Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Climate scientists have acted to ensure the world receives their narrative as quickly as possible, whenever a severe weather event strikes.
‘I am an optimistic person’: the scientist who studies climate catastrophes
Friederike Otto, a member of the world’s only rapid reaction force of climate scientists, on looking into the apocalypse of extreme weather
Sandra Laville Environment correspondent Fri 30 Dec 2022 01.30 AEDT
…
Otto, known as Fredi, and a small team of researchers are the world’s only rapid reaction force of climate scientists. They target extreme weather across the world almost as it happens, reach out to local people on the ground, and carry out deep, rigorous statistical analysis, which is transforming our understanding of how human-caused global heating is affecting the planet and our lives.
Until now, scientists have had to be equivocal about whether a single weather event is linked to global heating. Otto’s work makes the connection between the string of disasters the world is suffering and global heating, much clearer. Her work was recognised internationally in 2021 when she was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people.
…
The journey from the creation of the World Weather Attribution unit to its current iteration, began with a paper Otto and Oldenborgh wrote on a heatwave in Russia in 2010. It was a classical academic paper, peer reviewed and published long after the event.
…
This last study drew her up short by the starkness of its findings. “One of the biggest scientific surprises for me this year was the floods in Nigeria because there was such a huge climate change impact,” said Otto. “They were made 80 times more likely as a result of climate change. That makes me think: ‘Oh wow, there is really a lot that we don’t understand in Africa’.”
Households across Britain are being punished with a ‘stealth tax’ on their energy bills amounting to billions of pounds to pay for the bailout of dozens of electricity and gas supply companies.
This really is a grossly dishonest, scurrillous and factually inaccurate piece:
Households across Britain are being punished with a ‘stealth tax’ on their energy bills amounting to billions of pounds to pay for the bailout of dozens of electricity and gas supply companies.
Campaigners have condemned the increases to the levy, which has soared over the past 12 months – and now costs bill-payers around £273 each.
The inflation-busting figure does not include the £6.5 billion cost to the taxpayer of bailing out controversial start-up company Bulb, which had 1.7 million customers when it suddenly collapsed.
The money is not being spent “to bail out energy firms”; this would mean that the money has gone to those failed companies in order to keep them going.
The system of Supplier of Last Resort has been operating since 2008. It was set up to protect energy customers in the event of their supplier going bust, where there would have been a danger of being left without electricity and gas, losing credit balances on their accounts etc. Under the mechanism, OFGEM appoint a new supplier to take over.
The new supplier is quite rightly allowed to claim back any additional costs from a fund paid for by an industry levy on Distribution Use of System Charges. All energy suppliers pay this levy, and currently the charge is built into the Energy Price Cap.
Originally the claims on the levy were tiny, but in the last year or two have rocketed. Energy suppliers have often lost money recently as energy market prices have outstripped the Energy Price Cap. Furthermore, whereas suppliers may have fixed the prices they pay in advance for their existing customer base, they would need to pay current prices for any new dollop of customers handed over by OFGEM.
In short, the money, even the Bulb “bailout” has gone to protect customers of these failed companies.
The Mail ignores the two underlying policy errors made, which have largely contributed to this crisis:
1) The Energy Price Cap – many smaller companies have gone under in the last two years because the Cap was set far too low. Or, more to the point, the Cap was fixed for six month periods during which market prices rose rapidly.
It has been the media above all who pushed for the Cap in the first place.
2) Smaller energy companies were not only allowed to proliferate without any real checks on their financial stability, they were actually encouraged to. Politicians and media have regularly attacked the big energy companies for ripping customers off (partly to divert attention away from the green subsidies which have forced up electricity prices). They have encouraged customers instead to move to smaller companies, more often than not boasting fake green credentials.
There is an issue of how these costs are passed on to customers. Currently it is done through Standing Charges, so each customer pays the same; this obviously can be regressive. However, OFGEM took a hard look at this a few months ago. They argued that to add the cost on to the price of energy would penalise those vulnerable people who use more energy:
“Following a review of one part of electricity standing charges covering the cost of supplier failures, we looked long and hard at whether moving the costs from standing charges to usage was the right thing to do, but the numbers just didn’t stack up.
