Small Modular Reactors Advance In The Nuclear World

“An HTMR-100 cannot melt down. If the worst possible event were to occur, the reactor will just shut itself down. If all cooling stops, the reactor will heat up a bit for 24 hours and then over the next 4 to 5 days will just cool down with no incident. That is ‘walk away safe’.”

“Nuclear power is the future of mankind. The world’s electricity insecurity experienced since 2020 has shown the way forward with great clarity.”

Hear, hear.

Furthermore, nuclear is the only known efficient, reliable, continuous and truly ‘green’ energy technology:

• Zero CO2 emissions, if you believe that invisible trace gas and plant food CO2 is destroying the planet.

• Zero particulate (smog) pollution.

• The least land-intensive energy technology for both plant exposure and the mining required for key resource uranium.

• ~60 year lifespan.

A win, win for both the environment and for humanity.

PA Pundits - International

By Dr. Kelvin Kemm ~

The first two decades of the 21st Century will go down in history as a time of amazing world confusion about energy supplies, particularly electricity.

This is all due to electricity planning being done too much at a political policy level, and not by engineers and scientists. This in turn was linked to an inordinate fear of supposed man-induced climate change linked to fossil fuels, primarily driven by extreme green activist groups. Sadly, much scientific logic was trampled under the feet of street demonstrators, clamoring for Mother Nature’s natural energy: wind and solar.

The result has been soaring electricity prices in many countries, and power shortages leading to blackouts, resulting in major economic and social upheaval.

There has also been significant interference from European countries in the affairs of African and other countries around the world, insisting that developing countries adapt their energy usage…

View original post 1,732 more words


UN Secretary General claims use of fossil fuels will lead to ‘mutually assured destruction’

Bahahahaha!

Like the entire #UkraineRussiaWar (real-energy War) isn’t a result of the indolent West’s capitulation to UNreliable ‘green’ energy ideology and it’s, subsequent, TOTAL dependence on Russian fossil-fuels!

Cognitive dissonance on steroids.

Though, completely unsurprising. And, completely by design.

Grrr.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Coal-hungry China [image credit: democraticunderground.com]
More doom-laden propaganda, pretending climate theories are facts and so on.
– – –
The UN Secretary General says the rush to use fossil fuels because of the war in Ukraine is “madness” and threatens global climate targets.

The invasion of Ukraine has seen rapid rises in the prices of coal, oil and gas as countries scramble to replace Russian sources, says BBC News.

But Antonio Guterres warns that these short-term measures might “close the window” on the Paris climate goals.

View original post 157 more words


The Army’s Climate Obsession Is A Disgrace

“Switching one’s energy dependence from oil supplies to China-controlled electrical energy equipment is foolish, bordering on insane, in strategic terms. Where are the senior security analysts in the US Department of Defense willing to point this out?”

Where are they? They are purposefully and actively weakening America, by design, by authority.

“Build Back Better” isn’t merely a slogan. They mean it.

The problem is, what does “better” actually mean? They haven’t told us yet, just as Marx (to his credit) warned that he had no idea what his theory of Marxism would portend for the future.

We all (now) know how Marxist doctrine has played out since — misery and death for all.

PA Pundits - International

By Dr. Jay Lehr and Robert Lyman~

The United States Army has just published its climate strategy. In the foreword, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, holder of a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Williams College and a former civilian employee of the Department of Defense, proudly stated that:

The army must adapt across our entire enterprise and purposefully pursue greenhouse gas mitigation strategies to reduce climate risks. If we do not take action now, across our installations, acquisition and logistics, and training, our options to mitigate these risks will become more constrained with each passing year.

One might wonder why, as Russian troops invade the Ukraine and China ceaselessly builds up its air, surface and naval forces, the United States Army is turning its mighty attention to the goal of defeating carbon dioxide emissions. The Armys former recruiting slogan, Be…

View original post 1,159 more words


Shellenberger : The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin

In a Greenpeace action, a CO-2 sign stands in front of the Brandenburg Gate with flames coming out of it. (Jörg Carstensen via Getty Images)

We know only too well that war comes not when
the forces of freedom are strong,
but when they are weak.
It is then that tyrants are tempted.

– Ronald Reagan
Republican National Convention, July 17 1980

A superb article by @ShellenbergerMD on the root causes of Western weakness in the face of Russian aggression.

Michael Shellenberger

While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production.

How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?

There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.

Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe. 

Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.

The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.

That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal. 

The math is simple. A child could do it.

The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas. 

