dear nienna, you are right, but men tend to be more filtered through education in hard sciences, except of course those in politics...
The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness
- Thread starter Ennio
- Start date
EmeraldR
Dagobah Resident
You're gonna love this one! Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda - it's a parody of itself! 
- Kinzen: Protect your community from harmful content
- Kinzen: Protect your community from harmful content
Charles could yet be the last UK monarch, and gets a good roasting in this piece for the bumbling fool that he is. Will he go down in history as Charles the Absurd?
Lord Christopher Monckton: ‘Cancel the King: Charles ‘disgraced himself, the monarchy & the UK with his half-witted’ speech to UN climate summit – ‘It is time to sweep the monarchy away’
It is time to sweep the monarchy away
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
For the first time, many of us who have hitherto been firmly and cheerfully loyal to the Crown are talking openly about getting rid of the monarchy. The late Queen Elizabeth the Great was the perfect constitutional monarch. She did not meddle in politics and nearly always kept her opinions to herself. Her noble example and her lifetime of devoted service kept the “Great” in Great Britain.
Not so the Climate King. He disgraced himself, the monarchy and the United Kingdom with his half-witted and nakedly partisan political address to the climate conference in Abu Dhabi.
Most of His Majesty’s subjects now disagree with the climate nonsense, not least because we cannot afford it. Electricity prices in Britain are six to eight times those in Russia and China, India and Pakistan, the four Communist-led giants of the East, whose leaders know that global warming is a net benefit, not a “climate emergency”, not least because over the years, and at their request, my team have quietly briefed most of them.
Yet there was not a word of comfort from the King for those of us who can no longer afford to heat our homes. As I write, I am wearing two pairs of heavy breeks, two pullovers and a solid leather biker jacket, with a thick woollen rug over my knees, because keeping the heating on all day during freezing weather is no longer affordable.
Russia has practically no “renewable” energy, and relies chiefly on coal and Siberian gas for its electricity. China has more than 1100 coal-fired power stations and, last year, permitted two new ones each week on average. India made it plain at the G20 summit, and again in Abu Dhabi, that it would continue its plan to expand its already extensive coal-fired generation by 60%. Pakistan will expand it by 300%.
Since coal-fired power is half the price of gas and less than a fifth of the price of wind or solar power, it is no surprise that our electricity prices are shutting down Britain’s manufacturers one by one. They can no longer afford not to export their jobs, their profits and, eventually, our economic hegemony itself to the largely totalitarian East.
The King, of course, was tellingly silent about his fellow-Communists’ justifiable disregard and contempt for the global-warming scam that their agents of influence so busily peddle here. Instead, he delivered the usual bleating litany of imagined and imaginary catastrophes:
“Alarming tipping points being reached … existential threats facing us over global warming … 30% more CO2 … 40% more methane … countless communities which are unable to withstand repeated shocks … lives and livelihoods are laid waste by climate change … repeated cyclones batter vulnerable island nations … unprecedented floods … decades-long drought … most severe wildfire season on record … dangerous feedback loops … climate scientists have been alerting us for decades … records are now being broken … warmest global average temperature on record … taking the natural world outside balanced norms and limits … into dangerous, uncharted territory … a true sense of the emergency we face …”, etc., etc., yada, yada, ad nauseam.
The problem is, Charles the Absurd is as thick as two short planks, and, like all totalitarians, strikingly unaware of anything other than the Party Line that he so faithfully but destructively parrots. Stupidity and totalitarianism are deadly bedfellows.
I need not answer his litany of apocalypses and cataclysms, for nearly everyone already knows that the weather is much as it has ever been – changeable and intermittently destructive.
But it is worth pointing out some of the good news. Bjørn Lomborg’s recent update on the annual death toll attributable to climate-related events shows that in 2022 some 7000 people died worldwide from bad weather. Climate-related deaths have declined by a remarkable 99% since the 1920s.
No small reason for this spectacular decline is warmer weather. It is cold, not heat, that is the real killer, as a series of papers in The Lancet over the past decade have established. The Lancet, a venerable medico-scientific journal, has long been a cheer-leader for the climate nonsense. But its editors still retain enough intellectual honesty and independence to publish papers contrary to the climate-Communist Party Line.
