Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
. I only check my computer once a week, but figured i keep all the cLIEmate alarmists in check!
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Direction of Mexico's next possible President
Opinion: In February we imported more from Mexico than China (ref)
We’re producing hydrogen from rocks
Opinion: Why Drill if you can make it the same way the Earth does in a refrigerator-sized box behind your home? Probably cost, drilling may be cheaper as underground makes use of many square miles of natural underground processes. But, who knows? Without other bacteria, it might solve the issue of methane being mixed in with it.Ran across the image below regarding natural hydrogen, too cool to not re-post a rock that burns (image is a link, but it's behind a paywall):
Climate will be a battleground in Britain’s next election
Opinion: The link above is behind a paywall too, but here's a video to explain what's going onCanoo in trouble?I like the Canoo not just for it's innovative design and flexibility; butbecause they're partially backed by communities trying to create local jobs. It sounds like a great American story. But there's news about dwindling capital, overspending, poor CEO decisions and a recent bad market reaction: |
|
On the upside, the 1000 mile range $33,000 solar powered Aptera seems to be doing well. It will be interesting to see how they do in crash testing.
The whole hydrogen economy, I was there too. Of course, nuclear power too cheap to meter sounded good too.
Yep, it seemed like the dumbest thing they could do. But if natural hydrogen is real, they are in an amazing position. Perhaps they are taking advice from ancestral yōkai.
Let us know how it goes!
Last edited:
Manmade cLIEmate change is HOAX!!!!! Its complete made up garbage!
www.zerohedge.com
modernity.news
Ford To "Re-Time" New EV Production, Expand Hybrid Production | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
Bizarre Reuters Article Warns Climate Change Is Hurting “Indonesian Trans Sex Workers”
World's smallest violin plays
modernity.news
Here is the REAL reason why the whole cLIEmate change scam is being pushed - they want total control
unlimitedhangout.com
Sweeping across the shores of Latin America comes a scheme from some of the most predatory figures in the venture capital ecosystem of the United States. It is a brazen attempt to assert foreign influence across Latin America and threatens to reshape the very fabric of the region and the day to day lives of its people. At its core is a serpentine set of contractual obligations, held at the municipal level, cast throughout Central and South America, upheld by an intelligence-linked satellite company, and controlled by a private sector consortium of green-washed financiers aiming to turn the region’s forests into equity and carbon credits. At the same time, it obliges local governments to spend “conservation” funds on projects that further financialize nature and aid the construction of an inter-continental “smart” grid. One of its key ambitions appears to be further entrenching the debt load of the region through the multi-lateral development banks and the dollarization of the continent from the subnational level up through carbon markets upheld by a digital ledger. What seems like a technological marvel aimed at progress and connectivity harbors a darker agenda — one that intertwines planetary surveillance, financial predation, geopolitical maneuvering, and the domination of a resource-rich continent buried in debt.
This grand design, known by the acronym GREEN+ and conceived by stalwarts of the digital dollar and debt schemes of the private sector, has quietly taken root through a web of political entanglements at the local level. Even a key figure in the Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond scandal plays a role. Astonishingly, every capital city of Latin America has eagerly signed on, apparently unaware of the strings attached to these seemingly benign partnerships, while a majority of municipalities in the region have also made commitments with these same groups that will push them to join GREEN+, potentially in a matter of weeks. The (hopefully) well-meaning regional governments have unwittingly paved the way for a sweeping surveillance apparatus tied to American intelligence that threatens to erode privacy and civil liberties under the guise of progress and combating the climate crisis.
Upon further observation, GREEN+’s connections reveal a disturbing narrative of financial interests melding with geopolitical ambitions. The backers of the satellite company share ties with former members of the highest offices of US financial policy and regulation alongside the key architects and profiteers of private capital creation, aiming to consolidate control over monetary flows in Latin America within the redistribution of distressed government debt from the public to the private sector. As this two-part series will show, this concerted effort is not merely about surveillance – it’s a calculated move towards further dollarization, tightening the grip of corporate and technological monopolies over the economic landscape of the Americas.
