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.
Experts admit their tsunami models were completely wrong, but, ooh, spooky, spooky: climate change causes โglobal vibrations beneath our feetโ. And sheโs a professor โ itโs embarrassing. This is superstitious bead-wringing with mystical phrases.
Every scientific curiosity becomes a climate prayer
A year ago, within an hour, 120 seismometers all over the world started to record a freakish shake every 90 seconds like a metronome. People watching the waves were baffled. And even more so that it didnโt stop within a few minutes but continued on all day and night, eventually ringing out for nine days.
It turned out to be a landslide in an oddly shaped fjord in Eastern Greenland. A 1.2 kilometre mountain of rock and ice had collapsed, sending a 110m wall of water 10 kilometers across the gorge to smash 200 metres up the other side of the fjord. The water then came back down and the return wave apparently kept slopping back and forward for nine days. Spare a thought for the fish.
Dickson Fjord before (left) and after (right) the landslide. Fromย Scientific Americanย and Sรธren Rysgaard (left); Danish Army (right)
Thus โ10,000 swimming poolsโ worth of repeating tsunamis keep rattling seismic detectors for days and then kept 68 scientists busy for a year figuring out what it was.
Predictably, they say, it was caused by climate change, because rock slides and ice collapses have never happened before, or at least, not while humans had a global seismographic network.
And not a single climate model predicted this.
Apparently theย Dickson fjordย has a 90 degree bend at end near the mouth, and a glacial dam at the other end which stopped the energy dissipating, making it the perfect resonant chamber.ย Then in a freak of nature, the landslide hit at the perfect 90 degree angle in the ideal chamber to drive seismologists bonkers.
Naturally,ย Science, the formerly esteemed top journal had to squeeze the absurd climate propaganda near the endย of the press release, so giants likeย The Guardianย could turn it into a Shock and Awe Headline.
Experts admit their tsunami models were completely wrong, but, ooh, spooky, spooky: climate change causes โglobal vibrations beneath our feetโ. And sheโs a professor โ itโs embarrassing. This is superstitious bead-wringing with mystical phrases.
Prof Anne Mangeney, a landslide modeller at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris in France, who was part of the team, said: โThis unique long-duration tsunami challenged the classical models that we previously used to simulate just a few hours of tsunami propagation โ we had to go to an unprecedentedly high numerical resolution. This opens up new avenues for tsunami modelling.โ
Such events will become more common as global temperatures continue to rise. โEven more profoundly, for the first time, we can quite clearly see this event, triggered by climate change, caused a global vibration beneath all of our feet, everywhere around the world,โ said Mangeney. โThose vibrations travelled from Greenland to Antarctica in less than an hour. So weโve seen an impact from climate change impacting the entire world within just an hour.โ
We canโt โclearly seeโ any thing at all. Thereโs no trend, no data, no evidence. What if a warmer world means the ice doesnโt build up and go boom, but just melts away gradually. Drip, drip, drip, eh?
So the misinformation continues. In modern science lamb chops cause tsunamis, Ford F-250โs shake the world, and only solar panels can save us.
Itโs all part of the hypnosis. Adults in the room need to remind the children that glaciers and rockslides have been happening for millions of years. (Eg Lieseki and Raymo) Then when kids grow up and become professors they might not say silly things.
Svennevig and 67 others (2024) A rockslide-generated tsunami in a Greenland fjord rang Earth for 9 days, Science, 12 Sep 2024, Vol 385, Issue 6714 pp. 1196-1205 DOI: 10.1126/science.adm9247
L. E. Lisiecki and M. E. Raymo (2005) โ A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic ฮด18O records, Paleoceanography 20, 1003
For sure youโve seen the headlines declaring 2024 likely to be the Hottest year ever.ย If youโre like me, your response is: Thatโs not the way itโs going down where I live.
For sure youโve seen the headlines declaring 2024 likely to be the Hottest year ever.ย If youโre like me, your response is: Thatโs not the way itโs going down where I live.ย Fortunately there is a website that allows anyone to check their personal experience with the weather station data nearby.ย weatherspark.com provides data summaries for you to judge whatโs going on in weather history where you live.ย In my case a modern weather station is a few miles awayย Summer 2024 Weather History at MontrรฉalโMirabel International Airportย ย The story about Summer 2024 is evident below in charts and graphs from this site.ย Thereโs a map that allows you to find your locale.
The daily average high (red line) and low (blue line) temperature, with 25th to 75th and 10th to 90th percentile bands. The thin dotted lines are the corresponding average perceived temperatures.
First, consider above the norms for Summer from the period 1980 to 2016.
Then, thereโs Summer2024 compared to the normal observations.
The daily range of reported temperatures (gray bars) and 24-hour highs (red ticks) and lows (blue ticks), placed over the daily average high (faint red line) and low (faint blue line) temperature, with 25th to 75th and 10th to 90th percentile bands.
The graph shows Summer had some warm days, some cool days and overall was pretty normal. But since climate is more than temperature, consider cloudiness.
Wow!ย Most of the summer was cloudy, which in summer means blocking the warming sun from hitting the surface.ย ย And with all those clouds, letโs look atย precipitation:
So, in the observations out of 92 summer days, there were 56 days when it rained, including 11 days of thunderstorms with heavy rainfall. Given what we know about the hydrology cycles, that means a lot of heat removed upward from the surface.
So the implications for Summer temperatures in my locale.
There you have it before your eyes. Mostly warm days for the three summer months, with exactly eleven hot afternoons (>30ยฐC). Otherwise comfortable and cool, and no hot afternoons in September.
Summary:
Claims of hottest this or that month or year are based on averages of averages of temperatures, which in principle is an intrinsic quality and distinctive to a locale. The claim involves selecting some places and time periods where warming appears, while ignoring other places where it has been cooling.
