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

[LeoThomson]

 

[LeoThomson]

 

[D71]

Bill Ney is a mechanical engineer that turned comedian that turned host of fear porn..... he is an admitted globalist. He puts down Nationalism as if USA 1st is a bad thing. No Ney is not a scientist he is a political prostitute selling it to ppl like you as science. That is exactly why your science sucks in a gay way

Watch The End Is Nye Sneak Peek: Bill Is Trapped in the Ring of Fire - NBC.com

Watch The End Is Nye sneak peek 'Bill Is Trapped in the Ring of Fire' on NBC.com

www.nbc.com

 

[D71]

You can send Piers Morgan back home that B the queen is dead. Take kimmel and all the ppl that stated they would leave the USA if trump got elected. That is only reason voted for him to make them into liars. They didn't leave like promised. The View stayed too.

Johnny Carson would beat Kimmel for ruining late night shows

 

[svetz]

Well it is up [via webforum], well it is down [via webforum], well it is up [via NOAA], Well here is why it isn't falling [via Scientific American]

What that really proves is that if you look for it on the web, you can find whatever it is you want it to say, and they have click-bait to attract you there and keep you coming back.

I don't know what webforum is, Scientific American is generally left-leaning (ref), NOAA is generally peer-reviewed, but you have to be careful to be in their peer-reviewed section.

A virtual global shutdown should have been a dream come true for the climate ... but had the opposite effect.

Did it?

Let's look at the "easily" measurable data using NOAA's peer-reviewed data.
Well, that's odd... the data goes out to 2021, where's the 2020 dip and why does the line squiggle?

What's with the squiggles?
The CO2 PPM is seasonal, no surprise as the CO2 ocean concentration is based on temperature. It would be more shocking if they weren't there.

Where's the 2020 dip?
When you look at other CO2 graphs you can easily see a huge COVID dip like this one:

​

So, is NOAA lying to us? Is it all some great conspiracy?

Nope. But it does require some explanation to not be bamboozled into thinking so.

What the NOAA chart is showing you is the actual PPM in the atmosphere.
What the other chart is showing is gigatons of CO2 that are man-made each year. Sure, we made less CO2 in 2020 than 2019. But it was only a 2 Gt drop from the prior year. Overall, we still added 31 more Gt to the atmosphere.

So why doesn't the blip show up on NOAAs chart?

Actually, it does. Let's use an analogy you're probably familiar with. Day 1 you get a penny, every day after that the number is doubled (e.g., 2 pennies on day 2, 4 on day 3, 256 on day 9, and 1,073,741,824 on day 31). Every few hundred years half the pennies disappear (the half-life). How long until you are buried in pennies? Obviously, it doesn't take long. Fortunately, we haven't been doubling every year (but the historical curve shows it was trending upwards). Like throwing trash into the yard and not removing it, it builds up and up.

So, the effect of the Covid blip is diminished by the prior Gigatons already pumped into the atmosphere that haven't gone anywhere. This is often why you hear it said that anything we do won't have an effect. Obviously, that's misleading, the more we add the greater the problem becomes. Being net neutral by 2060 means the temperature shouldn't continue to increase after that because then we'll be adding GHGs (e.g., CO2) to the atmosphere at the same rate they are naturally removed.

Hope that helps clear it up. Gore may have been wrong, but that doesn't mean the science is confused (and Gore isn't a climate scientist).

 

[LeoThomson]

Johnny Carson would beat Kimmel for ruining late night shows

Come on now, Jimmy Kimmel was funny and exposed the hypocrisy to boot.

 

[Bob B]

What that really proves is that if you look for it on the web, you can find whatever it is you want it to say, and they have click-bait to attract you there and keep you coming back.

I don't know what webforum is, Scientific American is generally left-leaning (ref), NOAA is generally peer-reviewed, but you have to be careful to be in their peer-reviewed section.


Did it?

Let's look at the "easily" measurable data using NOAA's peer-reviewed data.
Well, that's odd... the data goes out to 2021, where's the 2020 dip and why does the line squiggle?

What's with the squiggles?
The CO2 PPM is seasonal, no surprise as the CO2 ocean concentration is based on temperature. It would be more shocking if they weren't there.