The scheme’s proponents also speak of how it will significantly advance the “economic” and “regional” integration of the Americas, invoking visions of unity while obscuring the true nature of their agenda for economic domination and stronger regional governance. Their model, eerily reminiscent of the EU’s transition from a free trade union to a bureaucratic behemoth yoked to the US through the Eurodollar, sets the stage for unelected entities to enforce policies through programmable money, enabled by smart contracts on blockchains and designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. What materializes before us is not just a technological evolution but a quiet banker coup — one that lays the groundwork for land grabs and invasive surveillance under the guise of progress and conservation. It’s a narrative that echoes throughout history, where intelligence-linked figures and predatory financial interests converge to prey upon the Global South, leaving a trail of economic exploitation and geopolitical manipulation in their wake. What masquerades as progress for individuals and the environment at large may very well be the harbinger of a new era of subjugation and control.
Debt From Above: The Carbon Credit Coup
Latin America is quietly being forced into a carbon market scheme through regional contractual obligations – enforced by the satellites of a US intelligence-linked firm – which seeks to create an inter-continental "smart grid,” erode national and local sovereignty, and link carbon-based life to...
unlimitedhangout.com
Debt From Above: The Carbon Credit Coup
Latin America is quietly being forced into a carbon market scheme through regional contractual obligations – enforced by the satellites of a US intelligence-linked firm – which seeks to create an inter-continental “smart grid,” erode national and local sovereignty, and link carbon-based life to the debt-based monetary system via a Bitcoin sidechain.Sweeping across the shores of Latin America comes a scheme from some of the most predatory figures in the venture capital ecosystem of the United States. It is a brazen attempt to assert foreign influence across Latin America and threatens to reshape the very fabric of the region and the day to day lives of its people. At its core is a serpentine set of contractual obligations, held at the municipal level, cast throughout Central and South America, upheld by an intelligence-linked satellite company, and controlled by a private sector consortium of green-washed financiers aiming to turn the region’s forests into equity and carbon credits. At the same time, it obliges local governments to spend “conservation” funds on projects that further financialize nature and aid the construction of an inter-continental “smart” grid. One of its key ambitions appears to be further entrenching the debt load of the region through the multi-lateral development banks and the dollarization of the continent from the subnational level up through carbon markets upheld by a digital ledger. What seems like a technological marvel aimed at progress and connectivity harbors a darker agenda — one that intertwines planetary surveillance, financial predation, geopolitical maneuvering, and the domination of a resource-rich continent buried in debt.
This grand design, known by the acronym GREEN+ and conceived by stalwarts of the digital dollar and debt schemes of the private sector, has quietly taken root through a web of political entanglements at the local level. Even a key figure in the Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond scandal plays a role. Astonishingly, every capital city of Latin America has eagerly signed on, apparently unaware of the strings attached to these seemingly benign partnerships, while a majority of municipalities in the region have also made commitments with these same groups that will push them to join GREEN+, potentially in a matter of weeks. The (hopefully) well-meaning regional governments have unwittingly paved the way for a sweeping surveillance apparatus tied to American intelligence that threatens to erode privacy and civil liberties under the guise of progress and combating the climate crisis.
Upon further observation, GREEN+’s connections reveal a disturbing narrative of financial interests melding with geopolitical ambitions. The backers of the satellite company share ties with former members of the highest offices of US financial policy and regulation alongside the key architects and profiteers of private capital creation, aiming to consolidate control over monetary flows in Latin America within the redistribution of distressed government debt from the public to the private sector. As this two-part series will show, this concerted effort is not merely about surveillance – it’s a calculated move towards further dollarization, tightening the grip of corporate and technological monopolies over the economic landscape of the Americas.
The scheme’s proponents also speak of how it will significantly advance the “economic” and “regional” integration of the Americas, invoking visions of unity while obscuring the true nature of their agenda for economic domination and stronger regional governance. Their model, eerily reminiscent of the EU’s transition from a free trade union to a bureaucratic behemoth yoked to the US through the Eurodollar, sets the stage for unelected entities to enforce policies through programmable money, enabled by smart contracts on blockchains and designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. What materializes before us is not just a technological evolution but a quiet banker coup — one that lays the groundwork for land grabs and invasive surveillance under the guise of progress and conservation. It’s a narrative that echoes throughout history, where intelligence-linked figures and predatory financial interests converge to prey upon the Global South, leaving a trail of economic exploitation and geopolitical manipulation in their wake. What masquerades as progress for individuals and the environment at large may very well be the harbinger of a new era of subjugation and control.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
Bias Problem with Satellite Data Explained (no, it's not a government conspiracy)
Other ways of tracking Emissions
- How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works
Opinion: Very interesting video as it's a lot more complicated than we learned in school
Methane levels in the air last year spiked to record highs
Observational Quantification of Tropical High Cloud Changes
How Rock Flour may slow climate change
Opinion: Sounds like it's white rock to keep the albedo high after glaciers melt away and it absorbs some CO2.cLIEmate alarmists always make stuff up on the fly.