Remember: They want you to panic. Before doing so, check out what the data says in your neck of the woods. For example, NOAA declared that โJuly 2024 was the warmest ever recorded for the globe.โ
Oh, the elites are at it again, folks. Theyโve figured out that the real reason youโre lying awake at night, sweating over whether the world will combust in a fiery climate apocalypse isnโt because of their fearmongering, but because ofโwait for itโindividualism. Thatโs right, in this gem from the Los Angeles Times, the author wrings their hands over the scourge of โclimate anxietyโ and, of course, traces it back to the root of all evil: the fact that you still value your personal freedom.
Conceptual shot of an anxious young woman in the middle of a circle of accusing coworkershttp://195.154.178.81/DATA/i_collage/pi/shoots/783578.jpg
Oh, the elites are at it again, folks. Theyโve figured out that the real reason youโre lying awake at night, sweating over whether the world will combust in a fiery climate apocalypse isnโt because of their fearmongering, but because ofโwait for itโindividualism. Thatโs right, in this gem from the Los Angeles Times, the author wrings their hands over the scourge of โclimate anxietyโ and, of course, traces it back to the root of all evil: the fact that you still value your personal freedom.
This masterpiece of neurotic nonsense, titled โTo Fix Climate Anxiety, We First Have to Fix Individualism,โ (behind a paywall), is peak elite navel-gazing. Letโs break down their neurotic argument and laugh at their complete inability to function outside their groupthink bubble.
The Anxiety Industry: The Leftโs New Favorite Hobby
First, letโs talk about climate anxiety, the latest designer disorder thatโs sweeping the liberal elite like avocado toast. In case you havenโt heard, itโs what happens when your climate virtue signaling turns into full-blown panic attacks. People are losing their minds because theyโve been bombarded for years by end-of-the-world rhetoric from media, politicians, and activists whoโd have you believe that every breath you take is choking Mother Earth to death.
Just knowing that climate change is getting worse can trigger serious psychological responses. And the shock and trauma are all the more great if youโve already had to live through the kinds of disasters that keep the rest of us up at night.
According to this article, people are feeling โanxiousโ about the climate, and naturally, the solution is not for them to step back and take a rational look at thingsโno, no, the solution is to dismantle individualism. Because of course it is.
Blaming Individualism: The Leftโs Favorite Boogeyman The article opens with the dramatic claim that โclimate anxiety canโt be fully addressed until we confront the toxic ideology of individualism that underpins itโโ. You read that right. If youโre feeling uneasy about the planet, itโs not because of the endless climate alarmism or the fact that these elites have been screaming โwe have 12 years to save the Earthโ every year for the last 30 years. Nope, itโs because you still stubbornly believe in your right to live your life without being micromanaged by bureaucrats.
โOne huge reason why climate anxiety feels so awful is this feeling of not being able to do anything about it,โ Ray said. โBut if you actually saw yourself as part of a collective, as interconnected with all these other movements doing meaningful things, you wouldnโt be feeling this despair and loneliness.โ
The trick to fixing climate anxiety is to fix individualism, she said. Start small, tap into what youโre already good at, join something bigger than yourself.
And by fixing individualism, as many young activists like Patel have already figured out, we just might have a better shot at fixing climate change.
Apparently, individualismโyes, that awful notion that you have autonomy over your own choicesโis now considered โtoxic.โ Forget that individualism is the cornerstone of free societies, personal freedom, and, oh yeah, human achievement. In the world of the eco-left, itโs now the villain in their ongoing climate horror show.
A Neurological Condition? Please Whatโs more laughable is how they frame climate anxiety as a mental health crisis akin to depression or PTSD. They write about it like itโs an epidemic of post-traumatic stress from people being bombarded by all those horrible individual freedoms. I mean, seriously? The real crisis here is that people have been indoctrinated into believing that theyโre responsible for saving the entire planet every time they use a plastic straw or donโt recycle perfectly. This is what happens when you raise a generation to believe that everything they do contributes to the imminent collapse of the worldโs ecosystems.
The Authorโs Prescription: Collective Climate Neurosis So, whatโs the solution according to these enlightened minds? Naturally, we need to get rid of this pesky idea that you have any individual rights or freedoms. The article practically celebrates the idea that if we can only get everyone to think collectively, like good little comrades, the anxiety will melt away.
It pushes the idea that โindividualism places all the responsibility on each of us to act, making it impossible to live up to expectations, creating a cycle of guilt, shame, and paralysisโโ. Oh, poor babies! The very same people who lecture us about reusable shopping bags and meat-free Mondays are now telling us that the crushing weight of their own guilt is our fault. Letโs not forget whoโs been creating these unrealistic standards and then weaponizing guilt against anyone who doesnโt fall in line.
But donโt worry, theyโve got a plan! Their brilliant strategy is to embrace collectivismโbecause nothing says mental health like forcing people into a hive mind where the individual is secondary to the group. Yep, if you could just stop thinking for yourself and let the climate overlords run your life, youโd be so much happier. Or at least thatโs what the elites think.
A Reality Check for the Paranoid Hereโs the thing: climate anxiety isnโt a real problem; itโs a manufactured condition, hyped up by a generation of activists, politicians, and media hacks whoโve been making a living by scaring the living daylights out of everyone. Theyโre the ones whoโve been telling you the world is ending unless you stop eating hamburgers and driving your SUV.
The truth is, climate change is not an existential crisis, and certainly not one that justifies abandoning the values of personal freedom and individual rights. But for these people, itโs not even about the climate anymoreโitโs about control. Every crisis, real or imagined, is an opportunity to chip away at your autonomy. And โclimate anxietyโ is just the latest weapon in that fight.
We hear so often today that climate change is the existential crisis of our time, but that dismisses the trauma and violence to all the people who have been fighting to survive for centuries. Colonization, greed and exploitation are inseparable from climate change, Uchendu said, but we miss these connections when we consider our emotions only through a Western lens.
Elites and Their Collective Fantasy What really drives the articleโs insane conclusion is this ongoing obsession the left has with collectivism. They yearn for a world where nobody thinks for themselves, where your life is dictated by the enlightened few who, of course, know better than you. The article barely hides its disdain for the idea that individuals should be responsible for their own actions. Instead, they fantasize about a world where everything is a group project, and we all obediently march to the beat of the latest government decree.