Where's the 2020 dip?
When you look at other CO2 graphs you can easily see a huge COVID dip like this one:

View attachment 137271​

So, is NOAA lying to us? Is it all some great conspiracy?

Nope. But it does require some explanation to not be bamboozled into thinking so.

What the NOAA chart is showing you is the actual PPM in the atmosphere.
What the other chart is showing is gigatons of CO2 that are man-made. Sure, we made less CO2 in 2020 than 2019. But it was only a 2 Gt drop from the prior year. Overall, we still added 31 more Gt to the atmosphere.

So why doesn't the blip show up on NOAAs chart?

Actually, it does. Let's use an analogy you're probably familiar with. Day 1 you get a penny, every day after that the number is doubled (e.g., 2 pennies on day 2, 4 on day 3, 256 on day 9, and 1,073,741,824 on day 31). Every few hundred years half the pennies disappear (the half-life). How long until you are buried in pennies? Obviously, it doesn't take long. Fortunately, we haven't been doubling every year (but the historical curve shows it was trending upwards). Like throwing trash into the yard and not removing it, it builds up and up.

So, the effect of the Covid blip is diminished by the prior Gigatons already pumped into the atmosphere that haven't gone anywhere. This is often why you hear it said that anything we do won't have an effect. Obviously, that's misleading, the more we add the greater the problem becomes. Being net neutral by 2060 means the temperature shouldn't continue to increase after that because then we'll be adding GHGs (e.g., CO2) to the atmosphere at the same rate they are naturally removed.

Hope that helps clear it up. Gore may have been wrong, but that doesn't mean the science is confused (and Gore isn't a climate scientist).

I wasn't talking about how CO2 levels were affected by the global lockdown .... I was talking about one of the articles D71 posted that said that even though the amount of CO2 released slowed down during the lockdowns .... global temperatures increased more than expected due to other causes.



That's a snippet from this article. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210202164535.htm

 

[D71]

Come on now, Jimmy Kimmel was funny and exposed the hypocrisy to boot.

Jimmy kimmel cried .... after trump got elected..... boo hoo Jimmy Kimmel cried a lot on tv
He has more estrogen then you do. Nurse him.

you do realize trump was orange. The rarest color of any human on the planet and your obvious hatred and prejudice against orange ppl is showing. Why so much hate? ??

 

[LeoThomson]

Jimmy kimmel cried .... after trump got elected..... boo hoo Jimmy Kimmel cried a lot on tv

Did he? And if he did, is there a problem with that?

He has more estrogen then you do. Nurse him.

Again you have some really weird fantasies.

you do realize trump was orange.

Was he? I never noticed.

The rarest color of any human on the planet

I would have thought Albino would be rarer.

and your obvious hatred and prejudice against orange ppl is showing. Why so much hate? ??

Is there no limit to your weird fantasies?

 

[LeoThomson]

I wasn't talking about how CO2 levels were affected by the global lockdown .... I was talking about one of the articles D71 posted that said that even though the amount of CO2 released slowed down during the lockdowns .... global temperatures increased more than expected due to other causes.

View attachment 137279

That's a snippet from this article. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210202164535.htm

You should read the article, it explains why.

 

[svetz]

... even though the amount of CO2 released slowed down during the lockdowns .... global temperatures increased ...

Hmmm... let me try phrasing it a different way. Hope you already ate lunch! ; -)

Let's say you really really like bananas. On day 1 you eat 18 (same as 1980 Gt CO2 emission) and toss the peels into the yard.
On day 2 you eat 21 and toss 21 peels into the yard (same as 1990). 22 on day 3, and 28 on day 4, and on day 5 you only eat 30 instead of your grocer's expected 33 (e.g., the covid blip in 2020).

Now the problem with tossing banana peels into the yard is they attract flies and decay very slowly. The more banana peels in the yard, the more flies (flies represent global warming). Before the last day, you had 89 peels and a ton of flies. On the 5th day, you added another 30, so you have a total of 119 peels in the yard even though you didn't eat as many as you could of. Logically, should the number of flies go up or down?