The scientists said their data suggested that sea-level rise has not been a widespread cause of erosion for island shorelines in the studied regions. “Presently, it is considered one of the contributing factors to shoreline erosion but not the predominant one,” they explained. Needless to say, none of this will detain the attention of climate hysterics in both mainstream media and politics. The Guardian was in fine form last June stating that rising oceans will extinguish more than land. “It will kill entire languages,” it added, noting the effect on Pacific islands such as Tuvalu. Those areas of the Earth that were most hospitable to people and languages are now becoming the “least hospitable”.
Silly emotional Guardianista guff of course, but happily it does not seem to apply to Tuvalu. A recent study found that the 101 islands of Tuvalu had grown in land mass by 2.9%. The scientists observed that despite rising sea levels, many shorelines in Tuvalu and neighbouring Pacific atolls have maintained relative stability, “without significant alteration”. A comprehensive re-examination of data on 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls with 709 islands found that none of them had lost any land. Furthermore, the scientists added, there are data that indicate 47 reef islands expanded in size or remained stable over the last 50 years, “despite experiencing a rate of sea-level rise that exceeds the global average”.
The Maldives is also a poster scare for rising sea levels, with the attention-seeking activist Mark Lynas – he of the nonsense claim that 99.9% of scientists agree humans cause all or most climate change – organising an underwater Cabinet meeting of the local Government in 2009. As it happens, the Maldives is one of a number of areas that have seen recent increases in land mass. Other areas include the Indonesian Archipelago, islands along the Indochinese Peninsula coast, and islands in the Red and Mediterranean Seas. Notably, the coastal waters of the Indochinese Peninsula had the most substantial gain, with an increase of 106.28 km2 over the 30-year period. Of the 13,000 islands examined, the researchers found that only around 12% had experienced a significant shoreline shift, with almost equal numbers experiencing either landward (loss) or seaward (gain) movement.
The scientists identify many reasons why islands can grow in size despite the small annual rises in sea level seen in many parts of the world. It is noted that island shorelines are constantly changing due to factors such tides, winds, nearshore hydrodynamics and the transport of sediment. On inhabited islands, human action such as fish farming and land reclamation can be important.
Of course, humans action can have a number of unintended consequences, notably the mining of coral and the breakdown of natural water barriers. Island states such as the Maldives have not been slow in coming forward to claim ‘climate reparations’ from guilt-tripped citizens in the developed world. But tourism has dramatically boosted income in the Maldives to first world levels at a time when the locals have mined coral in industrial quantities to build ports, airports and resort developments. In the process, ocean life diversity has been lost and the islands are often less protected from storm waves that can flow direct to the shoreline. In a recent essay, a group of scientists and economists charged that coral mining “has resulted in massive degradation of shallow reef-flat areas, with important negative impacts on coastal protection”.
The Chinese findings are important in helping destroy the claim that many low-lying islands will simply disappear beneath the waves in the near future due to human-induced climate change. They show how shoreline changes are a persistent and ongoing process that is subject to many natural and human influences. Most of the poster islands used for climate scares such as Tuvalu and the Maldives have increased in size of late, and are hardly suitable to whip up fear of a claimed climate ‘emergency’. Sea level rise is not a “predominant” cause of the changing coasts, the scientists note.
Islands That Climate Alarmists Said Would Soon “Disappear” Due to Rising Sea Found to Have Grown in Size
An amount of land equivalent to the Isle of Wight has been added to the shorelines of 13,000 islands around the world in just the last 20 years. This fascinating fact of a 369.67 square kilometre increase has recently been discovered by a group of Chinese scientists analysing both surface and satellite records. Overall, land was lost during the 1990s, but the scientists found that in the study period of three decades to 2020 there was a net increase of 157.21 km2. The study observed considerable natural variation in both erosion and accretion. Of course, the findings blow holes in the poster scare run by alarmists suggesting that rising sea levels caused by humans using hydrocarbons will condemn many islands to disappear shortly beneath rising sea levels. By means of such flimsy scare tactics, as we have seen in many other cases, desperate attempts are made to terrify global populations to accept the insanity of the Net Zero collectivisation.The scientists said their data suggested that sea-level rise has not been a widespread cause of erosion for island shorelines in the studied regions. “Presently, it is considered one of the contributing factors to shoreline erosion but not the predominant one,” they explained. Needless to say, none of this will detain the attention of climate hysterics in both mainstream media and politics. The Guardian was in fine form last June stating that rising oceans will extinguish more than land. “It will kill entire languages,” it added, noting the effect on Pacific islands such as Tuvalu. Those areas of the Earth that were most hospitable to people and languages are now becoming the “least hospitable”.