According to them, if you werenโt so caught up in your individual rights, you wouldnโt be so darn anxious. Yeah, because nothing calms the nerves quite like having the state control every aspect of your life.
Their Real Goal: Control, Not Climate Solutions Make no mistake, this isnโt about fixing climate anxiety. This is about eliminating individual thought. The environmental elite knows that if they can convince you to surrender your personal freedoms for the โgreater good,โ they can push through their agenda without resistance. They can introduce any policyโno matter how ridiculous, no matter how intrusiveโbecause youโll be too busy trying to be a good little cog in their collective machine to object.
In the end, their whole argument boils down to this: your desire to think for yourself and live independently is making the planet worse and giving you panic attacks. So, naturally, the only way to fix the problem is to surrender your autonomy to the group. Because, hey, collectivism always works out great, right? Just ask Cuba or Venezuela how thatโs going.
Final Thought: Donโt Fall for the Nonsense Letโs get real: climate anxiety is a product of indoctrination by a radical environmental movement that thrives on fearmongering. And now, instead of taking responsibility for the anxiety theyโve caused, theyโre trying to shift the blame onto your belief in personal freedom. Itโs absurd.
You donโt need to fix individualism to โfixโ climate anxiety. You need to fix the constant stream of doomsday propaganda thatโs designed to scare you into submission. The real mental health crisis isnโt caused by climate change; itโs caused by the relentless bombardment of apocalyptic messaging designed to make you feel guilty for existing. Donโt let them fool you into thinking that giving up your individual rights will somehow make you feel better. The only thing that will do is make it easier for them to control you.
So, to the hand-wringing author and the climate anxiety brigade: Take a breath, grab a steak, and stop trying to guilt the rest of us into your collective neurosis. Weโre not buying it.
Germany has become 600 billion euros poorer as a result of the energy transition, without this turnaround having had any benefit. In this respect, the Norwegian energy expert confirms the assessment of the Federal Audit Office: “The German government invests billions in climate protection, but does not know how successful its investments are and whether they are worthwhile.
As the chart shows, global mean temperatures in August remained roughly the same as in July 2024.
Today, I will first deal with the fluctuations in PV and wind power generation, which intensified in August and are becoming a burden on the federal budget. Then I will show the means with which the federal government will turn the gas price screw from January 2025 onwards in order to be able to better enforce the unpopular heat pump.
First of all, I start with a graphic that I showed at theย citizens’ summitย in front of an audience of 900 in the Liederhalle Stuttgart. It shows the core of the energy transition: Stable, low-cost, CO2-free electricity generation based on nuclear energy is exchanged for unstable, too expensive electricity generation based on wind and solar energy.
Source : Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems,ย Energy-charts
600 billion for the energy transition
The chart shows that the energy transition has brought nothing else in terms of CO2-free electricity generation than to replace cheap nuclear energy with more expensive and unreliable wind and solar power since 2002. In a publication by Jan Emblemsvรฅg of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim in the prestigious journal “International Journal of Sustainable Energy”, he comes to the conclusion: If Germany had stuck with nuclear energy in 2002, it would have saved โฌ600 billion and produced as much COโ-free electricity as with all its renewable energies. Axel Bojanowski writes in Die Welt:
“If Germany had even invested in nuclear power from 2002 onwards, its greenhouse gas emissions would have been reduced by around 73 percent more โ and the country would still have saved โฌ300 billion compared to the energy transition.”
The cost spiral of wind and solar energy is turning faster and faster
August 2024 dramatically shows the absurdity of the uncontrolled further expansion of wind and solar energy. As can be seen in the graph, solar (yellow) and wind energy (blue) were sufficient to cover the demand for electricity (brown) in the midday hours of August. In addition, however, the hydroelectric power plants and always conventional power plants are still running, which must be connected to the grid for reasons of grid stabilization, so that the electricity demand would often be exceeded by electricity generation at noon if plants were not switched off and paid for anyway or the electricity was given away abroad. Stock market prices are falling to zero.
However, the solar and wind power operators receive a bindingly guaranteed feed-in tariff (wind currently 7.35 โฌct/kwh, solar roofs about 8-12 โฌct/kwh), although the solar or wind power generated has a value of zero or even falls below zero again and again. The difference to the stock market price is taken from the federal budget. In August, the sum of daily co-payments (red in the lower part of the graph) amounts to โฌ1,640,069,048.60. โฌ1.6 billion in August results in about โฌ20 billion per year, โฌ10 billion more than originally planned. We remember: The coalition parties could not agree on a balanced budget for 2025. A โฌ12 billion gap is not covered by revenue. Nobody thought of the cancellation of the EEG tax gifts at the traffic light.
However, the chart also shows how useless the attempt by the Minister of Economic Affairs and his Federal Network Agency is to shift the production of goods in Germany to the times when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing by changing the grid fee. Of course, this change in grid fees will disadvantage the continuous production of goods in Germany and drive it out of the country. This was described in detail in my last newsletter. The real scandal, however, is that this change in network fees with these far-reaching consequences is not discussed and decided by the German Bundestag. This non-transparent policy has already been practiced once before with the change in gas network fees, which can be increased from January 2025.
Citizens are to be
asked to pay for the destruction of the gas networks from 2025 It is hard to believe. Quietly and secretly, the Federal Network Agency, under the leadership of the Green Party member Klaus Mรผller, has decided that gas network operators will be able to increase gas network fees by a whopping 20 โ 40% from 1 January 2025. The reason is outrageous. The Federal Network Agency assumes that the Climate Protection Act will mean that no more CO2 may be emitted in Germany from 2045 and that gas heating systems will therefore no longer be allowed to be operated from 2045 onwards and that the gas grids in Germany will therefore have to be shut down by 2045. That is only twenty years left and therefore many gas pipelines with an economic service life of 50 years will not yet be fully depreciated in 2045.