 

[Bob B]

Hmmm... let me try phrasing it a different way. Hope you already ate lunch! ; -)

Let's say you really really like bananas. On day 1 you eat 18 (same as 1980 Gt CO2 emission) and toss the peels into the yard.
On day 2 you eat 21 and toss 21 peels into the yard (same as 1990). 22 on day 3, and 28 on day 4, and on day 5 you only eat 30 instead of your grocer's expected 33 (e.g., the covid blip in 2020).

Now the problem with tossing banana peels into the yard is they attract flies and decay very slowly. The more banana peels in the yard, the more flies (flies represent global warming). Before the last day, you had 89 peels and a ton of flies. On the 5th day, you added another 30, so you have a total of 119 peels in the yard even though you didn't eat as many as you could of. Logically, should the number of flies gone up or down?

Ahhh .... so, you edited my post to make it have a different meaning.
During the shutdown, the additional warming that took place .... was not due to CO2. It turns out that the decrease in emissions actually caused more warming.
Assume for a minute that we went 10 years with the same emissions we had during the global shutdown .... what effect would that have on planetary warming?
That's the unintended consequences I'm talking about.

I don't fail to understand the cumulative effect of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere ..... Did you read that article?

 

[MurphyGuy]

Ridicule sure isn't going to work either, and as Bob points out, does you no favors. You say it does not work, and that's your opinion. The facts however don't support that, numerous studies have shown that disucssion is one of the best ways to resolve conflict [ref].

I completely agree.. discussion and communication are absolutely the best ways to resolve conflict.

You think you're trying to resolve a conflict, the propaganda pawns are on a mission.. no amount of rational discussion is going to change his mission.

Just as you believe Bob is blindly following a certain party's rhetoric, how can you be sure you're not blindly following your own party's rhetoric to just discredit the other side? By following their dogma of shouting them down aren't you building walls rather than tearing them down?

I follow the science, not a political party.

The PR deception is also larger than this topic. You can see the same techniques being used wherever there is a strategy to separate us vs them. From Woke, to Covid, to name-your-issue. It's by uniting us against them that gives two sides power to the detriment of all.

You want the sleeper to awaken, I assure you ridiculing or shaming them isn't going to work. So, find a path to what you want and fight.

Your premise is based on legitimate conflict.. that's not what you're dealing with.

I doubt anyone on the forums is secretly on the payroll of Hill of Knowlton. Occam's Razor points to your earlier explanation that powerful propaganda is being used to deceive people. Given that they are powerful forces, it's easy to see why some would think that way.

I don't think the propaganda machines work quite that simply. The Koch brothers spent tens of millions on an anti-global warming campaign, once you get that ball rolling, the pawns keep it going. That's how this works in the age of the internet.

It has led me to wonder.. Freedom of speech should always remain free of government retribution.. but I don't think our founders envisioned freedom of speech as being anonymous. Something to ponder.

As to encouraging it to continue, isn't that a good thing? Keeping the discussion alive allows us to talk about the roots of why someone believes what they do and allows us to get to the underlying truth.

Again, I think you assume you're in a legitimate conflict of opinion. I assure you, you are not.

I agree it has never worked in this thread, but my goal isn't to change their mind. Only they can do that. Also, I myself am proof that it has worked, people do change their opinions when they seriously look into the topic.

I completely agree.. you are not a troll or a pawn or a conspiracy nut job.

As a recent convert somewhat familiar with the arguments on both sides, what I hope is to be able to peel back some of the chicaneries. After all bamboozling people has been proven to work, so the pattern will repeat with the next issue unless the root causes are addressed. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

I agree again.. except for the part of trying to fix the root cause, which won't happen.

For example, when Bob scoffed at the narrative change going from "global warming" to "climate change" as if it was evidence of a weak science I knew exactly what to cite because it wasn't all that long ago I scoffed in the same way. (If other readers missed it, it's not that global warming has ever gone away, it's that once it was proved beyond reasonable doubt the narrative naturally changed from is global warming real to what do we do about it ref).

Yup.. and you better hope they are not wrong about a single iota piece of information or he'll use it as an argument to claim everything is fraudulent, then use that to claim other issues are fraudulent as well.

