Farmer Grant Piper slams ABC for 'hiding the truth' about wind turbines, claiming it selectively edited a 7.30 story - "Grant Piper, a cattle farmer in the central west of NSW near the city of Dubbo, said an episode of the ABC's 7.30 that was broadcast in early February left out what he most wanted to show, which is the extent of the encroachment by wind farms. Dissatisfied with what was left on the cutting room floor, Mr Piper filmed a video a couple of days after the broadcast to show the spot he had taken the program makers to so they could understand the magnitude of a proposed wind farm near his property. Mr Piper said two wind farms with over 200 turbines each towering over 200m would hem in his property."
Farmers are only useful when they support the left wing agenda of anti-development and protectionism
Meme - "Indulgences. 3 florins.
"The idea is simple. You pay us money and all your sins disappear! It's just like purchasing carbon offsets.""
Perfectly illustrating the point that climate change hysteria is not about preventing climate change but virtue signalling and self flagellation
Wilfred Reilly on X - "We can mitigate at least half - being insanely conservative - of the projected effects of climate change by planting trees and painting home roofs in attractive light colors. Glad to drop the articles. Why don't we hear this from the doom-sayers? Because they don't WANT an easy logical solution, but rather cowardly panic leading to systemic change."
Steve R. on X - "Create panic and extremis and use it to foment change favorable to your preferred outcome. It worked on 2020, so why not keep running the same playbook over and over, especially when it’s obvious you’ve successfully cultivated a largely credulous, incurious population?"
๐ฎ๐ฑ Mrs. Sunrise ๐๐ค๐ on X - "Ask an ecofundie about nuclear power for a laugh. It would solve ~all our CO2 issues but it's scary, so....๐
Biofuel is one of many scams; it's worse for the environment but "feels better", so we pursue it."
Strawman of Steel on X - "How many climate-doom predictions have come & and gone in YOUR lifetime?"
๐ฎ๐ฑ Mrs. Sunrise ๐๐ค๐ on X - "Fun fact: my Mom and Dad were at the first Earth Day celebration in 1970. The theme? Ending global cooling. They were also concerned about overpopulation. Neither of which is a problem anymore."
Robert on X - "There are actually ways to make beneficial use of climate change. For example, collecting the increased rainfall and transporting it for agricultural use, or growing crops in northern areas that aren’t suited to it today. But we’re not ready for that discussion."
puzzled on X - "If the climate hysterics we are as worried as they say we’d be heavily investing in nuclear and geo engineering. The idea that we can solve the problem with net zero is zero. It would require world wide collaboration while we can’t even stop the war in Gaza and Ukraine."
Baxter Bentley on X - "Emphasizing doom over solutions is an occupational hazard among apocalyptic prophets. Even so, climate prophets are lousy prophets. They attach dates to their prophecies. That's a rookie mistake. Say what you will about the Revelation of St. John, but it doesn't give dates"
Nemesis 2024 on X - "Those who sell hairshirts don't want a reduction in sin."
Planting 1 trillion trees might not actually be a good idea - "To be clear, critics of the campaign are still fans of trees. They still think forests play a role in solving the climate crisis — their skepticism mostly centers around efforts to plant trees in places they weren’t before, or to plant large swaths of a single species to essentially create “tree plantations” instead of real forests. Another big concern surrounding the call for planting a trillion trees is that it could distract from other efforts to slow down climate change, like stopping fossil fuel pollution and deforestation in the first place. “You don’t need to plant a tree to regenerate a forest,” Fleischman tells The Verge. Forests can heal on their own if they’re allowed to, he says, and these forests end up being more resilient and more helpful in the climate fight than newly planted plots of trees. He argues that the best way to ensure there are enough trees standing to trap the carbon dioxide heating up the planet is to secure the political rights of people who depend on forests — primarily indigenous peoples whose lands are frequently encroached upon by industry and governments... “It’s not like these two things are in competition,” says Wayne Walker, a scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. Maintaining existing forests should be a priority, but restoring trees to places where they’ve been lost can sometimes be the next best option, he says."
Clearly, we must push the left wing agenda and destroy the economy to fight climate change. Other solutions cannot be considered
Meme - Jet Ski Bandit @fulovitboss: "Not Clean. Not Green. Not Cheap The great climate #sWINDle
s wind le
swindle"
Thread by @cloverhogan on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "This is terrifying. Not the headline... I'm familiar with the science. No, what's terrifying is how far I had to dig through my news notifications to find this story. What's terrifying is that this headline is not #trending on every social media platform.