For this reason, the Federal Network Agency allows gas network operators to increase depreciation of up to 12% and to shorten the remaining depreciation period to 20 years or less. This will lead to an increase in depreciation costs, so that even the Federal Network Agency expects an increase in gas network fees of 20%, experts expect up to 40%. Neither parliament nor citizens have been asked whether they really want all gas networks in Germany to be shut down or torn out by 2045. We are talking about 550,000 km of gas pipelines in our cities, municipalities and districts with a value of โฌ270 billion.
The increase can also be summed up under the motto: How do we spoil the citizens’ fun with their own gas heating? By making the use of gas expensive, then the unloved heat pump will still be accepted. In the last 10 years, investments in gas pipelines, especially in the new federal states, have risen from about โฌ1 billion to โฌ1.5 billion per year, and now these brand-new pipelines are also to be scrapped in 20 years.
The Federal Network Agency has a very special treat for the cities that wanted to be particularly green and wanted an earlier phase-out date from oil, gas and coal. Cities that want to phase out by 2035 can increasingly ask citizens to pay a higher gas network fee until 2035. These are the cities of Augsburg, Stuttgart, Bonn, Oldenburg, Krefeld, Munich, Frankfurt, Dortmund, Dresden. The citizens of Mannheim, Mรผnster and Aachen, who want to get out in five years, will also “enjoy” the particularly strong fee increase. From 15 October 2024, gas network operators will be allowed to announce their increases for 2025. Gas network charges averaged โฌ1.89/kwh in 2023. With a 20% increase, households and businesses (excluding industry), which consume 477 billion kWh of gas, will incur costs of an additional โฌ1.8 billion per year.
Much more important, however, is the consideration of the costs incurred in replacing the gas network with an expansion of the power grid and end-use equipment. It is โฌ268 billion, as VNG from Leipzig, one of Germany’s largest gas traders, calculated in the study “The Value of Gas Infrastructure for the Energy Transition”. 3 years ago, the ousted State Secretary Graichen announced the closure of the gas pipelines. During the government of the SPD, the Greens and the FDP, the idea was implemented.
First, “the second half” does not mean 2045. Secondly, more than half of the world’s annual CO2 emissions are now absorbed by plants and oceans (sinks in the Paris Agreement). Net zero therefore means at most halving emissions. And you can even calculate that for the Federal Constitutional Court. This will make many of the encroaching bans such as the ban on heating, the ban on internal combustion engines, and the ban on power plants obsolete. Only in this way will Germany have a good future.
Buckle up, folks, because the latest scheme cooked up by the climate cultists, calledย โThe Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5ยฐC World,โย is here. But before we dive into the insanity, letโs take a quick look at the Frankenstein behind this disasterโtheย C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Buckle up, folks, because the latest scheme cooked up by the climate cultists, called โThe Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5ยฐC World,โ is here. But before we dive into the insanity, letโs take a quick look at the Frankenstein behind this disasterโthe C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Formed in 2005, the C40 Cities initiative started as a network of major world cities coming together under the guise of fighting climate change. Founded by then-Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, this group has morphed into a global cabal of 97 citiesโrepresenting over 700 million peopleโworking together to impose draconian climate policies that governments wouldnโt dare pass at the national level. These mayors, in love with their newfound global power, have turned C40 into a petri dish for radical climate action, setting the stage for policies so extreme, theyโd make the Green New Deal look reasonable.
The groupโs mission? To turn cities into the front line of the so-called โclimate emergency.โ Forget waiting for national governmentsโC40 thinks itโs time for your local mayor to impose sweeping changes on how you live, what you consume, and what freedoms you have left. And hereโs the kickerโtheyโre doing all of this without your vote or consent, using unelected global bureaucracies to push their agenda.
Their latest report, The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5ยฐC World, is the holy grail of eco-dystopian fantasies. Itโs a blueprint for gutting the economy, wrecking industries, andโmost importantlyโcontrolling every aspect of your life. This isnโt just about reducing emissions; itโs about using climate change as an excuse to expand government control over your personal freedoms.
Consumption-Based Emissions: The New Way to Blame YOU
Letโs kick this off with their latest con, the idea of consumption-based emissions. You buy a car? Well, youโre not just responsible for the gas it burns. Oh no, youโre now responsible for the steel, the rubber, the shipping, and the manufacturing process, regardless of where any of that takes place. 85% of the emissions theyโre blaming you for come from somewhere elseโ, and yet, somehow itโs YOUR fault because you dared to buy a product. See how slick that is?
Urban consumption is a key driver of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cities can have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions beyond their geographic borders by influencing global supply chains.
This is the scam: shift the blame to YOU, the consumer, and then shame you into compliance. Itโs brilliant, really, if your goal is to micromanage peopleโs lives. They get to blame you for every factory in China spewing carbon because you bought a t-shirt. And hereโs the kickerโthey donโt expect the rest of the world to clean up its act; they expect YOU to cut back, suffer, and shut up.
Mayors as Mini-Dictators: Power Grabs Disguised as Climate Leadership
Now, onto the real heroes of this story: your local mayor. Thatโs right, according to this report, city mayors are supposed to morph into eco-warriors and reshape markets by telling you what you can and canโt buyโ. Oh, and theyโll be getting into sectors they have no business touching, like aviation, food, and even clothing. Your mayorโwho canโt even fill potholes on timeโis now going to be in charge of limiting your meat consumption, slashing your car ownership, and determining how often you can fly to visit your familyโ.
The key consumption categories that cities should target are food, buildings and infrastructure, clothing and textiles, private transport, aviation, and electronics and household appliances.
This is insanity on a whole new level. These bureaucrats, who couldnโt manage a bake sale without screwing it up, are suddenly climate experts who will dictate how you live your life. According to the C40 report, mayors need to be โentrepreneurialโ in creating markets that enforce these draconian cuts on consumption. The irony is rich, because when was the last time a government entity ever created anything worth a damn?