How many people are like Bob & myself that have been deceived? If you google for facts it's a quagmire and hard to separate fact from fiction.
You really have to dig in and be tenacious. Not everyone has that sort of time. What I hope is to be able to look at facts presented on both sides and get to the real truth. I even learn new things as I go.

How many people don't post but don't know who to trust and have heard the denier claims wondering if they can be true? Having an inviting forum for discussion allows people to ask questions safely so they can make their own decisions. But ridicule and trying to shout people down is the opposite. It makes people want to never return to the thread.

Wouldn't it be better if we just left the issues to those educated on the issues? Everyone wants to be an expert. Bob (and cohorts) are an expert in virology you know, and apparently immunology and general medicine as a whole. He's also an expert in global warming.. excuse me, I mean climate change.. and he apparently has the inside scoop on politics and how the entire scientific community throughout the entire world is taking payments to fool us all into lining their pockets. On top of all that, Bob also seems to have information on a stolen election, and probably secret CIA documents about 911 being an inside job. And he has links to click on too! (in all fairness, maybe the election and 911 was someone else.. if so, sorry Bob) Just trying to make a point.

People with legitimate conflicts of opinion do not follow the propaganda playbook page by page. Nor do they enter unrelated website forums to discuss their differences in the "general chat" areas with others. People with legitimate opinions will migrate to websites specializing in those specific subject matters and discuss their concerns with legitimate professionals to get answers. Unfortunately for these conspiracy folks, the specialized websites filled with legitimate professionals will usually delete their accounts in short order when they start spewing nonsense. Which brings them back to places like this one.

For example... I have a thing about the whole Dark Matter (DM) issue in the cosmos. yeah I know, its not some giant public controversy, but it's a big one in my circles. I don't migrate to forum websites for outdoor camping to proclaim my difference of opinion.. I discuss my ideas with real professionals... and unfortunately get shown how I'm wrong.. (bang head on desk). Why don't I get deleted? Because I have legitimate questions, and I don't make conspiracy theory accusations. When the professional gives me the answer, I accept the answer.

Ok, I think I've made my point, and I understand your point. We're good.. and I applaud you for your hard work to try to convince the conspiracy folks... and damn, you really do work hard at it... I just know that you're wasting your time, and providing them a stage to further their conspiracies.

 

[svetz]

Ahhh .... so, you edited my post to make it have a different meaning.

No, that's what I thought you meant. Frequently it's leaping to conclusions about the other person's motive that causes them to mistrust the other person. I don't believe you have evil motives. Please don't believe I do either.

During the shutdown, the additional warming that took place .... was not due to CO2.

Well, the article you cited provides an explanation for that. So, I was giving an explanation for the NOAA data.

It turns out that the decrease in emissions actually caused more warming.

Yes, post 15 talks about Anti-Greenhouse Gases, most of which came from coal and were lost when power generation switched to gas.

Assume for a minute that we went 10 years with the same emissions we had during the global shutdown .... what effect would that have on planetary warming?

That's a great question Bob!

So, have to ask... if you believe data showing stopping CO2 emissions increased the temperature - then does that mean you now believe that mankind can affect planetary temperature? Did you just become a believer? Or are you trying to use a scientific explanation as proof that it's not well understood?

Keep in mind I'm just an average Joe - but this seems to all be consistent to me, please bear with me as I ramble through my logic. Please note that nowhere in the article does it say, OMG, we just learned something new. It's not a shock or a surprise, it's just an explanation of the observable facts based on the existing science. They say "The counterintuitive finding" not because it contradicts known science, but because it contradicts the expectations of the media and those that don't understand it.

Obviously to believers is that the temperature is a balance of both GHGs and anti-GHGs/aerosols given nothing else changing (e.g., solar orbit). Some anti-GHGs are released by burning fossil fuels and their impact is a function of their strength and half-life. For example, the most powerful one we used to get from coal was SO2 (also caused Acid rain) and its half-life is about a day (24 hours, ref); so not much impact for long really unless you're a forest.

The article says:

The effect was most pronounced in regions that normally are associated with substantial emissions of aerosols, with the warming reaching about 0.7 degrees F (0.37 C) over much of the United States and Russia.

So, that's just bad science reporting because they don't give a plus/minus range of accuracy (the temperature change is calculated, not measured according to the article). It's probably in the published paper, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was in the upper range.