Silly emotional Guardianista guff of course, but happily it does not seem to apply to Tuvalu. A recent study found that the 101 islands of Tuvalu had grown in land mass by 2.9%. The scientists observed that despite rising sea levels, many shorelines in Tuvalu and neighbouring Pacific atolls have maintained relative stability, “without significant alteration”. A comprehensive re-examination of data on 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls with 709 islands found that none of them had lost any land. Furthermore, the scientists added, there are data that indicate 47 reef islands expanded in size or remained stable over the last 50 years, “despite experiencing a rate of sea-level rise that exceeds the global average”.
The Maldives is also a poster scare for rising sea levels, with the attention-seeking activist Mark Lynas – he of the nonsense claim that 99.9% of scientists agree humans cause all or most climate change – organising an underwater Cabinet meeting of the local Government in 2009. As it happens, the Maldives is one of a number of areas that have seen recent increases in land mass. Other areas include the Indonesian Archipelago, islands along the Indochinese Peninsula coast, and islands in the Red and Mediterranean Seas. Notably, the coastal waters of the Indochinese Peninsula had the most substantial gain, with an increase of 106.28 km2 over the 30-year period. Of the 13,000 islands examined, the researchers found that only around 12% had experienced a significant shoreline shift, with almost equal numbers experiencing either landward (loss) or seaward (gain) movement.
The scientists identify many reasons why islands can grow in size despite the small annual rises in sea level seen in many parts of the world. It is noted that island shorelines are constantly changing due to factors such tides, winds, nearshore hydrodynamics and the transport of sediment. On inhabited islands, human action such as fish farming and land reclamation can be important.
Of course, humans action can have a number of unintended consequences, notably the mining of coral and the breakdown of natural water barriers. Island states such as the Maldives have not been slow in coming forward to claim ‘climate reparations’ from guilt-tripped citizens in the developed world. But tourism has dramatically boosted income in the Maldives to first world levels at a time when the locals have mined coral in industrial quantities to build ports, airports and resort developments. In the process, ocean life diversity has been lost and the islands are often less protected from storm waves that can flow direct to the shoreline. In a recent essay, a group of scientists and economists charged that coral mining “has resulted in massive degradation of shallow reef-flat areas, with important negative impacts on coastal protection”.
The Chinese findings are important in helping destroy the claim that many low-lying islands will simply disappear beneath the waves in the near future due to human-induced climate change. They show how shoreline changes are a persistent and ongoing process that is subject to many natural and human influences. Most of the poster islands used for climate scares such as Tuvalu and the Maldives have increased in size of late, and are hardly suitable to whip up fear of a claimed climate ‘emergency’. Sea level rise is not a “predominant” cause of the changing coasts, the scientists note.
‘Blatant Violations’: Watchdog Challenges Key Data Used by Biden Admin to Push Sweeping Climate Agenda
Sensational climate claims made without proper scientific basis and spread by government officials threaten the public’s trust in its scientific officials and undermines the government’s mission of…
wattsupwiththat.com
A government watchdog group has filed a complaint with the Biden administration over its use of a dataset frequently used to push its climate agenda.
Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) filed the complaint with the Commerce Department over the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) “Billions Project” dataset, which purports to keep track of natural [and climate] disasters that have caused at least $1 billion in damages going back to 1980. The billion-dollar disasters (BDD) data — cited frequently by the Biden administration to insinuate that climate change is intensifying and justify sweeping green policies — is based on opaque data derived from questionable accounting practices, PPT alleges in the complaint.
“American families and businesses continue to struggle with persistently high inflation, which many attribute in large part to the energy policies and government spending of the current administration. The idea that blatant violations of scientific integrity could be underlying the rationale for these policies should concern every American,” Michael Chamberlain, PPT’s director, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated incident. The Biden Administration came into office pledging that its decision making would be grounded in the highest-quality science, but all too often has failed to live up to those promises.” (RELATED: The Entire Push To Halt New Natural Gas Exports Traces Back To One Ivy League Prof And His Shaky Study)
The complaint was filed with the Commerce Department, as NOAA operates under its auspices, Chamberlain told the DCNF.
