The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness

After their success with banning content that challenges the official narrative regarding covid, Google decided to apply a similar tactic to climate change. Two days ago, on the 7th of October, they announced on their platform the following:

(...) we’re announcing a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.

No surprise there, psychopaths are known for sticking to the same MO as long as it works. At this stage they're only demonetising uncomfortable content and prohibiting ads contradicting the official story, let's see how long before such content starts to disappear completely. Here are a few news reports about this:

Edit: clarity
Last edited:
After their success with banning content that challenges the official narrative regarding covid, Google decided to apply a similar tactic to climate change. Two days ago, on the 7th of October, they announced on their platform the following:

No surprise there, psychopaths are known for sticking to the same MO as long as it works. At this stage they're only demonetising uncomfortable content and prohibiting ads contradicting the official story, let's see how long before such content starts to disappear completely. Here are a few news reports about this:

Edit: clarity
Good grief!

I forget sometimes how far gone the world is.

After having had years to review and digest all the various bits of information, with stalwarts like Tony Heller out there providing regular updates on the state of climate reality versus the rumblings of the lie machine, I sometimes forget that the question hasn't been completely put to rest for nearly everybody.

At this point, Google might as well start banning those who insist that Up is Up and Down is Down.
Water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas. CO2 is negligible!

Matthew Ehret Session 76
Quite surprising to see graphs showing that naturally occurring CO2 (volcanoes included) is only 3.6% of all greenhouse gases on Earth. Of that 3.6% human pollution caused only 0.9%.
There are 10x more volcanoes we realized, especially under the ocean.
Greenhouse Gases Matthew Ehret Session 76.jpg
Jim Steele is a Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition. Here is what he says in this video:
How Antarctica Caused Global Cooling or Why Earth Remains in Ice Age Mode for Next 200 Million Years - CO2 Coalition
At videotime 02min:38sec
During the Age of Dinosaurs the continents were all connected in form of Pangea. With the lack of glaciers there were higher sea levels, which created shallow coastal seas. Then there was the creation of the Tethys Sea, another shallow sea. Shallow seas heat up more quickly and evaporate water more quickly.
The C's already said Water Vapor Canopy on a low-gravity Earth.
Dinos with their large bulk could "float" their bodies much easier, while walking. Their large bone and muscle mass essentially behaved like walking hot air balloons. They were "suspended" in the air by lower-gravity.

So that means that hot Earth was a perfect Greenhouse Planet then. There was no human global industry spewing their toxic gases into the atmosphere in that time, which could cause ""Climate Emergency"" because of "greenhouse gases" - as per the Establishment Lies of today.
The dinos weren't being harassed by Deep State funded agencies about how they had to watch their "carbon footprint", or else they might go extinct! Everyone was one happy large family on Greenhouse Earth that time. Even if dinos farted and burped a lot, it didn't matter, since water vapour from the oceans determined the Greenhouse Effect.

Yeah, but what caused the 'Greenhouse Climate' itself at that time? What made the oceans elevated and shallow seas exuding water-vapor canopy? Well, by design Earth must have been lighter then: less mass = less gravity

Then Earth received mass from Mars 27 million years ago. Earth became heavier = gravity increased. Dinos as a result were having increased difficulties "floating" their large bodies - designed for lesser gravity -, because of increased gravity.

Smaller creatures appeared, like the Mastodon and predators like the sabretooth tiger and the giant sloth. All these now were designed for increased gravity and they were able to move their smaller, more compact bodies faster than the dinos and they slashed and clawed and stabbed the slowly moving dinos very well with their large claws, teeth and tusks!

It was suggested here that the Sun and other parameters determines the climate.

Additional gravity increase:

Also Earth is bigger than Venus:
Venus is the virtual twin of Earth in many ways. Similar size, mass and density. But what is the gravity on Venus? According to our friends over at NASA, the answer is 8.87 m/s2. To translate that a little more, it is about 90% of the gravity here on Earth. A person who measures 100 kg when they leave home would tip the scales on the Venusian surface at 90 kg.
It follows that:
Earth then must have received some mass from Venus 4670 years ago and repeatedly after that - as Venus came close multiple times and Earth was bigger, so Earth must have attracted some particles from Venus -, then Earth's mass and as a result gravity should have increased on those occasions gradually as well.