The most comprehensive survey of deaths from cold against deaths from heat was Zhao et al. (2021). Globally, ten times as many die from cold as from heat; in Africa, almost 50 times as many:
Even the King ought to be able to deduce from the above chart that the most likely consequence even of substantial warming would be to reduce climate-related deaths worldwide. Sure enough, the unelected Kommissars of the European Union commissioned research in 2017 to establish how many extra Europeans would die for each increase in global temperature. To their horror, they discovered that the warmer the weather became the more Europeans would be alive by 2080:
No small part of the reason why people live longer if the weather is warmer is that famines – the most life-threatening consequences of cold weather – become fewer as the weather warms:
As to His Majesty’s waffle about “tipping points” and “feedback loops”, the rate of warming continues to be small and net-beneficial. Though IPCC’s emissions-growth scenario in 1990 led it to predict 0.2 to 0.5 degrees’ warming per decade (best estimate 0.3 degrees/decade), and 2 to 5 degrees’ final warming by doubled CO2 (best estimate 3 degrees), observed warming in the third of a century since then has been just 0.14-0.2 degrees/decade, implying only 1.4-2 degrees’ 21st-century transient warming or final warming by doubled CO2.
The King’s predecessor King Canute once went down to the seaside and had his throne set up facing the incoming tide. His courtiers gathered about him and watched as he stretched forth his hand and commanded sea level not to rise. The tide, however, with unbecoming lèse-majesté, came in just as usual and soaked the Royal tootsies.
Canute, who was as wise as Charles is not, turned to his baffled courtiers and said: “See, my beloved counsellors, how even the divinely-anointed King cannot command even these little wavelets. Remember, then, however great ye be, that your powers also are far from infinite, and give praise to Him in Whom alone rests all power.”
The totalitarian fallacy is to assume that all that is necessary to achieve a given objective is to follow the Party Line, because We’re In Charge, So There! The King, like almost everyone in Abu Dhabi, has fallen prey to that alluring but murderous fallacy.
Let us pretend that the totalitarian nations will join the West in “climate action”, so that from here on every nation will move in a straight line from here to net zero by 2050. In that event, 0.45 units, or half of the next 27 years’ global anthropogenic forcing of the climate at the near-linear 1/30th unit per year observed in the third of a century since 1990, would be abated.
Since transient doubled-CO2 warming this century is 1.7 degrees, and doubled-CO2 forcing is close to 4 units, converting units to temperature shows that the warming prevented even by global net zero would be less than a fifth of a degree by 2050.
In reality, it is only the West that will even attempt to get to net zero by 2050. In that event, only a tenth of a degree of warming will be prevented by 2050, and only that much if we actually reach net zero, which we won’t. You heard it here first.
If His Majesty’s realm, the United Kingdom, attained net zero on its own by 2050, its contribution to the reduction in global temperature would be of order 1/1000th of a degree – about as effective as King Canute trying to halt sea-level rise. Except that Canute knew the tide would come in just as usual, but his unworthy successor has not yet awoken to the fact that nothing we do will have an appreciable influence on the climate one way or the other.
And then there’s the cost. Governments have made various half-baked guesses at how much it would cost to get to global net zero by 2050. Indeed, the King himself had a go, using the flatulent, gee-whiz rhetoric that the thermo-totalitarians love:
“… we could mobilize the trillions of dollars we need – in the order of four-and-a-half to five trillion a year – to drive the transformation we need.”
Mobilize. Trillions. Drive. Transformation. Kapow!
Over the 27 years to 2050, the King’s estimate works out at about $130 trillion, of which the United Kingdom’s 0.9% (for we emit 0.9% of the world’s emissions) would be $1.2 trillion. The Government’s climate-change advisers reckon that is about right.
But let us get real. One of the very few halfway realistic cost estimates in the “what price net zero” discussion is that of National Grid ESO, the UK’s electricity grid authority. It has estimated that just to prepare the grid for net zero would cost $3.7 trillion in capex alone. And the grid accounts for only 23.5% of UK emissions. Pro rata, the capex cost of UK net zero would be $15.8 trillion. Since opex is at least twice capex, the total cost of UK net zero would not be less than £47 trillion. Pro rata, the global total cost would be $5.2 quadrillion.
Global annual GDP is about £110 trillion. Therefore, the $5.2 quadrillion cost of global net zero would be equivalent to 47 years’ global GDP. Even if His Majesty’s Government’s $1.3 trillion estimated cost of UK net zero were correct, warming prevented by each $1 billion spent on global net zero would still be less than one-millionth of a degree.
Why, then, do I say it is time to sweep the monarchy away? It is not mere petulance. The West indeed faces an existential threat, but the threat is not from the weather. It is from the incremental dismantling of democracy itself, and of the freedom and prosperity of which democracy was once the guarantee.