The question is why. 

How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War? 

Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need“degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)

John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”

But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply. 

As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.

While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy

While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking. 

The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent. 

For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”

The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.

Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons. 

In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine. 

Take Germany.

Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.

At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)

By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to nextdoor France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)

Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere, and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.

The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s, and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.

Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighboring countries or inviting the wrath of Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.

Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany, and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.

This is why Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration’’s first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, for now.) 

Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specifically exempted energy productsso Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.

We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.

The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs.

Second, we need concerted action led by Biden, Congress, and their Canadian counterparts to significantly expand oil and natural gas output from North America to ensure the energy security of our allies in Europe and Asia. North America is more energy-rich than anyone dreamed. Yes, it will be more expensive than Russian gas sent by pipeline. But it would mean Europe could address Putin’s war on Ukraine, rather than financing it.

Exporting gas by ship requires special terminals at ports to liquify (by cooling) natural gas; environmentalists oppose these terminals because of their ideological objection to any combustible fuel. So it’s a good sign that Chancellor Sholz announced plans on Sunday to build two of these terminals to receive North American gas, along with announcing major new military spending to counter Russia.

Third, the U.S. must stop shutting down nuclear plants and start building them. Every country should invest in next-generation nuclear fuel technology while recognizing that the current generation of light-water reactors are our best tool for creating energy at home, with no emissions, right now. What you’ve heard about waste is mostly pseudoscience. Storing used fuel rods is a trivial problem, already solved around the world by keeping them in steel and concrete cans. The more nuclear power we generate, the less oil and gas we have to burn. And the less the West will have to buy from Russia.

Putin’s relentless focus on energy reality has left him in a stronger position than he should ever have been allowed to find himself. It’s not too late for the rest of the West to save the world from tyrannical regimes that have been empowered by our own energy superstitions.

Michael Shellenberger

Best-selling author of “San Fransicko” (HarperCollins, 2021) “Apocalypse Never” (HarperCollins 2020) :: Time Magazine “Hero of Environment” :: Green Book Award winner :: Founder and President of Environmental Progress

The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin | Bari Weiss (Substack)

•••

Shellenberger related :


EPJ Scientific Study : There Is No ‘Climate Crisis’

INCONVENIENT study out of the esteemed EU Physical Journal Plus (EPJ) reaffirming that the “Climate Crisis” narrative is yet another deliberate and deceitful eco-slogan designed to frighten you into belief and compliance.

A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming | SpringerLink

Key quote: “…on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

The latest global temp data from UAH / NASA satellites shows that “global warming” is not a “crisis” either. January anomaly indicating a mere 0.03°C rise in global temps above the 40 year average.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

EXTREME WEATHER related :

UAH / NASA Satellite Global Temperature related :


Could Scotland’s Unwanted Wind Turbines Be Turned Into Playparks?

“Could Scotland’s unwanted wind turbines be turned into playparks?”

Absoultely! With more than 13.9 million trees felled (massacred) in Scotland for windmill development from 2000–2019 there appears to be ample room for playparks and beyond! https://climatism.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/scotlands-net-zero-forest-management-program/

There may even be ample room to facilitate future UN COP meetings next to, said, kiddies playparks if “Net Zero” requires such intesne and massive deforeastion to house industrial wind and solar ‘playparks’.

Oh, the irony… kids and globalist bureaucrats all playing (and paying) together in the future playparks of denuded-forest-gulags.

“Build Back Better!”

(sigh)

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Windy Standard wind farm, Scotland [credit: RWE.com] Ideas, opinions, feedback etc. are invited here. It could be said they’ve already had decades to think about this, but any negativity will no doubt be ignored. Existing uses include children’s play areas and bike sheds, but there’s only so many of those that would find a place.
– – –
One wind farm company is looking for imaginative ways to repurpose turbines at the end of their lives, says BBC News.

When Windy Standard was built in Dumfries and Galloway in the mid-1990s, it was Scotland’s second largest wind farm.

Now it is coming to the end of its functional life and the old turbines are set to be replaced by more powerful machines.

But what happens to the original turbines? Owner Fred Olsen Renewables wants to find creative and sustainable ways to ensure they do not end up in…

View original post 378 more words


COVID-19 : A Shocking New Study Emerges

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
H.L. Mencken

Covid-19, targets a very specific sub-set of the population. In fact, 99.9% of anyone under the age of 90, without severe underlying health conditions, survives. 