All these cosmic planetary battles, matter-stealing via planets playing pool in the solar system and resulting climate changes makes it clear:
Earth is very lucky that a large cometary planet like Venus - an intergalactic traveler -, but twice the size did not yet come around to steal all our water and create a barren Mars out of Earth!
Last edited:
This film concerns the subject of the replacement switch away from the Magna Carta to the Terra Carta, the latter being used by the globalists, which some might say is to purge humanity from nature, or in other words, depopulate and possess for themselves.

The film is by Canadian Kate Wand (hint - Prince Charles and his bosom buddy, Mark Carney, are well represented):

David Suzuki, founder of the environmental Suzuki Foundation, recently discussed that environmentalists might start blowing up pipelines if 'we' don't do something about climate change, more or less. As an aside, David also recently mentioned that we need not fence off nature, we need to fence off people.

On the pipeline issue:

“We’re in deep, deep doo-doo,” Suzuki said at the protest. “This is what we’re come to. The next stage after this, there are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don’t pay attention to what’s going on.”

😉 (should anyone else have hinted at something like this, the FBI might surly look on their list), and David being David, there were retractions, side stepping, and words such as, when "asked whether or not he would support the bombing of pipelines, Suzuki said, “Of course not.”'

"Funeral For The Future," the rally was dubbed:

Here is Dan Dicks further comments on Suzuki, include a brief interview with Jesse Ventura who (cough), drank the climate Kool-Aid - he says he saw a climate chart once.

Here is a report from Alberta, Canada.

As an aside, David also recently mentioned that we need not fence off nature, we need to fence off people.
It is amazing how you hear little things, on TV, or in commercials, or ads for TV shows that seem to point to this sort of para logic.

There has been a promo running for Larry David's, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and I thought it peculiar.

From memory, Larry is talking to someone, who stops him, and says, 'but you hate people', and Larry come back with, 'I know... but I love humanity'...

Pretty weird stuff.
It is amazing how you hear little things, on TV, or in commercials, or ads for TV shows that seem to point to this sort of para logic.

There has been a promo running for Larry David's, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and I thought it peculiar.

From memory, Larry is talking to someone, who stops him, and says, 'but you hate people', and Larry come back with, 'I know... but I love humanity'...

Pretty weird stuff.
I just saw it again, he actually says,

“I hate people individually, but I love mankind.” Let that be a motto to us all.

Still weird.
David Suzuki, founder of the environmental Suzuki Foundation, recently discussed that environmentalists might start blowing up pipelines if 'we' don't do something about climate change, more or less. As an aside, David also recently mentioned that we need not fence off nature, we need to fence off people.
Deep down, Deepzuki knows that it's difficult to fence off the idea that pipelines are made of super-biodegradable materials that will be ferociously reclaimed by Mother Nature at her next massage session whether his environ-mental-lists lick the ground or not. 😜

What happens if Europe runs out of gas?​

1 Dec, 2021 11:42

What happens if Europe runs out of gas?

© Unsplash / Jean-Baptiste D.

The real test of Europe's energy supply is here. As temperatures have started dropping on the continent in recent days, power prices spiked again, and the natural gas shortage could worsen in case the winter is colder than usual.

There isn't an immediate fix to the power and natural gas supply crunch, and the colder and longer the winter is, the worse the situation could become, analysts say. Currently, the only thing that could ease the pressure on tight energy supply in Europe is demand destruction in industries due to high natural gas prices, some note.

Some have even said that gas stores could fall to zero this winter if cold weather abounds.

Russia is fulfilling its contractual obligations with customers to send natural gas to Europe via pipelines, but it has not significantly raised additional supply amid the gas and energy crunch in recent months.

Meanwhile, the controversial Russia-led Nord Stream 2 project hit a snag earlier this month after Germany said it had suspended the process of certification of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. The Federal Network Agency of Germany, Bundesnetzagentur, said in mid-November that it suspended the procedure to certify Nord Stream 2 AG as an independent transmission operator until an operator of the pipeline in Germany is incorporated under German law.

The setback delays by at least a few weeks the earliest possible in-service date for the pipeline, which could potentially alleviate gas shortages in case of a colder winter in Europe.

With uncertainty about the start date of Nord Stream 2, European gas and power prices could exceed the record highs they had reached in October.