These clowns want to create markets? What does that even mean? Translation: they want to crush free markets and replace them with bureaucratic controls, the kind only a socialist could love. They want to shut down industries that make cities thriveโtransportation, food, clothing, and moreโwhile dictating what you, the plebeian, are allowed to consume.
Killing Jobs, Crushing Economies: The Economic Suicide Pact
Oh, but waitโit gets worse. The report is full of idiotic recommendations that will blow up entire sectors of the economy. They want cities to cut clothing purchases by 66% by 2050โ. Do these morons have any idea what this means for jobs in the retail, textile, and shipping industries? Apparently not. You donโt need new clothes, peasant. Wear that ragged old hoodie for the next 20 years while they lecture you about your โcarbon footprint.โ
And donโt get too attached to your car, either, because theyโre coming for that next. Reduce car ownership by 39% by 2050โ? Great ideaโunless you actually need to, you know, get places. But hey, if you live in some urban utopia where public transport actually works (it doesnโt), maybe youโll be fine. For the rest of us in the real world, this is a non-starter.
And letโs not forgetย aviation. These morons want to slash air travel too because apparently flying to visit relatives is a crime against Gaia. Less flying, fewer jobs, but more trees or something. Youโll just have to accept that Grandmaโs birthday isnโt worth the climate destruction caused by your round-trip ticket. Never mind that the people pushing this will still be jetting off to Davos or their fifth climate summit of the yearโrules are for you, not them.
Green Tyranny: Engineering Behavior, Not Solutions
Now comes the really insidious part. The entire report is based on the idea that your behavior needs to changeโnot the behavior of the industries or the energy producers, but yoursโ. The elitists behind this report are obsessed with engineering how you live, what you eat, and how much youโre allowed to consume.
They want to tell you to eat less meatโ, because, of course, animal agriculture is a villain in their story. Forget that many people rely on it for protein and livelihoodsโnope, youโre expected to get with the program and adopt a diet of kale and soy because someone in an air-conditioned office decided thatโs whatโs best for the planet.
And donโt even think about upgrading your phone or replacing your aging refrigerator. Nope, youโll be punished for that too. They expect you to stretch yourย electronics and appliancesโ lifespanย for as long as possibleโ. You donโt get the convenience of modern living, but hey, at least you can pat yourself on the back for saving the Earth, right?
This isnโt about making life better; itโs about making you suffer. Thatโs the plan. This is about controlling how you live, while the elites sit in their ivory towers, completely unaffected by the draconian policies theyโre enforcing on you.
The Fake Prosperity Pitch: Selling Poverty as Happiness
As if all this wasnโt absurd enough, the C40 Cities geniuses are trying to sell this agenda by claiming it will make you โmore prosperous and happy.โ Yeah, because nothing says happiness like having your personal choices dictated by bureaucratsโ. Nothing screams prosperity like slashing entire industries, killing millions of jobs, and leaving citizens with fewer options for food, transportation, and clothing.
What theyโre really doing is pushing poverty and austerity under the guise of โsustainability.โ Their idea of prosperity is for you to own less, eat less, and travel less. But donโt worry, theyโll frame this as a โjust transitionโโโwhich is code for โyouโre going to be poor, but at least the planet will be green.โ
The Bottom Line: This Plan is an Eco-Fascist Nightmare
Letโs cut the nonsense. This C40 Cities report isnโt about โsaving the planetโโitโs about control. Itโs about giving more power to local governments to meddle in your life and destroy free markets under the pretense of environmental responsibility. The fact that theyโre pushing this on citiesโwhere the majority of the worldโs economic activity occursโisnโt an accident. They want to crush consumption, cripple industries, and turn you into a compliant little eco-serf, living under the iron fist of the climate elite.
They arenโt just coming for your car, your steak, and your flightsโtheyโre coming for your freedom. And if we donโt push back, weโll end up living in a world where every purchase, every bite, and every mile we travel is controlled, taxed, and regulated by these climate despots. Thatโs the future they want: total control, total compliance, and zero freedom.
So no, C40 Cities. Weโre not buying it. You can keep your utopian eco-fascism, your behavior controls, and your idiotic plans to kill jobs and wreck the economy. Weโll take freedom, thank you very much.
Here is the list of US and Canadian participants so you can contact your local politicians.
The fact that so many people, including doctors such as Robert Malone, are now pushing back against the climate scam is a *very* positive development.
After discovering so many massive, high-profile lies in recent years, large numbers of people are asking themselves “What else are they lying about?”, and the answer is “just about everything”.
The fact that so many people, including doctors such as Robert Malone, are now pushing back against the climate scam is a *very* positive development.
After discovering so many massive, high-profile lies in recent years, large numbers of people are asking themselves “What else are they lying about?”, and the answer is “just about everything”.
Elites tried for the Great Reset but they got a Great Awakening.
Some more reasons for optimism:
Climate Nexus, a warmist organization which pushed climate hysteria for over a decade and had tens of employees,ย suddenly threw in the towelย a few months ago.
The Daily Kos ClimateDenierRoundup page, which spewed climate scam propaganda incessantly (2,200 posts!) for many years,ย abruptly stopped postingย in December 2023.
Joe Rogan, with his huge audience, was aย full-on warmist in 2018ย but now routinely scoffs at the climate scam:
As a long-time reader of replies and comment sections on social media, Iโve seen a heartwarming increase in the number of climate realists pushing back.
One example:
Facing increasing pushback, many warmist scientists have become less active on X, or have left X altogether.ย NASAโs Gavin Schmidt is one example.
For eight weeks, Greta Thunbergย didn’t bother to tweet a photo of herselfย with a โclimateโ sign. Even climate changeโs poster child seems to be less interested in pushing this scam.
We know transparencyโs gone out the window for many public officials, but still: Since early August, Iโve been checking daily for Problem Polar Bear Reports issued by the Churchill Polar Bear Alert Program managed by Manitoba Conservation.
We know transparencyโs gone out the window for many public officials, but still: Since early August, Iโve been checking daily for Problem Polar Bear Reports issued by the Churchill Polar Bear Alert Program managed byย Manitoba Conservation. This morning (12 September), five reports were posted at once on the Town of Churchill website, dating back to first of the season for the week of August 5-11, see image below.