“Our analysis shows it would disproportionately negatively affect some of the most vulnerable consumers who use high amounts of energy and are least able to reduce their use, such as those with disabilities and the elderly, while resulting in minimal savings for those it would benefit – around just £1 a month.”
Whichever way is chosen, customers still end up paying. But for the Mail to claim that “pensioners pay the most” is an outright lie.
Meanwhile, if they want to report on real bailouts, maybe the Mail should mention the German government, which has already injected billions into Uniper, to stop them going broke. And many more bailouts will follow.
‘Net zero by 2050” is more than a slogan of climate activism. It has become a chief organizational principle for multinational corporations and the BlackRock-led cartel pushing environmental, social and corporate governance investing.
‘Net zero by 2050” is more than a slogan of climate activism. It has become a chief organizational principle for multinational corporations and the BlackRock-led cartel pushing environmental, social and corporate governance investing.
“Net zero” was mentioned in more than 6,000 filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2022 and countless other times by publicly traded corporations and investor groups in statements and on their websites. The SEC says its proposed climate disclosure rule will help investors “evaluate the progress in meeting net-zero commitments and assessing any associated risks.”
“Net zero” and its corollary, the “energy transition,” are talked about so often and so loosely that many take them for granted as worthy goals that could be accomplished with greater buy-in from political and business leaders. But two new reports from the utility industry should put an end to such loose talk.
In September, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry, released a report titled “Net-Zero 2050: U.S. Economy-Wide Deep Decarbonization Scenario Analysis.”
The EPRI report concludes that the utility industry can’t attain net zero. “This study shows that clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency . . . are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions.”
In other words, no amount of wind turbines, solar panels, hydropower, nuclear power, battery power, electrification of fossil-fuel technologies or energy-efficiency technologies will get us to net zero by 2050.
Even to achieve “deep decarbonization”—which isn’t net zero—by 2050, EPRI says, “a broad portfolio of options that includes low-carbon fuels and carbon removal technologies will be required.”
But “low-carbon fuels”—efficient biofuels—don’t exist. “Carbon removal technologies” aren’t possible to scale up, and if they were, it would cost about $1 quadrillion—a million billion dollars—at today’s prices to remove the 1.6 trillion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide that U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said needs to be sucked “out of the atmosphere even after we get to net zero.”
There’s more. The EPRI report states: “This study does not include a detailed assessment of factors such as supply chain constraints [and] operational reliability and resiliency” of a net-zero electricity grid.
How a net-zero grid could be built and function would be an issue worth studying if it were possible in the first place. But it simply isn’t.
So, barring some unforeseen miracle technology, “net zero by 2050” won’t happen.
The curious thing about the report is that it has largely remained an EPRI secret. There has been no media coverage of it. I found out about it only after I filed a shareholder proposal about net zero with the electric utility Alliant Energy. The company offered the report as a defense against my proposal that management explain how it planned to reach its goal of net zero by 2050.
The other recent report is “2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment” from the North American Electric Reliability Corp., a government-certified grid-reliability and standard-setting group. NERC concluded that fossil-fuel plants are being removed from the grid too fast to meet continuing electricity demand, and that is putting most of the country at risk of grid failure and blackouts during extreme weather. The U.S. just got another taste of this during the Christmas electric-grid emergency.
So there you have it: We are dangerously dismantling our electric grid while burdening it with more demand in hope of attaining the goal of “net zero by 2050,” which the utility industry has admitted is a fantasy.
Congress should hold hearings on “net zero by 2050” goals before real disaster happens. It should bring in witnesses from utilities, public-service commissions, grid operators, regulators and the ESG cartel and have them explain under oath how they plan to accomplish the impossible.
Mr. Milloy is a senior fellow with the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
Appeared in the December 29, 2022, print edition as “A Quiet Refutation Of ‘Net Zero’”.
