Category Archives: Climate change

The human cost of Net Zero

The war on fossil fuels is far more dangerous than climate change.

Article by Ralph Schoellhammer.

Excerpts:

The truth is that our societies are still massively dependent on fossil fuels. For all the talk of the advances made in renewable energy, the proportion of our electricity production reliant on fossil fuels has barely changed over the past 40 years. In that time, only nuclear power has declined as a source of electricity.

None of this is to say that an energy transition is impossible. A target of Net Zero by 2050 could well be met. But the rapid abandonment of fossil fuels that this demands would inflict misery and hardship on billions of people.

[. . .]

Canadian political scientist Vaclav Smil lists cement, steel, plastics and ammonia as the four ingredients that make the modern world possible. For example, modern healthcare systems need enormous amounts of plastic (for everything from flexible tubes to sterile packing), making it yet another crucial ingredient in the wellbeing of humanity. And without steel and cement, nothing could be built – no roads, no houses, no harbours, no airports. Plastics, steel and cement also require fossil fuels for their production.

[. . .]

Industrialisation transforms societies. The industrialisation of agriculture, for example, enables higher outputs with less labour, freeing humans for other endeavours. In the US, the labour needed to produce a kilogram of grain fell by 98 per cent between 1800 and 2020. The share of the population working in agriculture fell by a similar margin during that period. Not every country will have to follow this development path exactly – coal, for example, could be replaced by gas and nuclear. But what is certain is that no country will be able to industrialise and develop without fossil fuels.

[. . .]

The talk of leaving fossil fuels behind is not based in reality. It’s fuelled instead by a mixture of apocalypticism, hypocrisy and sheer wishful thinking. In the future, perhaps we will be able to power hospitals using kinetic energy. But right now, the costs of abandoning fossil fuels will likely do far more harm than climate change itself.

Remember that “record temperature” in July last year?

It was probably caused by three jets landing in quick succession at the airport where the temperature was measured

See article here.

Excerpts:

“In the light of our latest revelations, it’s time the Met Office made a statement about its claimed record at RAF Coningsby. It should either withdraw it, or provide convincing evidence as to why the record should be retained. If it does not take public action, it risks the ‘record’ becoming a national joke.”

“Last year was a warm year in the U.K. and July 19th was undoubtedly a very hot day, although the mini-heatwave had broken by 22:00, with rain in London and a 20°C drop in temperature. Five English places declared temperatures over 40°C, but all have problems with non-climatic heat corruptions.”

Solar Power Creates Waste and Pollution

Article by H. Sterling Burnett.

The article concentrates on the growing, and essentially disregarded problem of recycling of the panels. What the article doesn’t mention is the pollution due to the extraction of toxic metals from the ground which wouldn’t happen (certainly not to the current extent) without the artificially, government-induced boom in solar panels. Also, it doesn’t mention that solar panels get very hot in the sun and therefore increase the surrounding temperature and dryness in the atmosphere. That in turn draws moisture from the ground, and we get droughts.

The BBC’s position on Climate Change

Established in September 2018

Writes “carbonbrief.org”:

The move follows a ruling earlier this year by Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulator, which found that BBC Radio 4’s flagship current-affairs programme Today had breached broadcasting rules by “not sufficiently challenging” Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor.

Here are the essentials of the ruling:

What’s the BBC’s position?

  • Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.
  • Be aware of ‘false balance’: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier.
  • There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.

The UK’s weather in 2022

A publication by “The Global Warming Policy Foundation”, author: Paul Homewood.

Executive summary
According to the Met Office, the UK climate ‘is continuing to change’, whilst weather is becoming more extreme.
But what does the actual evidence tell us? Using official data up to 2022, from the
Met Office and other sources, this paper examines UK climate trends, and assesses the truth of these claims. The results are as follows:

  • Although 2022 was the warmest on record in the UK, there has been no increase in long
    term averages since the early 2000s.
  • The annual temperature in 2022 was well within the bounds of natural variability, and was
    largely due to long spells of sunny weather in spring and summer.
  • The summer of 2022 was only the fourth hottest, according to the Central England Temperature Record, and not as hot as 1976, 1826 and 2018.
  • Annual rainfall last year was only slightly below average.
  • The number of days with extreme temperatures is not increasing, as fewer cold days are
    offsetting more hot ones.
  • Long-term averages in rainfall in England and Wales, which have been rising since the
    1970s, are similar to the 1870s and 1920s.
  • While winters have become slightly wetter, there is little change in the other seasons. In particular, summers are not getting drier, as projections from climate simulations have suggested.
  • Rainfall is not becoming more extreme, whether on an annual, monthly or daily basis.
  • Sea levels have been rising at approximately 1.7mm per year around the UK, after taking
    account of vertical land movement. There has been no acceleration in the rate of rise on multidecadal scales.
  • Wind storms have been declining in frequency and intensity since the 1990s.

In short, although it is slightly warmer than it used to be, the UK climate has changed very little. Long-term trends are dwarfed by the natural variability of weather. Nor is there any evidence that weather has become more extreme, or will become so in future.

Jordan Peterson interviews Robert F. Kennedy jr.

The "rogue" Democratic candidate

Video here. (1 h 35 min)

>>>>>>

Update (24/06/2023): I heard a day or so ago that Youtube has taken the video down. Indeed it has been. No problem, see it here instead.

<<<<<<

Noteworthy points from Kennedy’s statements in the interview:

In the US, 70% of all newsshow adverts are from the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharma industry is a “criminal enterprise”. The 4 principal companies (he mentioned Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and another one I didn’t catch) have collectively paid $35 bn dollars in criminal damages and penalties over the past decade. For lying to doctors, defrauding regulators, falsifying science and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Pharmaceutical drugs are the 3rd largest cause of death in the US after cancer and heart failure.