Our universities no longer tolerate debate on climate, or on a growing number of other topics of interest to Communists. Our journalists and politicians are terrified of the Rufmord – the reputational assassination – that is sedulously directed against those of us who dare to question the Party Line.
The sole bounden duty of a constitutional monarch is to keep holy silence. Yes, Walter Bagehot, the Victorian philosopher of monarchy, said that the monarch’s role was “to advise, to encourage and to warn”. But it is not to speak out in public on one side, and one side only, of a raging scientific and political debate. The King has broken the contract of silence to which he assented at his coronation. For that breach of contract, he must go.
Three of Britain’s political parties – UKIP, Reform and Reclaim – all now oppose the climate nonsense root and branch. Most Conservatives and most working-class Socialists also oppose the climate nonsense. Only the watermelon parties – the Greens and the Illiberals – still believe in it.
The King has, therefore, openly taken the side of the wealthy establishment against the mere people. And he has done so when, on any objective analysis, no one need do anything about global warming except to enjoy it and live longer. For nothing can be done about it anyway, and anything we tried to do would be – as it is already proving to be – disproportionately expensive. The King, from his gilded throne, is kicking the nation’s poor people in the teeth.
His Majesty’s mutterances on the global warming question represent no less than a strategic threat to the security of the United Kingdom as well as to its prosperity and well-being. If he were deliberately trying to destroy this country, he could scarcely have done worse.
I shall stop short of calling his speech in Abu Dhabi an act of treason, for he is too dim to have acted deliberately. Though his speech may not have been treasonous in its intent, it is unquestionably treasonous in its effect.
Therefore, many of us who have hitherto unswervingly supported the Crown have now decided that, decorative though it is, it is now causing such strategic harm to the nation it is supposed to serve, and especially to the poorest, that it must be swept away, and the sooner the better.
Let Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Highgrove House and the many other properties of the Crown become public museums. Let the Royal Family move lock, stock and pork-barrel to Montecito and just leave us alone. Let the State Coach give rides to toddlers at Disneyland. Let the Crown Jewels be sold to pay down the national debt. Let the polo fields be ploughed and planted with apple-trees. Enough is enough.
dennis
Jedi Council Member
Apparently John Kerry has not yet achieved zero emissions
The United States’ Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, found himself at the center of an unexpected incident during the Climate Change Conference in Dubai on Sunday. While passionately discussing US policy on coal power plants, Kerry inadvertently unleashed a burst of wind energy of a different kind — a momentary flatulence that became the unexpected highlight of the international event.
The incident occurred as Kerry was advocating against permitting more coal-fired power plants worldwide. In the midst of his anti-coal diatribe, a distinct sound of passing gas interrupted his speech.
Fart Fiasco: John Kerry’s Unintended Emission Steals Spotlight at Climate Change Conference (VIDEO) | Restoring Liberty
The United States' Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, found himself at the center of an unexpected incident during the Climate Change Conference.joemiller.us
happyliza
The Living Force
True and comical response much overdue. However, facts will see multiple pairs of long johns and multiple deaths shortly, as nobody is 'prepped' for this ice age. Even Siberia is struggling now! Not long before they are all eating free ice lollies!!
Edit: Spelling
Add another loophole to jump through created for the climate deniers. The restrictions are ramping up.
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,
A talking point that is now everywhere in the media is the notion that in the near future travel is highly likely to be restricted through the introduction of so called ‘carbon passports’.
Last week, CNN ran a piece created by something called ‘The Conversation,’ which had the headline “It’s time to limit how often we can travel abroad – ‘carbon passports’ may be the answer”
Within this “analysis,” readers were told that record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires and extreme weather events are being driven in part by people going on holiday.
“Tourism is part of the problem,” the piece asserts, adding “The tourism sector generates around one-tenth of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis.”
It then goes on to suggest that the introduction of carbon passports which would see every “traveler being assigned a yearly carbon allowance that they cannot exceed,” could “ration” travel.
“This concept may seem extreme,” the writer states before telling you that it isn’t and it’s a probably a good idea because of how on the verge of collapse the environment is.
“Boiling temperatures will probably diminish the allure of traditional beach destinations,” anyway, claims the author.
This isn’t just one alarmist story languishing somewhere in the dark depths of CNN’s website, it’s everywhere:
Thepropaganda information, including another piece published this week by Business Insider, all cites a report written by a consultancy agency called The Future Laboratory which was released by a travel company called Intrepid.