No mention of climate change in either report, just talk of nature and offshore dredging.
Meanwhile the BGS study, which I believe is from 2006, on Happisburgh is worth reading:
Happisburgh, on Norfolk’s North Sea coast, is a village with a population of 1400 people in about 600 houses. The village contains a notable stone church dating from the 14th century, an impressive manor house, listed buildings and a famous red and white striped lighthouse.
Although now a coastal village, Happisburgh was once some distance from the sea, parted from the coast by the parish of Whimpwell, long since eroded away. Historic records indicate that over 250 m of land were lost between 1600 and 1850.
More recently the village was affected by the tragic floods of 1953 that claimed the lives of 76 Norfolk residents.
Coastal defences built at Happisburgh have slowed down the rate of retreat. However, large sections are now in disrepair. Sea-level rise and climate change, including increased storminess, may also increase the rate of erosion….
It is likely that the Norfolk cliffs have been eroding at the present rate for about the last 5000 years, when sea level rose to within a metre or two of its present position (Clayton, 1989). Therefore, the future predictions of sea-level rise and storm frequency due to climate change are likely to have a profound impact on coastal erosion and serious consequences for the effectiveness of coastal protection and sea defence schemes in East Anglia in the near future (Thomalla and Vincent, 2003).
It is likely that the Norfolk cliffs have been eroding at the present rate for about the last 5000 years
Sure, they say that climate change MAY increase the rate of erosion, but this is mere speculation, and in 2006 there was no evidence it was actually happening.
Secondly there is a case study on Internet Geography, with a useful video:
Happisburgh (pronounced “Haze-bro”) is a settlement located on the Norfolk coast, eastern England. It has a population of around 1400 people in 600 houses. Although now a coastal village, this was not always the case. When founded over 1000 years ago, there was another village separating Happisbourgh from the sea. Historical records indicate that over 250m of land was lost between 1600 and 1850.
Happisburgh, situated to the southern end of one of the most active stretches of the Norfolk coast, is one of the primary providers of sediment for beaches along the east Norfolk coast. The coastal part of the village is subject to frequent coastal erosion: houses that used to be over 20 feet (6 m) from the sea now sit at the edge of a cliff and are expected to fall into the sea.
Sea Defences at Happisburgh
The civil parish shrank by over 0.2 km² in the 20th century by the erosion of its beaches and low cliffs. Groynes were constructed along the shore to try to stop erosion during the 1950s.
Sea defences were built in 1959 to slow the erosion. Changes in government policy mean that coastal protection in Happisburgh is no longer fundable from central government. The road (Beach Road) that leads into the sea is being steadily eroded.
A wooden revetment once stretched from Happisburgh to the Cart Gap seawall, but in 1990 a storm destroyed about 300 metres of it to the east of Happisburgh. The rate of erosion increased rapidly following the destruction of the wooden revetment.
In 1996 the remaining revetment was further damaged by storms, and another length was lost. At the time six cliff-top properties were lost.
They’re lying. They know they’re lying. But they carry on lying anyway:
In a small village on the north Norfolk coast, some residents are wondering how long they’ve got left in their homes before they are lost to the sea.
During the last 20 years, 34 homes have crumbled into the water in Happisburgh because of coastal erosion. Nicola Bayless thinks her home could be the next. She says she is devastated that she might have just spent her last Christmas there.
Along with East Riding in Yorkshire, Happisburgh and other parts of the north Norfolk coast have the highest number of properties at risk from coastal erosion in England.
“I’m angry and I’m heartbroken,” Nicola says. “My children have grown up here, my husband died here and my parents lived here before they died.
“I’m so sad that things have come to this,” the 47-year-old nurse says.
When Nicola, who also works as fitness instructor, moved to Beach Road 18 years ago, her three-bedroom semi was in the middle of the street.
But punishing weather conditions linked to climate change have eroded so much of the village’s soft sandy rock that her house is now the last one before the cliff edge.