"U.N. climate chief says two years to save the planet"
What's terrifying is that I've seen more mentions of it being "int'l pet day" than I have the fact the fact we're on the brink of climate collapse. What's terrifying is that in our biggest ever election year, the #climatecrisis is not at the top of every political agenda. What's terrifying is the number of times in the past month I've been asked to be "less radical" in my speeches. I was told to avoid using the term "crisis", so as to not make anyone "anxious". Just today, I was asked to be less "negative". WHAT?! If there's one thing you do today, let it be sharing this headline. Share it on social media, with a colleague, or at the dinner table. It is on all of us to sound the alarm. We've run out of time for silence."
NatFilosof_PhD on X - ">This is terrifying.
What's terrifying is you actually believe it and think it's actually "science” ."
AJ Kay on X - "When you hit the panic button every 5 seconds, it becomes background noise — especially after the 4000th time the sky fails to fall. People older than you know this. They also understand the interests behind the message for which you’re such an easy mark."
Anonykrysa ๐ฅ on X - "Let's talk about the science you supposedly are familiar know. What is the scientific name for a group of scientists, who make predictions over a long period of time that repeatedly fail to come true?"
hugo alves on X - "When you were 9 years old, we only had 100 months."
"100 months to act on climate, warns Charles. Sun 8 Mar 2009"
░L░Y░D░S░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░ on X - "Oh my god you fall for this EVERY TIME. STOPPPPP"
Renae Rogers on X - "This is the umpteenth time they have claimed "WE HAVE X TIME TO SAVE THE PLANET" and the solutions are always "GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES FOR GOVERNMENT CONTOL!" No thank you. Stop letting them use you."
LorEssa ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฉ๐ช๐ณ๐ฑ๐ด☠️ ๐ผ๐ฆ ๐ on X - "U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMAN June 29, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels it the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
newmanian on X - "It's because it's the same headline used since 1974. But maybe you haven't been around that long. When you've seen as much from the Climate Fear Mongers as I have, you kinda look past these sensationalized headlines. I'd be more concerned about the next world war than fearing our planet increasing in temp by 1 degree over the next 100 years."
FreeSpeechMatters on X - "What’s terrifying is that when absolutely nothing happens in 2 years, people like you won’t feel an ounce of remorse or embarrassment. You’ll just pick a new date for doomsday and carry on."
Thread by @DACDAC4DAC on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Open Letter to Clover: I know that you are a 24-year-old climate activist. I get the fact that you believe that "you are familiar with the science." But, frankly, this is complete and utter garbage. Let me tell you about my journey to this point. In 1989, 11 years before you were born, I was told by the same people that unless we reversed course by 2000, entire nations would be wiped from the Earth. I was interested in meteorology and quite good at it. When I went to college in the early 90s, I decided that climate science was one likely option on what I wanted to do. I dove into the material and attended as many lectures as possible at different universities. But I noticed something. All of the predictions were based on a lot of assumptions. All of the analyses were based on complex models with little oversight. All of the ice core samples were viewed by only a small number of people. I also noticed that all of the scientists who touted the extreme destruction were feted like royalty by other professors. Rather than asking tough questions, they were brought in to be celebrated.The more I dug into the data, the less it appeared like disaster was imminent. Even in the early 90s, it was clear that the human population had exploded, yet the absolute number of weather-related and climate-related deaths were way down. If anything, burning fossil fuels had been associated with improvements in humans surviving catastrophes. By that point, I decided to pursue a career in biological sciences because I trusted the research more (that might be a mistake now). But I continued to look into the climate data and critique it like any other scientific data. The problem was always that the data was opaque. Layered under assumptions and obfuscated by lack of access to the source material. Few ever really tried to replicate the evidence and contradictory evidence was always cast aside. Then, 2000 came and went. No nations were wiped off the Earth. But that didn't stop new predictions of doom. And none of those ever came true. More troubling was the desire to rig the data to make things look worse than it actually is. Like the EPA showing that heatwaves had become more intense since the 1960s. The problem is that heatwaves were vastly more intense in the 1930s and the 60s and 70s were unusually cold decades. In fact, we look a lot more like the 1910s and 1920s today. Why hide that information? Why