"I wouldn't rule out a return to the record highs of October if you look at how short the market is and limited Russian flows," Wayne Bryan, an analyst at Refinitiv, said last week, as quoted by Reuters.

"If the weather gets cold in Europe there's not going to be an easy supply solution, it's going to need a demand solution," Adam Lewis, a partner at trading house Hartree Partners, told Bloomberg.

Some energy-intensive industries using a lot of natural gas—including ammonia, fertilizer, and steelworks—have curtailed operations in Europe in recent months as record natural gas prices made their production unprofitable.

Demand could drop if more industries reduce operations in the coming months.

For consumers, apart from soaring gas and electricity prices, the natural gas crunch could mean rolling power outages if the winter is really cold, Jeremy Weir, CEO at one of the largest commodity traders, Trafigura, warned earlier this month.

"We haven't got enough gas at the moment, quite frankly. We're not storing for the winter period," Weir said at the FT Commodities Asia Summit in the middle of November.

"So hence there is a real concern that . . . if we have a cold winter that we could have rolling blackouts in Europe," Trafigura's chief executive said.

The natural gas crunch is pushing power prices in Europe to record or near record highs. A very cold and still winter weather with low wind speeds would further exacerbate the power supply shortage, especially in north Europe, which relies on wind generation for part of its electricity supply.

For example, lower wind power generation in France, coupled with lower nuclear power supply, sent French day-ahead power prices last week to the highest in nearly a decade as demand rose with the arrival of colder weather.

Day-ahead power prices in the Nordic region for Monday jumped to a record high on the Nord Pool exchange, as the low temperatures combined with lower power supply from renewables and high gas prices.

With tight natural gas supply and uncertainty whether and when Russian gas flows could be significantly raised, Europe's power and gas systems and markets are facing the toughest test yet this winter season.
This is a concise and entertaining summation of "How we got here" from a comics philosopher, critiquing a recent Marvel comic, (where the 'hero' murders people for the crime of littering.)

That was difficult and painful to look/read through some of the captions - one caption had it with its moralizing AGW comic superhero activist, basically saying, well if we don't kill, life will kill anyway, so we are good to kill, right? :shock:

Now, what was it with the main character doing some of the killing - the superhero girl that looked to be a hybrid human Bullwinkle?

All this is a far cry from when superheroes went after fascists in 1941.

Speaking of Marvel Comics and Greta, there is also this to help spur on generations against rising seas:

Marvel's Greta Thunberg Kicks Off Kid Superheroes Being Outlawed – And How It Ties In With Civil War (Spoilers)​

Posted on March 18, 2020 by Rich Johnston
So Marvel Comics gets its own version of Greta Thunberg in today's Outlawed #1, spinning out of Incoming #1 and kicking off a new status quo for Marvel's young superheroes, now regarded as child soldiers and wards of the United States' protection. But how did events get that way? Well, we get to meet Ailana Kabua from the Marshall Islands. And she has a similar timbre to her voice.

Will The Joker Make Nightwing Remember Being Dick Grayson?
No elite lobbying money pretended :lol: ("We are young. No political power or lobbying money").

Speaking of which, direct funding of these new activists comic script/characters is The Walt Disney Company, with its ownership of Marvel:

On March 1, 2019, Serial Box, a digital book platform, announced a partnership with Marvel, in which they would publish new and original stories tied to a number of Marvel's popular franchises.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to May 2020, Marvel and its distributor Diamond Comic Distributors stopped producing and releasing new comic books.

On March 25, 2021, Marvel Comics announced that they planned to shift their direct market distribution for monthly comics and graphic novels from Diamond Comic Distributors to Penguin Random House. The change was scheduled to start on October 1, 2021, in a multi-year partnership. The arrangement would still allow stores the option to order comics from Diamond, but Diamond would be acting as a wholesaler rather than distributor.
Old Walt would probably roll in his grave at what they now produce.

And then there is AGW climate comic book YT messaging, like this - notice they are in parkas (Kings Collage London):

Russia plays along to a certain extent but only so far.

ABC News (FWIW) opines on it:

Spearheaded by Ireland and Niger, the proposal called for “incorporating information on the security implications of climate change" into the council's strategies for managing conflicts and into peacekeeping operations and political missions, at least sometimes. The measure also asked the U.N. secretary-general to make climate-related security risks “a central component” of conflict prevention efforts and to report on how to address those risks in specific hotspots.

and adds:
But India and veto-wielding Russia voted no, while China abstained.