An overdue article out of the hard-left, fear-porn-loving Atlantic, bells-the-cat on another high level hoax that came out of the ‘pandemic’, in order for you to submit and comply — “hospitalisations.”

Why is The Atlantic publishing this? Because they need to show history (what will be left of it) that they knew, ‘before anyone’, that Covid-19 was used, maliciously, by the MainstreamMedia, inept politicians and useful idiots, as a tool of fear and panic to wrought (“Build Back Better”) ‘change’.

Change in their own image. Not in yours, or, by yours.

Read on …

via The Atlantic :

(Climatism bolds)

Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number Is Losing Meaning

A new study suggests that almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic cases.By David Zweig

At least 12,000 Americans have already died from COVID-19 this month, as the country inches through its latest surge in cases. But another worrying statistic is often cited to depict the dangers of this moment: The number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States right now is as high as it has been since the beginning of February. It’s even worse in certain places: Some states, including Arkansas and Oregon, recently saw their COVID hospitalizations rise to higher levels than at any prior stage of the pandemic. But how much do those latter figures really tell us?

From the start, COVID hospitalizations have served as a vital metric for tracking the risks posed by the disease. Last winter, this magazine described it as “the most reliable pandemic number,” while Vox quoted the cardiologist Eric Topol as saying that it’s “the best indicator of where we are.” On the one hand, death counts offer finality, but they’re a lagging signal and don’t account for people who suffered from significant illness but survived. Case counts, on the other hand, depend on which and how many people happen to get tested. Presumably, hospitalization numbers provide a more stable and reliable gauge of the pandemic’s true toll, in terms of severe disease. But a new, nationwide study of hospitalization records, released as a preprint today (and not yet formally peer reviewed), suggests that the meaning of this gauge can easily be misinterpreted—and that it has been shifting over time.

If you want to make sense of the number of COVID hospitalizations at any given time, you need to know how sick each patient actually is. Until now, that’s been almost impossible to suss out. The federal government requires hospitals to report every patient who tests positive for COVID, yet the overall tallies of COVID hospitalizations, made available on various state and federal dashboards and widely reported on by the media, do not differentiate based on severity of illness. Some patients need extensive medical intervention, such as getting intubated. Others require supplemental oxygen or administration of the steroid dexamethasone. But there are many COVID patients in the hospital with fairly mild symptoms, too, who have been admitted for further observation on account of their comorbidities, or because they reported feeling short of breath. Another portion of the patients in this tally are in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID, and discovered that they were infected only because they were tested upon admission. How many patients fall into each category has been a topic of much speculation. In August, researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System decided to find out.

Researchers have tried to get at similar questions before. For two separate studies published in May, doctors in California read through several hundred charts of pediatric patients, one by one, to figure out why, exactly, each COVID-positive child had been admitted to the hospital. Did they need treatment for COVID, or was there some other reason for admission, like cancer treatment or a psychiatric episode, and the COVID diagnosis was merely incidental? According to the researchers, 40 to 45 percent of the hospitalizations that they examined were for patients in the latter group.

The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country. Then they checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent. (The latter criterion is based on the National Institutes of Health definition of “severe COVID.”) If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

This increase was even bigger for vaccinated hospital patients, of whom 57 percent had mild or asymptomatic disease. But unvaccinated patients have also been showing up with less severe symptoms, on average, than earlier in the pandemic: The study found that 45 percent of their cases were mild or asymptomatic since January 21. According to Shira Doron, an infectious-disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, and one of the study’s co-authors, the latter finding may be explained by the fact that unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.

Among the limitations of the study is that patients in the VA system are not representative of the U.S. population as a whole, as they include few women and no children. (Still, the new findings echo those from the two pediatric-admissions studies.) Also, like many medical centers, the VA has a policy to test every inpatient for COVID, but this is not a universal practice. Lastly, most of the data—even from the patients admitted in 2021—derive from the phase of the pandemic before Delta became widespread, and it’s possible that the ratios have changed in recent months. The study did run through June 30, however, when the Delta wave was about to break, and it did not find that the proportion of patients with moderate to severe respiratory distress was trending upward at the end of the observation period.

The idea behind the study and what it investigates is important, says Graham Snyder, the medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, though he told me that it would benefit from a little more detail and nuance beyond oxygenation status. But Daniel Griffin, an infectious-disease specialist at Columbia University, told me that using other metrics for severity of illness, such as intensive-care admissions, presents different limitations. For one thing, different hospitals use different criteria for admitting patients to the ICU.