PPT’s complaint alleges that NOAA does not adequately disclose its sources and methods for compiling the BDD dataset, adds and removes BDD events from the dataset without providing its rationale for doing so and produces cost estimates that are sometimes significantly different than those generated by more conventional accounting procedures.
While NOAA states that it develops its BDD data from more than a dozen sources, the agency does not disclose those sources for specific events or show how it calculates loss estimates from those sources, PPT’s complaint alleges.
The complaint further alleges that NOAA’s accounting methods are opaque and “produce suspect results.”
For example, when Hurricane Idalia took aim at Florida in 2023, NOAA initially projected that the storm would cause about $2.5 billion worth of damages before insured losses ultimately came in at about $310 million, according to PPT’s complaint, which cites the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation for that figure. Nevertheless, NOAA subsequently marked up its estimate for how much damage the storm caused to $3.5 billion, a discrepancy for which NOAA provided no explanation, PPT alleges in its complaint.
NOAA researchers have disclosed in the past that the agency considers factors such as functions pertaining to livestock feeding costs — in addition to more conventional types of damages — in their cost calculations.
Further, the complaint alleges that BDD events are quietly added and removed from the dataset without explanation, citing Roger Pielke Jr., a former academic who believes climate change to be a real threat but opposes politicized science. In a forthcoming paper analyzing the merits of BDD statistics, Pielke compared the dataset in late 2022 to the dataset in the middle of 2023 and found that ten new BDD events were added to the list and 3 were subtracted without explanation.
Apart from the issues with methodology alleged by PPT in its complaint, the use of BDD events as a proxy for climate change’s intensity is inherently misleading because economic data does not reflect changes in meteorological conditions, Pielke has previously explained to the DCNF.
For example, increasing concentrations of assets, especially in coastal areas, can confound the usefulness of BDD events as an indicator for the intensity of climate change, as Energy and Environment Legal Institute Senior Policy Fellow Steve Milloy has previously explained to the DCNF. Hypothetically, the same exact hurricane could hit the same exact place, decades apart, with vastly different damage totals; this would be the case because there are simply more assets sitting in the way of the storm, not because the storm was any more violent due to worsening climate change.
NOAA has acknowledged this limitation of the dataset in prior communications with the DCNF.
Additionally, NOAA will add disasters to the list retrospectively because it adjusts for inflation, meaning that a hurricane that caused $800 million in damages in 1980 dollars would be added to the list because the damages exceed $1 billion when adjusted for inflation, for example.
The Biden administration has frequently cited the BDD dataset to substantiate its massive climate agenda.
For example, Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk cited the dataset in written testimony submitted to lawmakers in February explaining the White House’s decision to pause new approvals for liquefied natural gas export terminals.
The BDD statistics are also referenced Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5), the Biden administration’s landmark climate report that is intended to provide the most sound scientific basis for lawmakers and officials to craft climate policy.
NOAA asserted that the increasing frequency of BDD events is a sign of intensifying climate change in a January press release and blog post summarizing 2023, and then defended the use of the dataset in subsequent communications with the DCNF.
“Sensational climate claims made without proper scientific basis and spread by government officials threaten the public’s trust in its scientific officials and undermines the government’s mission of stewarding the environment,” PPT’s complaint states. “It also poses the danger of policymakers basing consequential government policy on unscientific claims unsupported by evidence.”
NOAA declined to comment, citing the active nature of the scientific integrity complaint. The White House and the Department of Commerce did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Earth's Warmest March Is 10th Straight Record
Christina Amira Khalil deletes posts of theory that earthquake was caused by climate change
Opinion: It wasn't news that a green-party politician posted the theory, or that it went viral, or that she doubled-down on her opinion at first.. Those sorts of headlines are up there with other crazy headlines that deniers point to as proof that scientists are idiots and it's all a hoax. But now that social damage is done (thanks Green party!), they delete the post. Think whoever loses the fall election will blame it on global warming?Democrats rebuke Biden for fighting young climate activists in court
Opinion: Too funny!
UK biosecurity: Infectious disease threats
From natural gas to hydrogen in a matter of days
How real is that website you see quoted?