Anyway... Aerosols and particulates would vary based on altitudes and albedo which depend on exhaust temperature and conditions. Most Aerosols are typically short-lived (<day), but I know salt from the pacific can be found on the east coast so some must last longer. Volcanic aerosols that shoot high into the atmosphere can last months. This NASA ref says they can last up to 2 years (impressive!), but also says man-made ones are typically under a week. That jives with the article as they said the effect started in spring, so it probably doesn't last much longer than that.

When the anti-GHGs are gone, they're gone and provide no benefit. So yeah, if we eliminated all fossil fuels today (assuming no volcanism or other disasters) then the temperature should go up. It also shouldn't take long once the plug is pulled. But only some of them are from fossil fuels.

But that same science says not pulling the plug to avoid that means other GHGs build up and the temperature would also go up. So climate believers are just screwed, right? ; -)

Fortunately, the IPCC models include antiGHGs and aerosols. It's not a perfect science, but they understand it well enough to cite the range of their accuracy. For example, citing the article:

To conduct the research, Gettelman and his co-authors used two of the world's leading climate models: the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model and a model known as ECHAM-HAMMOZ, which was developed by a consortium of European nations. They ran simulations on both models, adjusting emissions of aerosols and incorporating actual meteorological conditions in 2020, such as winds.​

That is they used two of the existing climate models to calculate temperatures based on unexpected atmospheric changes. They didn't need to change the models or do anything other than put in accurate observations rather than expected future estimates.

That's the unintended consequences I'm talking about.

So yes - the temperature going up from reducing fossil fuels is just as real as the temperature going up from the continued burning of fossil fuels. But, it's not an "unintended" consequence, it's why it would have been better to start getting serious about it in the 90s.

 

[svetz]

I completely agree.. discussion and communication are absolutely the best ways to resolve conflict.

You think you're trying to resolve a conflict, the propaganda pawns are on a mission.. no amount of rational discussion is going to change his mission.

Not conflict, more of resolving misinformation/misunderstanding. It's most fun for me when I learn something new.

... I don't think our founders envisioned freedom of speech as being anonymous....

People have been using fake names on printed materials since the written word existed, how else would you survive the political wrath?
Remember Silence Dogood?

you are not a troll or a pawn or a conspiracy nut job.

But I am a wicked slayer of electrons everywhere, that has to count for something... right?

...trying to fix the root cause, which won't happen....

It definitely can't happen while it's believed it can't happen. Possibly I should downgrade my dreams a touch to just not getting bamboozled again, although that might be too much too.

... and you better hope they are not wrong about a single iota piece of information or he'll use it as an argument to claim everything is fraudulent

Doesn't make a difference, that's a non-sequitur argument. Besides, not trying to "win" or convince die-hard-deniers. Just get the facts out as clearly as possible. I really disliked the Bill Nye/whoever segment that @LeoThomson posted earlier. I get that he was up against a hard-core denier and was never going to "win", but the impression he gave just served to reinforce the denier position from a human perspective.

For those that watched it, the quote about Bill saying deniers should be jailed was way out of context, it was about those intentionally and willfully deceiving the public and causing harm for their own gain.

Wouldn't it be better if we just left the issues to those educated on the issues?

You mean like give candidates an intelligence test before electing them? There wouldn't be anyone left in congress. Hmmm, maybe that is a good idea.

For example... I have a thing about the whole Dark Matter (DM) issue in the cosmos.

Me too! & DE. Might as well say the hand of god rather than we're clueless (cough cough empty space curvature). You might like this, but off-topic so.... (if you have a local thread on this plz drop me a link).

 

[LeoThomson]

You mean like give candidates an intelligence test before electing them? There wouldn't be anyone left in congress. Hmmm, maybe that is a good idea.

How about a test on their understanding of basic science set out by "The National Academy of Sciences" and an annual score? Maybe add social studies?

 

[svetz]

How about a test on their understanding of basic science set out by "The National Academy of Sciences" and an annual score? Maybe add social studies?

Good start. Suppose they're not dumb? Suppose they're just corrupt? I suppose you could have them take ethics.
But, perhaps penalties for breech of honesty? Big ones. Toss in misquotes and out-of-context. Paid to whoever documents the breech first.