No where in the article is there any mention at all of the fact that the coast at Happisburgh has been eroding away rapidly for centuries. Instead the impression is deliberately given that “punishing weather conditions linked to climate change” are the cause.
As many will know, I have written extensively about Happisburgh for many years, every time these lies are propagated. I won’t bore you with all of the detail again, but you can read them here. A selection of historical facts tell the story:
In the Middle Ages, the village of Whimpwell stood between Happisburgh and the sea. By 1183 only one field remained, and now it is under the sea, not even visible at low tide.
Happisburgh has lost land to the sea throughout the centuries. The rate of erosion has been erratic – at times large areas have disappeared overnight, and at others the cliff has remained virtually the same for some years
A twelve-acre field at Happisburgh was drilled with wheat. A north-west gale raged all night, and by new morning the field had disappeared.
White’s Directory for this year reported that the sea had encroached 250 yards in the last 70 years at Happisburgh.
Many attempts have been made down the years to protect the coast. An entry under Happisburgh in White’s Directory states ‘it is calculated the Church will be engulphed in the ocean before the middle of the ensuing century. In the same year, William Hewitt, MRCS, a relative of the Revd. John and a Stalham surgeon, suggested that breakwaters should be constructed parallel with the cliffs.
The first sea defences were built at Happisbugh and were later extended. Steel, greenheart and jarrah wood were used in their construction. The rate of erosion decreased, any loss of land being due mainly to surface water causing falls of cliff.
During the last forty years portions of the revetment have been destroyed, and repairs have been carried out on numerous occasions, but have not succeeded in preventing the formation of a large bay to the south of Happisburgh. To attract grant aid for capital works, stringent Government criteria must be satisfied, which relies heavily on the value of land and property at risk, thus prejudicing the relatively low property value in Norfolk as opposed to for example the South Coast of England. The Government’s declared present policy is to maintain ‘ a sustainable coastline’
The photo below shows houses close to the cliff edge in 1955. They look to be no more than a couple of decades old, and most certainly would not have been built anywhere near the cliffs, good indication of the rapid erosion prior to 1955.
So what are these punishing weather conditions linked to climate change?
Sea levels have been rising since the 19thC, and if anything the rate of rise has slowed on the East Anglian coast. About 1mm a year of the rise is due to the land sinking.
As for storms, the Met Office admits that storm frequency and strength has been declining since the 1990s, in line with global warming theory:
In 1970, Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich published a famous book, The Population Bomb, in which he described a disasterous future for humanity: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” That prediction turned out to be very wrong, and in this interview American Enterprise Institute scholar Nicholas Eberstadt tells how we are in fact heading toward the opposite problem: not enough people. For decades now, many countries have been unable to sustain a #population replacement birth rate, including in Western Europe, South Korea, Japan, and, most ominously, China. The societal and social impacts of this phenomenon are vast. We discuss those with Eberstadt as well as some strategies to avoid them.
Eberstadt’s commentary dovetails perfectly with Klaus Schwab, WEF, UN, the Pope, King Charles, Bill Gates, Al Gore, etc (i.e., the Great Rest cabal) on open borders immigration and de-population except the cabal is pressing aggressive depopulation, whereas Eberstadt, Musk and others think depopulation is dangerous existentially for societies.
Unfortunately, Peter’s questions did not probe the WEF de-population open conspiracy, the elephant in the room.
Eberstadt’s analysis ignores the intentional, planned, lack of assimilation of some cultures, obviously Islam, into many countries. Perhaps Eberstadt’s book covers this most important existential point; without explaining that crisis, his entire analysis is dubious, a scatter of facts with no answers.
For example, large numbers of Muslim immigrants in many countries are not working, instead becoming dependent (or, continuing to depend) on governments, which contradicts his implied thesis that mass migration is a solution to de-population.
Will you lose your civilization to the islamic invasion or to de-population of your civilized society? The former is a certain strategy.