Russia adds (Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia):
“This approach would be a ticking time bomb,” he said.

China adds:
“What the Security Council needs to do is not a political show,” Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun said.
I'm on this e-newsletter for the Brownstone Research (usually pitching where to put your money next by buying some exclusive report of theirs) and received one regarding nuclear fission as the next evolution of clean energy -- although their more inclined to bet on nuclear fusion (more on that below).

I thought it was worth keeping on eye and post here as we can most likely expect a number of energy "crisis" in the coming years/decade. The companies they list are poised to be the next big facilitators of clean "green" energy and well funded. Here's the article from my inbox:

Next-generation nuclear fission is coming to Wyoming…

TerraPower, a company founded by Bill Gates, just released plans to build its next-generation nuclear fission reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming. And while this is a large improvement from legacy nuclear fission technology, I have very mixed feelings about this development. TerraPower calls its nuclear reactor design “Natrium.” The word is likely a play on the symbol for sodium (Na), nature, and uranium. And that speaks to the reactor’s unique design.

The Natrium reactor is smaller than legacy nuclear fission reactors. One reactor will only power about 400,000 homes. It produces about half the electricity of what today’s reactors will produce. What’s unique about the design is that it uses liquid sodium, which can absorb a lot more heat than water. This reduces the pressure within the reactor, which in turn reduces the risk of explosion. It’s a much safer approach.

And each Natrium reactor costs about $1 billion to build. That makes them 25 times cheaper than a legacy nuclear reactor. But here’s the downside…

This is still nuclear fission. That means the reactor needs enriched uranium. And the Natrium design requires 20% enriched uranium, which is far higher than legacy reactors. Traditional nuclear fission requires only 3–5% enriched uranium.

This means it requires weapons-grade enriched uranium and the processing equipment to make it. If this material fell into the wrong hands, it could be used to create nuclear weapons. Safeguards could certainly be put in place, but the risk still exists. And if a lot of Natrium reactors were to be built, that risk would only multiply.

What’s more, the Natrium reactors still produce nuclear waste that must be dealt with. To be fair, it’s less waste than legacy reactors. But disposing of nuclear waste is very difficult. We do not yet have reactors that can process that waste. And that comes with risks as well.

To me, nuclear fusion is a much better solution. I agree that the Natrium design is a step up from traditional nuclear fission, presuming the risks are managed properly. Still, I think this is largely an unnecessary step. And even assuming that the Natrium reactor is a success, it is not expected to be producing electricity on the grid until 2030. Therefore, it doesn’t even provide us with a time advantage.

After all, we have seen tremendous progress with fusion reactors this year. As a reminder, nuclear fusion technology can produce 100% clean and limitless energy. There’s little to no waste to deal with. And since it doesn’t use radioactive material as fuel, there is no risk of weaponizing anything.

I’ve predicted that by 2024, we’ll see the world’s first net energy production demonstrated by a nuclear fusion reactor. And every development in the industry that I saw this year gives me more conviction that the industry is on track to hit that target. That means that safe, compact, radioactive waste-free nuclear fusion reactors could be producing commercial electricity well before Natrium comes online.

Still, TerraPower’s first Natrium reactor in Wyoming is worth watching. The project has support from the Department of Energy (DOE), which invested half a billion into it directly. What’s more, TerraPower will receive $1.5 billion as part of the Infrastructure and Jobs Act that Congress just passed. It is scheduled to apply for its permit to build in 2023, so the real wildcard is whether or not the project moves forward. It could conceivably be blocked.

And interestingly, the first Natrium reactor will feed into PacifiCorp’s power grid. PacifiCorp happens to be owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. That makes this project something of a joint effort between Gates and Buffett, who have had a long, enduring friendship. They both certainly have enough capital to make TerraPower a reality.

So Bill "never let a good crisis go to waste" Gates is planning to save us all from the energy "crisis" using a new form of nuclear fission. Here's a link to TerraPower's site and blurb about them:
Our Work - TerraPower

"TerraPower brings together seasoned experts and innovators to explore new solutions to the world’s most vexing problems. The company’s work to demonstrate advanced nuclear technologies in the United States shows the resolve of this mission-driven approach."