Update: Need to also fine "intentionally citing bad references", otherwise they'd do what the news channels do (e.g., air the interview of a non-knowledgeable person to illustrate the point they want to make). Possibly also fine "no comment", if they're going to vote they damn well ought to be able to comment on a topic.

 

[LeoThomson]

Good start. Suppose they're not dumb? Suppose they're just corrupt? I suppose you could have them take ethics.
But, perhaps penalties for breech of honesty? Big ones. Toss in misquotes and out-of-context. Paid to whoever documents the breech first.

Don't think we would want to go that far.

I think people should have the right to vote for any one they like, even known liars.

 

[svetz]

Don't think we would want to go that far.

I think people should have the right to vote for any one they like, even known liars.

I'm not saying liars couldn't be elected, just that they'd be fined every time they do.

 

[aenyc]

I'm not saying liars couldn't be elected, just that they'd be fined every time they do.

The government has investigated themselves and found out they did nothing wrong.

 

[LeoThomson]

I'm not saying liars couldn't be elected, just that they'd be fined every time they do.

Their donors will just pay the fines for them.

 

[svetz]

This was interesting...

I did spot what I think are some minor errors in the numbers; overall it doesn't change the conclusion that Hydrogen's got some issues to hit the mainstream.

Hydrogen is 2.36kWh/l and gasoline is 8.76 kWh/l. But ICE is only about ~30% efficient so that's about 2.6 kWh usable energy per liter. Hydrogen fuel cells are about ~50% efficient, so that's about 1.15 kWh usable, so not 1:6, but rather 1:2.3.

At 11:25, that's somewhat old data skewing the economics... it doesn't take into account the recent meteoric rise in the cost of natural gas. In 2019 the cost was $2.56 MMBtu, in 2022 the average cost was $6.45/MMBtu. While Wind & PV costs probably only went down slightly, ~tripling the low cost of $1.60 would be $4, so the margin isn't as great as it once was and certainly beats the SMR prices.

I didn't get the part at 10:37 regarding emission impacts. Solar and Wind aren't carbon-free, but they payback their carbon footprint back in around 3 years.

Had to delve into the paper to understand the loss of efficiency/increase costs from solar's intermittent generation. Turns out PEM electrolyzers operate around 90C, so during the night time when there's no solar they lose heat which affects efficiency.

 

[svetz]

What does it take to convert Earth to sustainable Energy Generation & Use?​

This was interesting, didn't really expect them to use Investor Day to talk about this.

There is a clear path to meet our energy needs that doesn't require destroying natural habits or to be austere.

 

[aenyc]

Why Are Net Zero Advocates So Self-Righteous, Given the Policy Depends on Child and Slave Labour? – The Daily Sceptic

The moral grandstanding of Net Zero advocates is a little hard to stomach, given that the policy is contingent on child and slave labour, writes Chris Morrison, the Daily Sceptic's Environment Editor.

dailysceptic.org

The Deception Over Climate is Even Worse Than the Deception Over Covid – The Daily Sceptic

Once the public understand the extent of the deception over climate, and the damage done to the economy and our children's future, the trickery over Covid is going to look peripheral, says Andrew Montford.

dailysceptic.org

For example, in a number of places, it says that decarbonisation of the grid will be ‘cost-effective’, but you will find next to no information on what it will cost. The game that is being played becomes a bit clearer when you read the reference to ‘carbon prices’. In normal usage, the carbon price is the estimate of the damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide, but in the CCC’s parlance it is an estimate of what it will cost to decarbonise. So, while it gives you the impression it has done a cost-benefit analysis and is going to be saving you money, in reality it is only saying that the bill to be paid will be the same as previously advised. It’s a trick.

Another trick is to assume that wind power costs will be only a quarter of what they actually are. For years, the industry has been pushing claims that they have brought about a cost-reduction revolution. The problem is that windfarms’ own financial accounts show that it isn’t true. And with new windfarms now saying they will not come on stream without further subsidies, the deception has been exposed.