In November, the Group of Twenty (G20) – an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 countries and the European Union – met in in Bali, Indonesia, and one development out of the summit was the upcoming adoption of a controversial color-coded health monitoring smartphone app meant to protect people from COVID-19.
he app would be similar in nature to one already employed by China, which critics have argued has been used by the totalitarian regime in that country to control the movement of their population. The app in question displays color codes to denote their vaccination status and determine if its user has tested positive for COVID-19 or not. File photo: Maxx-Studio (Modified), Shutter Stock, licensed.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In November, the Group of Twenty (G20) – an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 countries and the European Union – met in in Bali, Indonesia, and one development out of the summit was the upcoming adoption of a controversial color-coded health monitoring smartphone app meant to protect people from COVID-19.
The app would be similar in nature to one already employed by China, which critics have argued has been used by the totalitarian regime in that country to control the movement of their population. The app in question displays color codes to denote their vaccination status and determine if its user has tested positive for COVID-19 or not.
Recently, reports have surfaced that the Chinese Communist Party has been changing the app’s color codes seemingly at random – often without legitimate proof of any infection – in order to limit the freedoms of their population as per the country’s ruthlessly authoritarian “Zero COVID” strategy.
One shocking video that has surfaced on Twitter showed that Chinese authorities had remotely switched the app’s health status for a large number of individuals traveling from the city of Guangzhou from green – indicating that the user is COVID-free – to yellow or red – indicating exposure or full-on infection – falsely forcing them to quarantine and preventing them from traveling home.
China 🇨🇳
The Chinese authorities have remotely switched these people’s Covid digital QR passport to yellow or red to stop them from leaving Guangzhou. They are now stuck in Guangzhou and unable to travel home.
Since China adopted the use of the app, speculation as to its potential abuse has run rampant, and the topic of potentially adopting such tech by the rest of the world in order to serve as a COVID passport of sorts – where a “green” reading on the app would allow individuals to travel freely, whereas yellow or red would not – has some growing concerned.
During November’s Business 20 (B20) summit – an event which is part of the G20 Summit – the Health Minister of Indonesia, Budi Gunadi Sadikin, advocated for a worldwide expansion of China’s program in order to monitor the vaccination and infection status of individuals wishing to travel.
“Let’s have a digital health certificate acknowledged by [the World Health Organization]. If you have been vaccinated or tested properly, then you can move around,” he said. “So, for the next pandemic, instead of stopping the movement of the people 100 percent, which blocked the economy globally, you can still provide some movement of the people.”
At the B20 Summit Budi Gunadi Sadikin, Indonesian Health Minister calls for a digital health certificate:
“Let’s have a digital health certificate acknowledged by WHO. If you have been vaccinated or tested properly, then you can move around…” pic.twitter.com/cFYhgu2xTT
Sadikin noted that the constituent countries of the G20 – which includes the United States – have already agreed to such a program, although it is not clear when or how it will be implemented.
“Indonesia has achieved, G20 country has agreed, to have this digital certificate using WHO standard, and we will sub it into the next World Health Assembly in Geneva as the revision to international health regulation,” he said. “So, hopefully for the next pandemic, we can still see some movement of the people, some movement of the goods, and movement of the economy.”
So while Germany is saying goodbye to the use of nuclear energy, the technology is making a comeback in Italy, where people turned away from it almost 40 years ago.
“So while Germany is saying goodbye to the use of nuclear energy, the technology is making a comeback in Italy, where people turned away from it almost 40 years ago. This is more than noteworthy, since Italy is so far the only major European country besides Germany that has abandoned the use of nuclear energy. Under the pressure of the energy crisis, however, the Italians have suddenly become painfully aware of their heavy dependence on electricity from abroad. The issue is moving citizens because they are clearly feeling the inflation of their electricity bills, despite government aid.”
Expect many countries to follow Italy’s course correction – except for Germany, which will obstinately cling to its wind and solar ideology to the very end even though a growing number of experts are calling for an extension of the operating times of its remaining nuclear plants.
The Berliner Morgenpost adds that Italy produces only 25 percent of the energy it needs itself. “Although renewable energies have been significantly expanded in recent years, the production of green electricity is far from sufficient.”