One of the important implications of the study, these experts say, is that the introduction of vaccines strongly correlates with a greater share of COVID hospital patients having mild or asymptomatic disease. “It’s underreported how well the vaccine makes your life better, how much less sick you are likely to be, and less sick even if hospitalized,” Snyder said. “That’s the gem in this study.”

“People ask me, ‘Why am I getting vaccinated if I just end up in the hospital anyway?’” Griffin said. “But I say, ‘You’ll end up leaving the hospital.’” He explained that some COVID patients are in for “soft” hospitalizations, where they need only minimal treatment and leave relatively quickly; others may be on the antiviral drug remdesivir for five days, or with a tube down their throat. One of the values of this study, he said, is that it helps the public understand this distinction—and the fact that not all COVID hospitalizations are the same.

But the study also demonstrates that hospitalization rates for COVID, as cited by journalists and policy makers, can be misleading, if not considered carefully. Clearly many patients right now are seriously ill. We also know that overcrowding of hospitals by COVID patients with even mild illness can have negative implications for patients in need of other care. At the same time, this study suggests that COVID hospitalization tallies can’t be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two. “As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country,” Doron told me, referring to decisions about school closures, business restrictions, mask requirements, and so on, “we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.”

The Atlantic’s COVID-19 coverage is supported by grants from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
David Zweig is a writer based in New York. He is the author of the nonfiction book Invisibles and the novel Swimming Inside the Sun.

Related :


COVID-19 : The Authoritarian Left’s Overt ‘Denial of Science’ In A Single Tweet

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins,all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken

At some point, the majority will conclude that the Left’s pet, and intentionally emotional causes; climate, Covid, race, gender etc., have absolutely nothing to do with the subject and the people involved, rather, about the clever, tactful and intentional use of highly emotive issues designed to divide and polarise the masses (you and I), in order for absolute power and control by them (the elites).

This simple tweet via VP Harris, perhaps an insightful example.

“Protecting the vaccinated…”

Huh?

Think about it. If the vaccine works, as they assure us that it does – with anyone who dares question efficacy; punished, silenced and cancelled accordingly – then how can the unvaccinated possibly pose a threat to the vaccinated? 

Who then are the real “science deniers”?

What exactly is the risk to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated? 

Your ruling class, Jo Biden, Kamala Harris, CDC, AMA, Scott Morrison, mainstream media et al., will not tell you. 

Why? Because they’re lying to you.

No one knows. There is no answer. 

The entire; vaccine, mask, lockdown argument by ‘science’, for your ‘protection’, is transparently absurd. 

And once you realise that, you realise that none of the endless talking about “public health”, at this point, is really about “public health”.

If it was about “public health”, everyone pushing the vaccine so feverishly would simply make the vaccines available to the infirm, the elderly-infirm, to high risk categories, and anyone else who wanted it, then celebrate, and leave it there.  

But that’s not what it’s about.

It’s about power. 

Forcing you to accept something without complaint is the whole point of the exercise. It’s a form of sadomasochism — dominance and submission. 

It’s all about power, obviously. Power, either newly found, or conveniently manipulated and maintained.

If they can make you take experimental medicine that you don’t want, or need, then they’ve won. They then own you. You belong to them. 

Things are certainly moving fast, and they are heading in a specific direction. 

Which direction? 

You be the judge.

(That is, if you’re still even allowed to formulate thought or opinion, less be cancelled or fined, under the statute of ‘forbidden’).

Related :


Global Warming Bombshell : Science Magazine Article Blows The Whistle On Climate Model Failure

“When the heart rules the head,
passion takes over reason.”

– Ortega y Gasset

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know,
it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain

“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”

– Albert Einstein

“It’s like the boy who repeatedly cried wolf.
If I observe many successive forecast failures,
I may be unwilling to take future forecasts seriously.

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

“The ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong,
but also that so many of them never
admitted to any uncertainty about the date.”

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

•••

Take a bow, climate realists!

They – the scientific ‘experts’, power-obsessed politicians, globalist elites, the useful idiots, and the UNreliables grifters were wrong, while you were right, all along.

The world recently witnessed how alarmist, Imperial College COVID-19 model predictions inspired mass-global-hysteria, leading to overreaching and draconian (global) government ‘health’ edicts with the resulting economic, social and mental health fallout arguably far worse than the disease itself.

Now, the world is finally being told the truth about the 32+ “cooked” UN IPCC climate models that have single-handedly driven the most egregious and costly pseudoscientific campaign of fear and alarmism ever perpetrated upon mankind.