twist the facts? I also noticed that events that weren't climate-related but government-related were blamed on climate change. It still happens today. The Maui fires were a government-created disaster. Yet, the government blamed climate change. Ultimately, I determined that climate scientists were paid massive sums of money to pull the government line of a massive catastrophe. Unlike the myth that scientists were paid to downplay climate change, they were paid far more to hype the effects. How much more? Since 1993, the US government alone has pumped $154 billion into climate research. That's more than $5 billion per year. That's a problem. And it leads to terrible research and predictions that are wrong over and over again. Like Pacific Islands disappearing. They are in fact getting larger. Like polar bears disappearing. Researchers admitted that they have no idea what the numbers were when they made the predictions in the first place. So, the appearance of an increase in population would be miscounting. That means they don't know the trend. Here is the thing, Clover. If we only have 2 years to reverse course, it's already over. There is no way that you are going to convince billions of Asians and Africans to stop cooking and heating with wood, coal, and gas. They won't stop because that would be bad for them. There are 6 billion people who aren't going to change course. How do I know? Because almost every signatory to the Paris Agreement promised to do nothing until some future date. They like the modern world. The modern world is driven by fossil fuels. It will be for some time. There is no way that you are going to convince governments to impoverish their people. Even dictatorships avoid making life too terrible for their people because that would incite revolt. If we have only 2 years left, we may as well accept the end. Clover, 2 years isn't the end. That man just made up the number to scare people like you, especially young people like you. Young people are easily manipulated because they have no real background in how things work. I'm sorry to say but you know next to nothing about anything. I hope that you will channel your energies into something worthwhile. Being an activist for activisms sake is a shallow existence. Find something fulfilling that pushes society forward and live your life. That will make people's lives better.
Sincerely,
Cherry "
Clearly, cognitive dissonance only applies to cults the left disapproves of, and conflict of interest is only a problem when the left says it is.
Warming expert: Only decade left to act in time - "A leading U.S. climate researcher says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe. NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most,” Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California’s state capital."
From 2006. Why don't climate change hystericists trust the science and realise that "catastrophe" is inevitable, so there's no point destroying the world to "fight" "climate change"?
An Influential Global Voice Warns of Runaway Emissions - "Fatih Birol is a man watching a clock — the clock that ticks off the years in which little is done to slow emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. As chief economist of the authoritative International Energy Agency, Birol has a bully pulpit, and he has used it to consistently warn that time is running out if the global community hopes to avert potentially catastrophic climate change... it will be almost impossible to reverse the trends after 2017 because our energy system — power plants, the industry sector, the transportation sector — will be locked into the capital investments in a way that they will use fossil fuel energies."
From 2011
In megaproject-weary Newfoundland, a massive hydrogen operation has some on edge - "Project Nujio’qonik has been controversial almost since it was first proposed. The first two phases of development would involve windfarms of at least 150 turbines built on Newfoundland's Port au Port Peninsula and in the nearby Codroy Valley, on the island's west coast. Those turbines would power a hydrogen and ammonia production plant, to be built in Stephenville, N.L., located about 145 kilometres northeast of Codroy. The experimental project would exploit a massive rural area of Newfoundland as a testing ground for the benefit of a private company, said Nick Mercer, an assistant environmental science professor at the University of Prince Edward Island. Mercer, who grew up in Newfoundland and Labrador, is a member of Enviro Watch N.L., a group that has been vocally opposed to World Energy's proposal. He said they worry Project Nujio’qonik doesn't come with enough benefits or control for the communities it will impact. A transition away from oil is "inevitable" for the province, Mercer said in an interview. "Just transitions, however, are not inevitable," he said. "If we build the renewable energy future with the same capitalist and extractive values of the fossil fuel era, we're going to end up with the exact same social and economic inequity." Bill Montevecchi, a seabird scientist at Memorial University in St. John's, said he's concerned about the impacts the project will have on an ecologically sensitive area."