I’m picking on the CCC here, simply because it is in the news today. But it’s not just the CCC. None of the bodies whom the public expect to tell the truth about the Net Zero project will do so: the Royal Academy of Engineering is silent. The Royal Society likewise. National Grid pretends the task is a cinch. The National Infrastructure Commission just repeats the Government line verbatim. Parliament asks how soon the job can be done, not whether it can be done or how much it will cost. Everywhere the tricks go unchallenged and the lies are swept under the carpet.

Such deceptions mean that we are storing up catastrophic harms for our economy, and for our children and grandchildren. Energy that was said to be as cheap as gas is actually going to cost three or four times as much. The costs of ensuring supply when the wind doesn’t blow are an order of magnitude larger.

And whether it was delivered on the back of a lie or not, you are going to have to pay for it. A huge pipeline of wind projects is in place already, each eligible for an astonishing array of hidden subsidies – the list is too long to give here. Once built, they will suck wealth from our economy and hope from our society. They will be hard, if not impossible, to close down – they have been made exempt from windfall taxes and the Government cannot simply switch them off without destroying investor confidence in the economy as a whole. If we do not reverse course soon, our children will never know the wealth we have enjoyed until now, just poverty and rationing and hardship. And all because everyone is too scared to challenge the lies. Just like Covid.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Why Are Net Zero Advocates So Self-Righteous, Given the Policy Depends on Child and Slave Labour? – The Daily Sceptic

The moral grandstanding of Net Zero advocates is a little hard to stomach, given that the policy is contingent on child and slave labour, writes Chris Morrison, the Daily Sceptic's Environment Editor.

dailysceptic.org

The Deception Over Climate is Even Worse Than the Deception Over Covid – The Daily Sceptic

Once the public understand the extent of the deception over climate, and the damage done to the economy and our children's future, the trickery over Covid is going to look peripheral, says Andrew Montford.

dailysceptic.org

For example, in a number of places, it says that decarbonisation of the grid will be ‘cost-effective’, but you will find next to no information on what it will cost. The game that is being played becomes a bit clearer when you read the reference to ‘carbon prices’. In normal usage, the carbon price is the estimate of the damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide, but in the CCC’s parlance it is an estimate of what it will cost to decarbonise. So, while it gives you the impression it has done a cost-benefit analysis and is going to be saving you money, in reality it is only saying that the bill to be paid will be the same as previously advised. It’s a trick.

Another trick is to assume that wind power costs will be only a quarter of what they actually are. For years, the industry has been pushing claims that they have brought about a cost-reduction revolution. The problem is that windfarms’ own financial accounts show that it isn’t true. And with new windfarms now saying they will not come on stream without further subsidies, the deception has been exposed.

I’m picking on the CCC here, simply because it is in the news today. But it’s not just the CCC. None of the bodies whom the public expect to tell the truth about the Net Zero project will do so: the Royal Academy of Engineering is silent. The Royal Society likewise. National Grid pretends the task is a cinch. The National Infrastructure Commission just repeats the Government line verbatim. Parliament asks how soon the job can be done, not whether it can be done or how much it will cost. Everywhere the tricks go unchallenged and the lies are swept under the carpet.

Such deceptions mean that we are storing up catastrophic harms for our economy, and for our children and grandchildren. Energy that was said to be as cheap as gas is actually going to cost three or four times as much. The costs of ensuring supply when the wind doesn’t blow are an order of magnitude larger.

And whether it was delivered on the back of a lie or not, you are going to have to pay for it. A huge pipeline of wind projects is in place already, each eligible for an astonishing array of hidden subsidies – the list is too long to give here. Once built, they will suck wealth from our economy and hope from our society. They will be hard, if not impossible, to close down – they have been made exempt from windfall taxes and the Government cannot simply switch them off without destroying investor confidence in the economy as a whole. If we do not reverse course soon, our children will never know the wealth we have enjoyed until now, just poverty and rationing and hardship. And all because everyone is too scared to challenge the lies. Just like Covid.

So the subject is sustainable energy and you are getting information from, and providing links to, websites funded by the oil companies?

Leaders of net-zero backlash are funded by US oil money

Net Zero Watch says it won’t take cash from fossil fuel investors – but we discovered a funder with millions in oil

www.opendemocracy.net

Stupid can't be fixed.