Itโs apparent that the intent of these reports is in part public safety: to raise awareness of the potential threat of wandering polar bears around the town of Churchill because of the language that appears on virtually every report: โstay vigilantโ, โbe bear smart,โ โbe bear aware,โ etc.
However, the X account for Town of Churchill seems to have been abandoned (last post 19 April 2024), which suggests the town is confident no residents or tourists would benefit from Alerts on X that polar bears are ashore:
The townโs Facebook account seems to be their only method of public communication yet even there, there have been no Polar Bear Alert reports posted this summer.
Oddly, even though it is now apparent from the just-released reports that one bear got so close to town that it had to captured and put in the โpolar bear jailโ the week of 5-11 August โ for the publicโs safety โ the only safety announcement the town issued that week was a โheat warningโ on 12 August:
I guess we are to assume that whoever is running this account โ or the town council, or the mayor โ believes that a day or two of hot weather (which Churchill gets regularly most years) is more dangerous to public safety than a massive predator wandering around town.
I can only conclude that keeping residents and tourists in the dark about potential threats from local polar bears is one way that Churchill is now adapting to climate change (from CBC News, 10 September 2024):
Bears Onshore and Effective Sea Ice Breakup dates
It is apparent from the wording of the Churchill reports that even by the last week of August this year, all bears were not yet off the ice, since they say only that โmost bearsโ were on shore the week of 26 August to 1 September (see next section).
That suggests the last bears came ashore this year at least a week later than they did in 2020 (at 21 August), which at the time polar bear specialist Andrew Derocher presented as an anomaly (see tweet below). Compare to the situation last year here.
The last report Iโve seen from Derocher (via X) for 2024 on the status of his teamsโ tagged females is that many of them (11/29 or 38%) were still on the ice as ofย 8 Augustย (posted 11 Aug):
Derocher referring to this an โamazingโ year thatโs โsimilarโ to the 1980s probably doesnโt tell the half of it, since he hasnโt posted any maps since then (as of noon, 12 September).
This effectively keeps secret the date when the last of these females bears actually came ashore, which is in any case a biased microcosm of the entire subpopulation. In other words, we can expect that if 40% of tagged female were still on bits of remnant ice at 8 August, there will have been many more bears, especially males, out there as well โ which of course he never mentions.
He also never mentions that satellites under-report the amount of ice at this time of year by as much as 20% because of the effects of melt-water sitting on ice, but weโve come to expect that.
Oddly, a recent study tried to explain the importance to survival of the recent phenomenon (since about 2015 or so) of bears staying out on melting bits of remnant ice rather than heading immediately to shore when the ice coverage over Western Hudson Bay drops below 50%. They suggested this behaviour was largely confined to male bears because they had to make up for feeding missed during the breeding season (McGeachy et al. 2024).
Females, alternatively, appear to respond to break-up in WH by coming onshore approximately 3 weeks after the mean ice concentration in WH reached 50%, โฆ However, suitable habitat was still present elsewhere in the Bay and appeared to be used by a portion of WH prime age males. [McGeachy et al. 2024: 494, where โprime age malesโ are aged 5-19 years.]
However, these authors never mention the data reported by Derocher every year showing fairly significant numbers of tagged females lingering on tiny chunks of ice well into August, even though Derocher is a co-author. Funny, that.
Problem Bear Reports 2024, Weeks 1-5
Week 1, 5-11 August
Week 2, 12-18 August
Week 3, 19-25 August
Week 4, 26 August-September 1
Week 5, 2-8 September
References
McGeachy, D., Lunn, N.J., Richards, E.S. and Derocher, A.E. (2024). Sea ice influence on male polar bear survival in Hudson Bay. Arctic Science 10, 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2023-004 Open access.
Finally, 15 years and a trillion dollars too late, George Monbiot says what skeptics have been saying all along. Nearly every single carbon reduction scheme is a useless make-work machination that creates the illusion that the government is doing something. He calls it โperceptionwareโ.
Finally, 15 years and a trillion dollars too late, George Monbiot says what skeptics have been saying all along. Nearly every single carbon reduction scheme is a useless make-work machination that creates the illusion that the government is doing something. He calls it โperceptionwareโ.
A new paper was released in Science pointing out that in the last 25 years, barely 4% of climate policies in 41 countries have made any real difference. And by โreal differenceโ we mean reducing a useful fertilizer, so itโs a good thing that 96% of the ploys failed, but a tragedy that a thousand billion dollars was stolen from decent people.
In any case, finally Monbiot sees the tip of the iceberg of grift and graft, but doesnโt realize his own role in it, doesnโt realize the same failures of journalists like him also failed the science world where 96% of papers have achieved nothing they set out to do as well โ like predicting the climate. Climate science has been spinning its wheels, creating perceptionware and failing to figure out the climate for fifty years, but George hasnโt noticed.
Monbiot hasnโt even taken the obvious leap: Where were the Greens, the people who supposedly were the smart ones who cared the most? Most of these carbon reduction failures were obvious to anyone who owned a calculator. Could it be George, that the Greens were the dumb ones wrapped up in their own perceptionware game, pretending to care about CO2 to impress their friends at dinner parties but not actually giving a damn? Or worse, could it be that some Greens were bought off by industries and foreign countries that profit from the carbon grift?
Who stood up for the poor, the workers, and the taxpayers who were being shafted โ only the skeptics.
Out of 1,500 global climate policies, only 63 have really worked.
Thatโs where green spin has got us
George Monbiot, The Guardian โGrand schemes, many backed by governments, masquerade as positive action on the environment. They should be disownedโ.
