate change" agenda is all about.
From Covid To Climate Change: Vehicles For Global Authoritarianism - Alt-Market.us
By Brandon Smith As I have noted in the past, the western world came within a knife’s edge of being...
alt-market.us
"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."
Last edited:
Similar threads