And what about the state of nuclear fusion as mentioned earlier? I found this from the same Brownstone Research group's site about a company called Helion:

Another promising development on the nuclear fusion front…​

The largest venture capital (VC) raise in the emerging nuclear fusion industry just happened. A company called Helion Energy just raised $500 million in a funding round led by Sam Altman. [me: funny enough he's referred to as the next Bill Gates 🙄]

This is significant because Altman is the former president of Y Combinator, the world’s largest and most successful early stage accelerator. Altman knows a promising early stage company when he sees one.

And this funding round was unique in that it included an additional $1.7 billion worth of investments tied to milestones. That means Helion will receive these funds as it meets its stated milestones in developing its nuclear fusion reactor.

As a reminder, nuclear fusion involves taking two separate nuclei and combining them to form a new nucleus. This produces an enormous amount of energy. And it is 100% clean. Unlike nuclear fission, forms of nuclear fusion produce little or even no radioactive waste.

Altman believes, as I do, that nuclear fusion technology is the future of energy. This is the only clean energy source that can produce enough energy to fuel our electrical grids with 100% clean electricity that doesn’t damage the environment in any way.

And Helion’s approach is interesting.

The company is focused on compact nuclear reactors that can fit inside a shipping container. That means each reactor could be loaded onto a semitruck and driven to any location.

Once there, the reactor could be installed and plugged into a local power grid in order to supply clean energy to the surrounding area.

This is a powerful concept. And it could enable a decentralized, robust power grid.

And get this – Helion has already demonstrated that its reactor can produce plasma at 100 million degrees. That’s significantly hotter than the temperature at the interior of the Sun. Naturally, that produces a lot of heat.

Helion’s unique approach is to use induction (the production of an electric current by varying magnetic fields) to generate electricity. By doing so, it skips the process of using water to produce steam, and then ultimately electricity.

Based on where it is today, Helion believes that it can demonstrate a reactor capable of industrial-scale power by 2024. That’s only 24–30 months away.

And Helion is taking a Silicon Valley approach with its business strategy. The company plans to initially deploy these reactors at data centers. This makes perfect sense.

It’s common to hear people complain about how much energy it takes to run the bitcoin blockchain, but we never hear any complaints about the energy required to run the data centers that process all of the world’s internet traffic and phone calls.

Data centers around the world require far more energy than all of the computational power required to run every blockchain in operation today. And I would argue that the blockchain industry is far more proactive in working towards using clean energy to run their networks.

That’s why Helion plans to install its fusion reactors right next to data centers. This is a smart business strategy with a clear target market that is in need of clean energy that runs 24/7.

“Plugging in” a fusion reactor next to a data center would convert a facility to 100% clean energy overnight. This will be well-received and set Helion up for rapid adoption.

So this is absolutely a company to watch closely in the coming years. It will be transformational if Helion can hit its target milestones. I can’t wait to watch this story unfold.

Indeed interesting, here's more on Helicon’s site: and from their FAQ:

How does Helion generate electricity from fusion?

Our device directly recaptures electricity; it does not use heat to create steam to turn a turbine, nor does it require the immense energy input of cryogenic superconducting magnets. Our technical approach reduces efficiency loss, which is key to our ability to commercialize electricity from fusion at very low costs.

The FRC plasmas in our device are high-beta and, due to their internal electrical current, produce their own magnetic field, which push on the magnetic field from the coils around the machine. The FRCs collide in the fusion chamber and are compressed by magnets around the machine. That compression causes the plasma to become denser and hotter, initiating fusion reactions that cause the plasma to expand, resulting in a change in the plasma's magnetic flux. This change in magnetic flux interacts with the magnets around the machine, increasing their magnetic flux, initiating a flow of newly generated electricity through the coils. This process is explained by Faraday's Law of Induction.

What will be interesting to see is how these new forms of green energy become further funded and introduced into a communities' grid as commercial or residential use, while oil and gas continue to be positioned as monster eco-polluters further justifying its planned obsolesces (look for lots of media cherry picking when things go wrong in this industry, ie: gas explosions at refineries).

Wondering how much nuclear fission and fusion will be something like VHS/Beta in adoption? No doubt Gates and his team will not want to lose out nor the other side on getting credit solving the "climate crisis" (along with lots of money and control). Also, wonder how well these facilities will do in ice age like conditions -- who will be left in the cold with or without reliable power? 🤔

Hope this info is useful...
Top Bottom