Letโs talk about perceptionware. Perceptionware is technology whose main purpose is to create an impression of actionโฆ
Monbiot zeroes in on the endless fantasia that is the quest for airline biofuel:
โฆperhaps the clearest example of perceptionware is the repeated unveiling, across the past 25 years, of mumbo-jumbo jets. Throughout this period, fossil fuel and airline companies have announced prototype green aircraft or prototype green fuels, none of which has made any significant dent in emissions or, in most cases, materialised at all. Their sole effect so far has been to help companies avoid legislative action.
Now he worries the poor are starving as we burn their food, and chop down forests so we can fly to Bali:
But never mind, this perceptionware is now Labour policy too. Failure is baked in. Even with restrictions on which feedstocks can be used, any significant deployment of biofuels for aviation will increase total demand, which means either that agricultural crops are removed from human consumption, raising the price of food and therefore increasing global hunger, or that wild ecosystems are destroyed to make way for agricultural expansion.
George still doesnโt realize the root of the problem is Big Government itself. In the crazy biofuel market, it was the government that โpicked the winnerโ and decided we should burn food to save the world, not the free market. Who could have guessed that convenient high energy plant matter would also be the same stuff people wanted to eat?
As for using waste, this promise is repeatedly rolled out to justify disastrous policies. Biodiesel would be made from used cooking oil, but as soon as production increased, new palm oil was used instead. Biomass burners would mop up forestry waste, but soon started taking whole trees and, in some cases, entire forests. Biogas would be made from sewage and food waste, but operators quickly discovered they could produce more with dedicated crops like maize and potatoes. Why? Because waste is generally low in energy, variable and expensive to handle. Already, thereโs intense competition for the small portion of waste that might be commercially useful, as companies chase carbon payments: so much so that fresh palm oil has been sold as waste oil, as this attracts a higher premium.
The government funded monopoly in science created a fake crisis that parasites could feed off, and he is surprised that parasites turned up to dinner.
Where were all our expert climate scientists, George, while 25 years of money and time was wasted? Did they or did they not want to save the world, or were they too stupid, or too scared to say the obvious?
Germany attempted to defend its disastrous energy policies in a fact-check-style response to former President Donald Trump who held up Berlin as a warning to the American public in Tuesdayโs debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Mr Trump urged U.S. voters to reject the green agenda favoured by the Democrats and Harris, noting that even Germany has had to walk back its Energiewende transition as evidence of the foolhardy nature of the green agenda.
โYou believe in things that the American people donโt believe in,โ Trump said towards Harris. โYou believe in things like, weโre not gonna frack. Weโre not gonna take fossil fuel,โ referencing her long-standing opposition to fracking, a position she has attempted to flip-flop on.
โGermany tried that and within one year, they were back to building normal energy plants,โ Trump continued. โWeโre not ready for it.โ
Itโs difficult to know where to begin. The German political class is delusional if they truly believe their green energy achievements are an aspirational success.
As Volkswagen weighs its first closure of a German auto plant, workers arenโt the only ones worried
BY DAVID MCHUGHUpdated 5:24 PM AEST, September 8, 2024Share
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) โ Volkswagen is considering closing some factories in its home country for the first time in the German automakerโs 87-year history, saying it otherwise wonโt meet the cost-cutting goals it needs to remain competitive.
โฆ
Higher costs outweighed a modest 1.6% increase in sales, which reached 158.8 billion euros but were held down by sluggish demand. Blume called it โa solid performanceโ in a โdemanding environment.โ Volkswagenโs luxury brands, which include Porsche, Audi and Lamborghini, are selling better than VW models.ย
I suspect Germany is still feeling the pain of President Trump humiliating their green political class back in 2018, by correctly predicting that German reliance on Russian gas and failure to develop domestic fossil fuel resources would undermine their energy security.
The German political class laughed at Trump back then. The climate obsessed German bureaucrats with ring fenced government provided incomes are still trying to laugh. But no German who has to make a living in the real economy is laughing.
If Germany continues with the green madness, the entire nation is on a one way trip to Venezuelan levels of national destitution, or worse โ except for the privileged bureaucrats and politicians of course.
Some Germans are trying to fight back. Parties like AFD did very well in recent elections, though likely this was more to do with AFDโs immigration policies than their climate policies. But AFD also emphatically rejects climate action, which appears to make AFD Germanyโs best hope for righting Germanyโs energy policy train wreck.
As for the dog eating comment, Trump as far as I know never accused Germans of eating their dogs.
Drivers of petrol and diesel cars have โreally poorโ knowledge about EVs and itโs stopping many from going green, think tank claims
I knew fun was going to ensue. The theme is a constant one, and is as annoying as the McDonaldโs chirpy whistle that seems to crop up at every ad break on commercial radio. ICE drivers are as thick as porridge, and their tiny brains have been filled up with misinformation by people with vested interests in something-or-other. [Big Oil, perhaps.] Everything they think they know about EVs is pi radians wrong.
In its recent poll, 57 per cent of 1,000 UK drivers of conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars answered no more than two out of 10 questions about EVs correctly.
The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, which commissioned the survey, blamed a โconstant stream of EV misinformationโ for limiting driversโ knowledge about battery-powered cars.
A quiz! I hate quizzes. But still. Letโs pray these 10 questions are provided, so that we can test how ignorant we areโฆ
Bingo!
Letโs see if we can get more than two out of ten correct. Itโs TRUE or FALSE for each. Jot your answers on the back of your packet of Silk Cut, and weโll compare notes at the end. [The suspicion arises that we may differ from the ECIU on some of the answers; weโll see.]
Here are the questions:
1. The total upfront costs for an EV are higher than a petrol car
2. The total lifetime CO2 emissions of an EV (from building, driving and scrapping) are no less than those of a petrol car
3. More natural resources are extracted from the earth to build and fuel an EV than are extracted to build and fuel a petrol car
4. EVs pose a threat to the structural integrity of the UKโs car parks
5. EVs are more likely to catch fire than petrol cars
6. EVs are no better for urban air quality than petrol cars
7. The UK is not on course to install the charging infrastructure it will need to make the transition to EVs
8. EV drivers currently pay more for their insurance than petrol car drivers
9. The UKโs grid will not be able to cope with the extra demand that will be created by the UKโs shift to EVs
10. Switching to EVโs will weaken the UKโs energy independence
DISCUSSION
1. The total upfront costs for an EV are higher than a petrol car
TRUE. Not even a climate alarmist engaging in motivated reasoning could come to any other conclusion.