Medical journals have become vessels of the pharma industry. The Cochrane charitable organisation has been an important counter-balance to this situation. [They recently debunked the myth that masks help prevent covid.] However, Bill Gates has recently started funnelling money into them, so he’s probably going to undermine them.

Kennedy thinks he has a chance as a Democratic candidate for presidency because polls show he would fare better against Trump than Biden would. However, the trick is to get this information out to the public, because the elite that control the legacy media certainly don’t want Kennedy to win (nor do they want Trump to win).

Biden won’t want to debate. Neither will Trump on the Republican side. So Podcasts and other alternative media are the way forward.

JP has this question: The Right knows where its “pathological” limits on the fringe are, and that is e.g. Holocaust-denial, racism etc. The Left does not seem to know an equivalent limit. Where does Kennedy see the limit of politics that can be countenanced?

Kennedy side-steps the answer (a bit of a red flag for me), he says he’d rather think about building bridges than disassociating himself.

JP clarifies that he thinks the left-wing idea of “equity” (equality of outcome) is pathological.

On the subject of climate warming, Kennedy says he definitely believes its happening and that man-made CO2 and methane are significant culprits. However, he is strictly against fearmongering and top-down, tyrannical solutions. He would remove all subsidies for energy and “use the free market”.

He exudes some naivete when he says that once the wind and solar farms are set up they will deliver free energy, all that is missing is a proper grid. I think he’s surprisingly wrong here. Solar panels will have to be replaced from time to time, as will wind turbines (and both will become hazardous waste).

However, interestingly he says that he is an environmentalist not out of fear for the future but out of love for nature (that chimes with me a lot).

Regarding Ukraine he says we have trapped the Ukrainians in a supposedly humanitarian mission. All we are doing is extending the war, therefore shovelling money into the US military-industrial complex.

Video: World Health Organisation ‘desperate’ to have global pandemic treaty

Sky News Australia

Sky News Australia discuss the WHO’s drive to a global pandemic treaty and correctly recognise that this is a crucial world government building block. A path towards a new Tower of Babel. They also correctly recognise the fact that the pattern resembles the discussion on climate change. It’s not left vs. right but authoritarianism vs. freedom. The collective “greater good” vs. individualism. (6 min)

They are going after your kids

Insidious propaganda from the BBC

The BBC is incentivising children to break the commandment tohonour father and mother.

Writes Eric Meder in his newsletter of today:

The worst type of manipulation is one that targets children. And that is the kind of manipulation that Big Tech companies and the Government are doing. Recently, the BBC released an article called “Earth Day: How to talk to your parents about climate change”

[See here, remove gap: www.bbc. co.uk/news/science-environment-65339214?ck_subscriber_id=1916028067]

The start of the article says “You want to go vegan to help the planet, but you’re not paying for the shopping. You think trains are better than planes, but your dad books the summer holiday. Young people are some of the world’s most powerful climate leaders and want rapid action to tackle the problem.”

This is very manipulative writing. It’s using phrases like “you want” to put the reader in a position that they might not even be in. Then, they reinforce it by trying to be relatable.

It’s easy to read something like this when you are young and identify with it. Because they are writing it in a specific way. A self-righteous way. They are telling the children that it’s their DUTY to educate their parents.

This makes the children think that they have a responsibility. And they reinforce that responsibility with social pressure.

In the article they talk about three different points, How to talk about going meat-free, How to talk about flying less, and How to talk about being waste free.

Throughout the article they ask young kids/adults for advice on how they can talk to (or manipulate) their parents into following these agendas.

So, let’s take a look at these three different points and the advice that BBC is giving out to children in talking to their parents.

In the first point, How to talk about going meat-free, they talk about Ilse, who at 13 years old did research about climate change and read that cutting out red meat was a good start.

Because of this information she decided to go vegetarian. Her parents admitted that at first it was a burden, but they adapted and started cooking only vegetarian meals even though they all miss the flavor of meat.

Then in the second point, How to talk about flying less, a 21 year old named Phoebe convinced her family to go somewhere by train instead of flying abroad. Phoebe’s advice to children is ”Say something like, ‘I’m really scared about my future, these are the reason I want to do something’,”

That’s not great advice, in fact it sounds like borderline fear tactics or emotional blackmail.

Finally, in the third point, How to talk about being waste-free, in this section a 20 year old named Becky convinced her family to be waste free. She said that you need to be well-informed to show your family you have done your research.

And after that, she says you should do things like “explain why it will make their lives easier or cheaper,” and “Make connections with things they care about.”.

I was shocked when I read this article. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate children.

They even mentioned a UK based campaign called ‘Teach the Parent’ in the article.

It’s shameless to go after the youth for spreading an agenda, especially this deceptively. Members of the youth have a key role, and that is to learn, not teach.

And as adults, you have an important role as well. And that role is to teach. And part of teaching is understanding.

You have to understand that the youth of today is being manipulated.

So, when you hear them preaching, and you hear them feeling self-righteous, remember it is because of manipulation. And instead of getting angry at them, we need to retaliate with calm education.

If we get angry at the younger generation for being this way, it will only add fuel to their fire.

If you have kids, I recommend that you keep a close eye on what they consume content wise. And make sure that you teach them critical thinking skills. Because if they don’t think for themselves, someone else will think for them.

I hope you enjoyed this article. Please share our blog with your friends and family. Thank you! Eric Meder