Misguided climate hysteria that has failed time-and-time-again to match real-world evidence and observed data.

Relentless mainstream-media-driven hysteria, based on biased UN model predictions, has fuelled a relentless tidal wave of unhinged activism, devouring; every last respectable public institution, otherwise intelligent minds, and worst of all, the taxpayer’s hard-earned-money at a rate of 1.4 trillion dollars per year, or 4.5 billion dollars per day, according to a 2015 article by Climate Change Journal.

However, have cooler heads finally prevailed from, of all places, the head of the most ‘revered’ and influential of all the many taxpayer funded ‘climate’ institutions?

This weeks bombshell climate-model-mea-culpa delivered by none other than the head of NASA (GISS) Climate, Gavin Schmidt, a chief architect of global-climate-alarmism. 

Read it and weep, climate crazies.

(Climatism bolds)

Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.

“It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science ­magazine.

The admission is seen as a significant development by scientists who argue that not enough attention has been paid to natural ­cycles in the earth’s climate.

It puts another question mark over the use of the most extreme scenarios generated by models, RCP8.5, to estimate what could be expected in a warming world.

The concession has been made on the eve of this month’s release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on the science of climate change.

That report, delayed a year ­because of Covid-19, is due to be released on Aug­ust 9 and will outline what can be expected with different levels of warming.

It will play a major role in ­preparations for the upcoming ­climate change summit in ­Glasgow, Scotland, in November.

A Science article published this week said climate scientists faced the alarming reality that “climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist”.

“Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, ­including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast”, the article said.

“In advance of the UN report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers.”

In the past, most models projected a “climate sensitivity” – the warming expected when atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled over pre-industrial times – of ­between 2C and 4.5C.

Last year, a landmark paper that used documented factors including ongoing warming trends calculated a likely climate sensitivity of between 2.6C and 3.9C but many of the new models from leading centres showed warming of more than 5C – uncomfortably outside these bounds.

The models were also out of step with records of past climate.

According to Science, the IPCC team will probably use ­reality – the actual warming of the world over the past few decades – to constrain model projections.

The IPCC report is also likely to present the impacts of different amounts of warming – 2C, 3C, 4C – rather than saying how quickly those impacts will be felt.

Steve Sherwood from the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre said “while it is true some new climate models have surprising climate sensitivities and predict very high future warming, what doesn’t always come through is that most new models have sensitivity values within the range estimated from observations”.

“Those models still predict substantial future weather and climate changes due to carbon dioxide, similar to predictions made by the science community for many years,” Professor Sherwood said.

US climate scientist Judith Curry said the IPCC report would certainly discuss the problem with climate models: “The elephant in the room for the IPCC is they are heavily relying on RCP8.5 emissions scenarios, which are now widely regarded as implausible.”

Michael Asten, an expert reviewer of the IPCC’s AR6 report, said the admission that climate models were running hot was a significant concession.

GRAHAM LLOYD

ENVIRONMENT EDITOR

Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter of all sides of the environment debate. A former night editor, chief editorial writer and deputy business editor with The Australian, Graham has held senior positions nationa… Read more

Via : Climate change: Science magazine article blows the whistle on model failure | The Australian

•••

See also :

Related :

CO2 Related :

SUN Related :


Could Pacific Northwest heatwave, European floods have been caused by the Sun?

Jet-stream blocking, as a result of weakening of the sun’s output, appears plausible, and certainly consistent with the current-and-rapid (~2 year) cooling cycle of the global atmosphere, despite record and rising CO₂ ’emissions’.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Just don’t mention “the sun” – one might just as easily be cancelled, or labelled a “climate denier” … all under the guise of ‘science’ and scientific discovery, of course.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

omegablock Credit: The Weather Network

Of course they could have been. The question is, were they? Assigning weather events to ‘global warming’ is ambiguous without a full definition of what the assigner means by that term. Jet stream blocking events discussed below are well-known to meteorologists, and constantly claiming them as evidence of a new human-caused problem with the climate is a stretch, to say the least.
– – –
The recent record-shattering heat wave in the Pacific northwest and devastating floods in western Europe have both been ascribed to global warming by many climate scientists, says Science Under Attack.

But an alternative explanation, voiced by some climatologists yet ignored by the mainstream media, is that the disasters were caused by the phenomenon of jet-stream blocking – which may or may not be a result of global warming, and could instead arise from a weakening of the sun’s output.

View original post 479 more words