That report states that “These allowances will manifest as passports that force people to ration their carbon in line with the global carbon budget, which is 750 billion tonnes until 2050.”
Not only will you own nothing and like it, if this progresses as these ‘experts’ suggest, you won’t be able to go anywhere either.
Of course, people like Bill Gates, John Kerry and their ilk will still be allowed to constantly fly around in their private jets, because they are “the solution.”
Your one budget Easyjet flight to Malaga every couple of years is the big problem.
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,
A talking point that is now everywhere in the media is the notion that in the near future travel is highly likely to be restricted through the introduction of so called ‘carbon passports’.
Last week, CNN ran a piece created by something called ‘The Conversation,’ which had the headline “It’s time to limit how often we can travel abroad – ‘carbon passports’ may be the answer”
Within this “analysis,” readers were told that record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires and extreme weather events are being driven in part by people going on holiday.
“Tourism is part of the problem,” the piece asserts, adding “The tourism sector generates around one-tenth of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis.”
It then goes on to suggest that the introduction of carbon passports which would see every “traveler being assigned a yearly carbon allowance that they cannot exceed,” could “ration” travel.
“This concept may seem extreme,” the writer states before telling you that it isn’t and it’s a probably a good idea because of how on the verge of collapse the environment is.
“Boiling temperatures will probably diminish the allure of traditional beach destinations,” anyway, claims the author.
This isn’t just one alarmist story languishing somewhere in the dark depths of CNN’s website, it’s everywhere:
The
That report states that “These allowances will manifest as passports that force people to ration their carbon in line with the global carbon budget, which is 750 billion tonnes until 2050.”
Sounds like a lot of fun.
Not only will you own nothing and like it, if this progresses as these ‘experts’ suggest, you won’t be able to go anywhere either.
Of course, people like Bill Gates, John Kerry and their ilk will still be allowed to constantly fly around in their private jets, because they are “the solution.”
Your one budget Easyjet flight to Malaga every couple of years is the big problem.
Attachments
Silvano Trotta Officiel
La prétendue mort des récifs coralliens est utilisée à plusieurs reprises comme un signe du réchauffement climatique. Encore un mensonge, un de plus, les bancs de corail ont à nouveau connu une croissance significative ces dernières années...
t.me
Encore un mensonge, un de plus, les bancs de corail ont à nouveau connu une croissance significative ces dernières années.
The supposed death of coral reefs is repeatedly used as a sign of global warming.Another lie, one more, the coral beds have again experienced significant growth in recent years.
More results of Green madness - in this case in Germany.
In Germany's Hesse, wide swaths of an old forest with trees about the age of 200+ years are currently being destroyed for windpower turbines. This forest, the Reinhardswald, had once served as an the inspiration for the Grimm brothers in making their fairy tale collection. Here's an article about this on kettner-edelmetalle.de (translated via Deepl):
The destruction of Grimm's fairytale forest: a victim of wind power?
It is a story that sounds like a gloomy fairy tale, but it is a bitter reality. The Reinhardswald forest, which once inspired the Brothers Grimm to write their world-famous fairy tales, is being destroyed for the construction of wind turbines. The 241-metre-high wind turbines will protrude behind the Sleeping Beauty Castle Sababurg, a sight that pains the heart of every nature lover and cultural historian.
The destruction of the fairytale forest
Harvesters, also known as tree-felling machines, have already cut wide swathes through the largest contiguous mixed forest in Germany. Fourteen kilometers of highway-wide construction roads are being cut through the Reinhardswald to make room for the monstrous wind turbines. The inhabitants of Reinhardswald are horrified and saddened. They hear the screaming of the machines and the crashing of trees up to 200 years old being felled. Animals flee the forest, including rare and strictly protected lynxes.
Resistance to the wind turbines
Opposition to the wind turbines is strong. Nine out of eleven mayors in the Reinhardswald are against the construction of the turbines. They are concerned about fire protection, the pollution of drinking water and the noise for local residents. Almost all residents reject the wind turbines. They see the project as destroying their beloved forest and fear that this is just the beginning of large-scale deforestation in Germany. {Other German forests, like the Thuringian forest in Central Germany, have also come into the focus of the "Green" policies. Though there is more resistance, currently [link].}
The arguments of the proponents
The proponents of wind turbines, including the current Environment Minister Priska Hinz (Greens), defend the project. They argue that wind energy makes a decisive contribution to the energy transition and the preservation of nature. But is it really a contribution to the preservation of nature if a centuries-old forest is destroyed for this purpose? Is it not rather a sign of ignorance and indifference towards the natural and cultural heritage of our country?