2. The total lifetime CO2 emissions of an EV (from building, driving and scrapping) are no less than those of a petrol car
FALSE. Why did they have to put the โno lessโ in there when โmoreโ would have made an easier-to-grok question? Iโm saying FALSE but there is plenty of nuance. It depends on what electricity sources charge the car, and how many miles the car does before it dies. We have seen that the crossing-over point is a long way into a carโs life, and beyond the age at which many die. However, Iโm prepared to grant the ECIU this one.
3. More natural resources are extracted from the earth to build and fuel an EV than are extracted to build and fuel a petrol car
TRUE. They obviously require more materials to build, and the great green future is powered by electricity, which requires more materials to build. We are trading a fossil-fuel intensive system for a materials-intensive system (as I think Mark Mills may have pointed out). But there is nuance here. Ore has to be โextractedโ in vast quantities to provide the elements necessary to build an EV. But most of it ends up as spoil. Does this count as โextractedโ? If you say yes, the answer is TRUE. If you only count the mass of the end product, the answer is FALSE. Remember too that extracting all this stuff requires infrastructure of its own that is far larger for battery components than drilling for oil.
4. EVs pose a threat to the structural integrity of the UKโs car parks
FALSE. A ludicrous suggestion.
5. EVs are more likely to catch fire than petrol cars
FALSE. Wait, what? Has Jit had his scepticism surgically removed? What about the famous, or infamous, auto-cremating habit of EVs? Well, again the answer needs a wealth of further detail before it can be answered properly. I am prepared to accept that the current population of EVs catches fire less frequently than the current fleet of ICE cars. Is that what the question meant? This situation arises because the average age of an ICE car on the road is far higher than that of EVs. Many more ICEs have reached the inflexion point where a failure ending in fire becomes more likely. In a situation with a stable population of both types, I do not know what the answer is. Does anyone? I do know that the consequences of an EV fire are on the average more serious than an ICE fire.
And there is another fat fly in the ointment. A large proportion of car fires are caused by arson. According to that trustworthy source the AA,
The biggest cause of vehicle fires attended by fire brigades is arson or vandalism of parked vehicles. Dublin Fire Brigade told us that most of the car fires they attended in 2020 were due to arson, echoed by James Long, an Irish lecturer and President of the Society of Automotive Forensic Engineers, who said most fires he has investigated have had a deliberate cause. Figures for the UK show that around half of all vehicle fires between 2015 and 2020 were โdeliberateโ, and thatโs before you count accidental fires caused by human activity.
Have our lords and masters thought this through? You do have to wonder. In some places, burning cars is an annual celebration.
A total of 874 cars have been set alight during New Yearโs Eve celebrations in France, police say.
6. EVs are no better for urban air quality than petrol cars
TRUE. But again there is nuance. If we are comparing new petrol cars with new EVs, as we have seen on this blog, tyre dust casts a dark shadow over EVsโ performance. But if you compare a new EV to the ICE fleet at large, the EV might win. There are certainly clunkers out there that emit clouds of noxious smoke.
7. The UK is not on course to install the charging infrastructure it will need to make the transition to EVs
I donโt know how to answer this. The charging infrastructure is, or should be, an organic development based on the demand for charging. If we build as many chargers as we โneed,โ then we will have hundreds of thousands of chargers standing idle most of the time. If youโre asking me are we on course for 300,000 chargers, the answer is FALSE.
8. EV drivers currently pay more for their insurance than petrol car drivers
TRUE. At least, according to news reports.
9. The UKโs grid will not be able to cope with the extra demand that will be created by the UKโs shift to EVs
FALSE. I donโt believe this. Not every EV will want to charge at once, and the authorities have nefarious means to prevent them from charging, should they need to deploy them. Sceptical talking points on this often do not account for the fact that only a small proportion of EVs will be charging at any one time.
10. Switching to EVโs will weaken the UKโs energy independence
I donโt know the answer here. Either way, our energy independence is being curtailed. On the one hand, increasing electrification necessitates the use of interconnectors, which connect to, er, countries that are not the UK. On the other hand, our oil and gas extraction industry has been destroyed, so our dependence on foreign sources for that is only going to increase. I would call this question a score draw.
I think they missed
11. EVs are cheaper to run than ICE cars
For this I was going to go for neither TRUE nor FALSE, since it heavily depends on your circumstances. Now that is an interesting angle I had not thought of before. Think of it this way: an ICE car costs everyone up and down the country exactly the same to run. Sure, there may be variable insurance costs based on where you live, and the costs of fuel varies too. But by and large everything is the same. Compare that situation to an EV. If you have the luxury to charge at home, then undoubtedly youโre winning on running costs vs an ICE. But if youโre in the unhappy situation that you are not the proud possessor of a nice crunchy gravel driveway and have to make use of those foul public chargers, all bets are off. You could well find your EV costs more.
And it would be remiss of me not to point out all the tax disadvantages of ICEs which are not an organic part of what it costs to run a car. There is the BIK disadvantage for company car drivers, the excise duty, the fuel duty, and the 20% VAT on the fuel (and the duty). MikeH has tentatively costed the tax foregone as ยฃ5 billion, and I have no reason to gainsay him.
Looks like I got 4ยฝ wrong. I have to admit that Iโm surprised to have got question 1 right, and that 62% of ICE drivers thought EVs are cheaper to buy than ICE. A mistake here perhaps?
According to the pollsters, 57% of ICE drivers got 8/10 wrong. This may be a BS statistic, bearing in mind the percentage incorrect shown for each question.
CONCLUSION
Buy EVs, you ingrates! You may not want to, but itโs only because youโve been getting a drip-drip-drip of misinformation from your social media echo chamber silo caves.
You must be logged in to post a comment.