Yet another example of how climate change hysteria is a way to push the left wing agenda, and is not necessarily good for the environment
Three Non-Economic Challenges Facing the Renewable-Energy Transition - "Costs of onshore wind power and commercial-scale solar power have declined to $36-$39/MWh, aligning with long-promised reductions. However, cost is only one obstacle to the wind-, water-, solar-powered future. Three other physical challenges remain. The first challenge is the massive land consumption of wind- and solar-power generation. When measured in 2010, renewable energies generated 525 GW of power, but consumed 398,000 square kilometers. This contrasts starkly with natural gas power production, which generated 3,530 GW of power while consuming only 1,800 square kilometers of land area. Another hurdle is land disruption caused by mining, coupled with the necessary increase in metal extraction, posing a significant barrier to the clean-energy transition. Massive new quantities of mining and refinement of metals and minerals will be required to produce and store wind and solar power at the larger scales of deployment envisioned by advocates of the renewable-energy transition. On average, building wind and solar systems needs over 10 times the material needed for hydrocarbon-based machines providing the same energy. The third issue is “energy returns on investment” (EROI), which represents the ratio of energy delivered to society from one energy unit invested in obtaining that particular energy. Wind and solar power exhibit a lower Energy Return on Investment (EROI) than conventional electricity production, producing lower levels of electricity per unit cost. Societies that direct resources into lower-return endeavours, such as wind and solar power forsake the economic gains that would accrue from continuing to use energy sources that provide a higher economic return on investment, economic gains that are necessary for a society to prosper."
Left wingers always dismiss the Fraser Institute, because they hate inconvenient facts
Green Energy Reality Check: It's Not as Clean as You Think - "many enthusiasts believe things that are not possible when it comes to the physics of fueling society, not least the magical belief that “clean-tech” energy can echo the velocity of the progress of digital technologies. It cannot... all energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth. No energy system, in short, is actually “renewable,” since all machines require the continual mining and processing of millions of tons of primary materials and the disposal of hardware that inevitably wears out. Compared with hydrocarbons, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy. This means that any significant expansion of today’s modest level of green energy—currently less than 4% of the country’s total consumption (versus 56% from oil and gas)—will create an unprecedented increase in global mining for needed minerals, radically exacerbate existing environmental and labor challenges in emerging markets (where many mines are located), and dramatically increase U.S. imports and the vulnerability of America’s energy supply chain...
Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.
By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage...
replacing the energy output from a single 100-MW natural gas-fired turbine, itself about the size of a residential house (producing enough electricity for 75,000 homes), requires at least 20 wind turbines, each one about the size of the Washington Monument, occupying some 10 square miles of land... “[T]echnologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are in fact significantly more material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.”... If episodic sources of energy (wind and solar) are to be used to supply power 24/7, even greater quantities of materials will be required. One needs to build additional machines, roughly two to three times as many, in order to produce and store energy when the sun and wind are available, for use at times when they are not. Then there are the additional materials required to build electricity storage... a utility-scale storage system sufficient for the above-noted 100-MW wind farm would entail using at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries... A Dutch government-sponsored study concluded that the Netherlands’ green ambitions alone would consume a major share of global minerals. “Exponential growth in [global] renewable energy production capacity,” the study noted, “is not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production.”... the materials implications of a “clean tech” future creates “a new suite of challenges for the sustainable development of minerals and resources.”... the most dramatic factor driving the scale of future global mining is not the creation of products that require new uses of minerals (e.g., silicon for computers, aluminum for aircraft) but the push to use green machines to replace hydrocarbons to meet existing energy demands. Green machines mean mining more materials per unit of energy delivered to society. Since clean tech is about supplying energy in a more “sustainable” fashion, one needs to consider not just the physical mining realities but also the hidden energy costs of the underlying materials themselves, i.e., the “embodied” energy costs... Embodied energy costs can add up to surprising levels. For example, while an automobile weighs about 10,000 times more than a smartphone, the car requires only 400 times more energy to fabricate... Pipelines are the world’s most energy-efficient means of moving a ton of material. However, nearly all the materials used to construct green machines are solids, and a very large share will be transported by truck. Using trucks instead of pipelines entails a 1,000% increase per ton-mile in the