The political dimension
The political dimension of this issue cannot be overlooked. The Greens in the federal government want wind turbines in the forest. They are pushing ahead with the energy transition, but seem to be ignoring the negative effects on nature and local people. The new CDU star, Minister President Boris Rhein, has thrown the Greens out of government and formed an anti-green government with the SPD. But whether this will save the Reinhardswald is questionable. After all, the decisions are made in Berlin, where wind turbines are at the heart of the Greens' energy transition.
Conclusion
The destruction of the Reinhardswald forest is a sad example of how the energy transition is being pushed through at the expense of nature and cultural heritage. It is a wake-up call for all those who are committed to preserving our forests and treating our nature responsibly. It is time for us to ask ourselves whether this is the right way forward and whether we need to find other, more sustainable solutions. Because once destroyed, the fairytale forest can no longer be saved.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
In Germany's Hesse, wide swaths of an old forest with trees about the age of 200+ years are currently being destroyed for windpower turbines. This forest, the Reinhardswald, had once served as an the inspiration for the Grimm brothers in making their fairy tale collection. Here's an article about this on kettner-edelmetalle.de (translated via Deepl):
The destruction of Grimm's fairytale forest: a victim of wind power?
It is a story that sounds like a gloomy fairy tale, but it is a bitter reality. The Reinhardswald forest, which once inspired the Brothers Grimm to write their world-famous fairy tales, is being destroyed for the construction of wind turbines. The 241-metre-high wind turbines will protrude behind the Sleeping Beauty Castle Sababurg, a sight that pains the heart of every nature lover and cultural historian.
The destruction of the fairytale forest
Harvesters, also known as tree-felling machines, have already cut wide swathes through the largest contiguous mixed forest in Germany. Fourteen kilometers of highway-wide construction roads are being cut through the Reinhardswald to make room for the monstrous wind turbines. The inhabitants of Reinhardswald are horrified and saddened. They hear the screaming of the machines and the crashing of trees up to 200 years old being felled. Animals flee the forest, including rare and strictly protected lynxes.
Resistance to the wind turbines
Opposition to the wind turbines is strong. Nine out of eleven mayors in the Reinhardswald are against the construction of the turbines. They are concerned about fire protection, the pollution of drinking water and the noise for local residents. Almost all residents reject the wind turbines. They see the project as destroying their beloved forest and fear that this is just the beginning of large-scale deforestation in Germany. {Other German forests, like the Thuringian forest in Central Germany, have also come into the focus of the "Green" policies. Though there is more resistance, currently [link].}
The arguments of the proponents
The proponents of wind turbines, including the current Environment Minister Priska Hinz (Greens), defend the project. They argue that wind energy makes a decisive contribution to the energy transition and the preservation of nature. But is it really a contribution to the preservation of nature if a centuries-old forest is destroyed for this purpose? Is it not rather a sign of ignorance and indifference towards the natural and cultural heritage of our country?
The political dimension
The political dimension of this issue cannot be overlooked. The Greens in the federal government want wind turbines in the forest. They are pushing ahead with the energy transition, but seem to be ignoring the negative effects on nature and local people. The new CDU star, Minister President Boris Rhein, has thrown the Greens out of government and formed an anti-green government with the SPD. But whether this will save the Reinhardswald is questionable. After all, the decisions are made in Berlin, where wind turbines are at the heart of the Greens' energy transition.
Conclusion
The destruction of the Reinhardswald forest is a sad example of how the energy transition is being pushed through at the expense of nature and cultural heritage. It is a wake-up call for all those who are committed to preserving our forests and treating our nature responsibly. It is time for us to ask ourselves whether this is the right way forward and whether we need to find other, more sustainable solutions. Because once destroyed, the fairytale forest can no longer be saved.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
The decision makers are not ignorant, they do it with every intention of annoying the citizens on purpose. They know at what temperature the vehicle does not work. Authorities just feign ignorance in the face of the incredulous population.
One of the big purposes is to break economies, if people can't move it helps that agenda.
The city should save the environment with electric buses - they cannot stand the cold and are taken out of traffic
Translated with deepl
One of the big purposes is to break economies, if people can't move it helps that agenda.
The city should save the environment with electric buses - they cannot stand the cold and are taken out of traffic
Translated with deepl
In Alberta (or pick a province) the problems are well apparent (more here):
Seems to be, more or less, nothing more than net zero carbon window dressing for the masses, at taxpayer expense.