Surely nuclear power plants would provide a much needed energy boost for Italy. Whether the country can do away completely with fossil fuels, remains doubtful, however.
Expansion of wind turbines in Germany could achieve the goals of the current federal government by 2030. The Handelsblatt reports on an evaluation of the Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne (EWI).
This figure has been calculated by the EWI of the University of Cologne.
With this daily!
Expansion of wind turbines in Germany could achieve the goals of the current federal government by 2030. The Handelsblatt reports on an evaluation of the Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne (EWI).
“According to EWI, 5.8 wind turbines with an average output of 4.2 megawatts each would have to be added daily from 2023 to the end of 2029. Possible dismantling of old plants is included. The historical comparison shows how enormous the task is: On average between 2010 and 2021, around 3.5 wind turbines were erected per day, with an average nominal output of only 2.8 megawatts.”
The plans for heat pumps are just as ambitious. The Tagesschau reports:
“Heat pumps are particularly on the agenda. They are regarded as saviours in the energy transition and heating technology of the future. This is because they are electrically operated and can thus use the clean electricity from wind turbines and solar systems. In addition, there is a high degree of efficiency compared to other heating options. The Federal Government therefore has the goal of integrating the heat pump as the new number one heating system in Germany. According to the plans, 500,000 heat pumps are to be installed annually from 2024. By 2030, there should be a total of six million devices in Germany.
However, from the point of view of the German Heat Pump Association, a shortage of materials and bottlenecks among craftsmen could slow down the ramp-up. The waiting times are already between half a year and one year. “We come from a production capacity that was previously designed for a market of 150,000. But the demand is already running out to 500,000,” said the head of politics of the association, Björn Schreinermacher. However, the industry has made it clear that rapid expansion is possible.”
The anti-all-things-modern propaganda goes on…and on and on. Relentlessly blaming severe weather on humans, or saying they made it worse, is silly and in any case unscientific. Why do they do it?
The anti-all-things-modern propaganda goes on…and on and on. Relentlessly blaming severe weather on humans, or saying they made it worse, is silly and in any case unscientific. Why do they do it? – – – The AP and other outlets made dodgy claims about climate change in 2022, with the AP getting over $8 million from activist groups to do it, says Climate Change Dispatch.
The “Climate Fact Check 2022″ report (pdf), presented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Heartland Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), stated that “climate alarmists” and members of the media engaged in claims about the relationship between man-made emissions and natural disasters, claims that clashed with “reality and science.”
In February, the Associated Press admitted that they would assign more than 24 journalists across the globe to cover “climate issues” after receiving more than $8 million over three years from various organizations.
The organizations contributing to the “philanthropy-funded news” via a “climate grant” are the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.
AP News Vice President Brian Carovillano only accepts money “without strings attached” and asserted that funders do not influence the stories conducted.
Similarly, in March 2021 high-ranking State Department officials discussed a proposal to sponsor foreign journalists to “have experiences that educate them on reporting on climate change,” according to emails obtained by Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) and shared with Fox News Digital.
Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told Fox News Digital that the Associated Press has essentially become a “propaganda outfit” for liberal organizations with climate agendas.
“It’s hard to claim it’s news when you’re being paid to report only one side of the climate discourse,” he said.
The report pointed to a recent article from the Associated Press by reporter Seth Borenstein called “New Abnormal: Climate Disaster Damage ‘Down’ To $268 Billion,” as proof of bias.
The article attributed flooding in Pakistan, Hurricane Ian, droughts in Europe, China, and Africa, as well as deadly heat waves across the world to climate change.
“Weather disasters, many but not all of them turbocharged by human-caused climate change, are happening so frequently that this year’s onslaught, which 20 years ago would have smashed records by far, now in some financial measures seems a bit of a break from recent years,” Borenstein wrote.
The Climate Fact Check report questioned whether climate activists and “media mouthpieces” could legitimately attribute disaster damages to climate change or if they were merely trying to “surf human tragedy” to advance a political agenda.
You must be logged in to post a comment.