embodied transportation of energy materials. Finally, in any full accounting of environmental realities, there is the disposal challenge inherent in the very large quantities of batteries, wind turbines, and solar cells after they wear out... For many green energy proponents, the solution to all these challenges with materials is found in a wellworn call for greater attention to “reduce, reuse, and recycle.” Many people also take refuge in the belief that our future has room in it for more energy materials because technology is “dematerializing” the rest of society. In reality, neither dematerialization nor recycling offers a solution to the heavy costs of a green energy future... Many materials, especially high-value metals, can be significantly recycled. But we can consider the implications and lessons for green waste by looking at the 50 million tons of so-called e-waste... [which] equals “the weight of all commercial aircraft ever built” and is forecast to double in the next several decades... as the scale of global recycling grows, many governments and some environmental organizations are beginning to focus on the serious health and safety issues that have been ignored... If “urban mining”—the oft-used locution for capturing minerals hidden in worn-out products—were easier, cheaper, and safer than mining new materials, there would be a lot more of it, and it would not require subsidies and mandates to put into effect... the energy required to recover a recycled mineral can be greater than expended to get it from nature’s ore... a global gold rush for green minerals to meet ambitious plans could take miners into “some remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.” And then there are the widely reportedly cases of abuse and child labor in mines in the Congo, where 70% of the world’s raw cobalt originates... It remains to be seen how Europe’s newfound mining ambitions will be greeted by environmentalists and the continent’s various green parties, given the hostility of both to extraction industries... The U.S. has one of longest permitting processes in the world; investors must navigate a labyrinth of dozens of federal, state, and local rules. It can take one to three decades to get one new mine into production... the administration’s proposal to expand domestic mining was met with partisan criticism as “shameful” and harmful to the environment"
Questioning the Climate Science Orthodoxy in Glasgow - "It is illogical to blame extreme weather events on warming, and then blame their absence on warming as well. Likewise, attributing horrific storms, heat waves, and cold snaps to climate change fails when many records for extreme weather are more than a century old. Take Scotland: Less than two months ago, the BBC headlined that Scotland had seen its “hottest September day in 115 years.” If climate change is responsible, then why was it more than 3 degrees Celsius warmer in 1906? Many alarmist headlines about coral reef death and wildfires , meanwhile, are equally unsupported by fact. While Biden declares , “We must listen to science,” he and other grandstanding politicians now appear deaf. True science questions every assumption; it does not seek to shut down debate. The Glasgow conference’s approach to science has more to do with a Dark Age approach in which assumption became religious truth, rather than the Enlightenment’s more genuine approach to knowledge."
Escape the Echo Chamber - "We are living in an unscientific era. There is no open debate on global warming. If global warming is increasing at the rates the activists state then every country should be installing nuclear power plants. If the seas were rising as fast as the activists predict then the government shouldn’t be subsidizing flooding insurance for coastal homes. Instead, new homes are being added in the supposed danger zones. If farm land is getting warmer then why isn’t the government funding the northern migration of crops? If we’ve already failed at preventing global warming for most of the century, why aren’t we installing mitigation programs to adjust to the inevitable? Meanwhile, we are seeing politicians set goals of reducing carbon emissions by 50% within nine years, an impossibility. Politicians have also been calling for retrofitting every building in America to be more energy efficient, without the blue collar workers to do it, when a fraction of that money would fund enough carbon emission free nuclear plants to power the country. We are making science-free decisions about the future and it’s a mess."
FACT-CHECK: “Arctic Sea Ice Soars to Highest Level for 21 Years” thus Climate Change is false - MEP Marcel de Graaf - "Comparing just a day or a few days between years is not scientifically meaningful. Weather events can change the extent for several days, and there is variation from year to year. So, cherry-picking a day or two is meaningless in terms of climate change."
Of course, we keep being told that one day being the hottest day in 38 years means climate change is going to kill us allMeme - Pointy-Haired Boss: "I INVITED A CLIMATE SCIENTIST TO EXPLAIN THE RISK OF CLIMATE CHANGE TO OUR COMPANY."
Climate Scientist: "HUMAN ACTIVITY IS WARMING THE EARTH AND WILL LEAD TO A GLOBAL CATASTROPHE."
Dilbert: "HOW DO SCIENTISTS KNOW THAT?"
Climate Scientist: "IT'S EASY. WE START WITH THE BASIC SCIENCE OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY. THEN WE MEASURE CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE AND CO2 OVER TIME. WE PUT THAT DATA INTO DOZENS OF DIFFERENT CLIMATE MODELS AND IGNORE THE ONES THAT LOOK WRONG TO US. THEN WE TAKE THAT I OUTPUT AND RUN IT THROUGH LONG-TERM ECONOMIC MODELS OF THE SORT THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN RIGHT"
Dilbert: "What if I don't trust the economic models?"
Climate Scientist: "Who hired the science denier?"