Misinformation sites are questioning and twisting information to cause doubt because they are paid to. For example, you've probably seen:
- PragerU - funding came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires ref
- Dailysceptic - Publishes anti-vaccine and climate change denial misinformation ref
- ZeroHedge - "Unmasking Zero Hedge" article by Bloomberg quoted former website staffer Colin Lokey as saying: "I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period."
- CO2 Coalition - Funded by the American Petroleum Institute
- wattsupwiththat - Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[3]: 233–234 [4] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial. ref
Other useful quotes & links:
- Ken Cohen, Exxon CEO: ...Climate change is real and appropriate steps should be taken..." ref
- Mike Wirth, Chevron CEO" “Climate change is real. There’s no doubt about it,” ref
- Gretchen Watkins, Shell CEO: "...urgent need for action on climate change" ref
- Electric Vehicles Are Way, Way More Energy-Efficient Than Internal Combustion Vehicles
- Electric vehicles are far better than combustion engine cars in terms of air pollution
- EVs powertrains are more reliable than ICE (but Consumer Reports says their buttons and screens still have new-model reliability issues)
- Report: EVs are holding their value better than ICEs
- Fact check: Did 1,200 climate experts sign 'declaration' denying climate emergency?
- More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans
- How Climate Change Became Politicized
- 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong
Climate-Con And The Media-Censorship Complex - Part 1 – Truth Unmuted
The gauntlet has been cast by the media-censorship complex. Just prior to this year’s annual globalist confab in Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced that misinformation and disinformation are currently the greatest threats to humanity, with the release of its Global Risks Report 2024.
truthunmuted.org
The gauntlet has been cast by the media-censorship complex. Just prior to this year’s annual globalist confab in Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced that misinformation and disinformation are currently the greatest threats to humanity, with the release of its Global Risks Report 2024.
From a list of 34 risks, the WEF report identifies mis- and disinformation as the top threats to global stability over the next two years and the fifth most dangerous threats over the next 10 years. Of particular concern is false information that could affect elections, democratic processes, and social cohesion in various countries worldwide, as well as sentiment contradicting the “consensus” narrative about climate change.
Echoing these same concerns, the United Nations (UN), its strategic partner in advancing the climate-focused 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, has previously stated much of the same.
In Information Integrity on Digital Platforms, a June 2023 UN policy brief recommending a code of conduct for digital platforms, Secretary-General António Guterres stated:
All the UN’s 2030 Agenda plans, activities, and expenditures are based on the belief that we face an existential climate crisis caused by human activity and dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). This conviction is clearly outlined in a fact sheet produced by Verified, a joint initiative of the United Nations and Purpose, launched in 2020 to respond to mis- and disinformation about “intersecting crises like COVID-19 and climate change.” The document states unequivocally that:
- Climate change is happening.
- Climate change is caused by human activity.
- Scientists agree that humans are responsible for climate change.
- Every fraction of a degree of warming matters.
- The climate is changing faster than humans, plants, and animals can adapt.
- Climate change is a major threat to people’s health.
- Natural gas is a fossil fuel, not a clean source of energy.
- Clean energy technologies produce far less carbon pollution than fossil fuels.
- Entire countries already rely 100 percent on renewable electricity.
- Renewable energy will soon be the world’s top source of electricity.
- Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
- Solar panels and wind turbines make good use of land.
- The transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs.
By stating that disinformation is undermining these supposed scientific facts, Guterres rests his entire argument on the premise that each of the above statements is absolutely, indisputably, and undeniably true. Like Guterres, all who espouse this climate narrative have no tolerance for any opinion, theory, or evidence that runs contrary to this dogged notion.
Verified is backed by powerful globalist NGOs including the Rockefeller Foundation and Omidyar Network. It has an extensive list of major media collaborators such as Al Jazeera, Clear Channel, Facebook, Reddit, Spotify, TikTok, and Twitter. Melissa Fleming, Verified co-founder and current UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, has made it known that social media is a huge threat to climate science and other UN initiatives and is particularly bothered by Twitter/X for allowing rampant disinformation.
It is clear from these reports that any dissent from the established climate narrative threatens the advancement of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Now, urgent calls to extinguish these threats have been issued so they can proceed with transforming the world unimpeded.
While many of the issues expressed in the Information Integrity report are legitimate and concerning, the UN via the World Health Organization (WHO) participates in disinformation by continuing to promote COVID-19 vaccines as safe and effective, when they have largely been proven to be ineffective and cause much harm. Their stance regarding climate change could also qualify as disinformation to the thousands of scientists who oppose this view but are being discredited as mere conspiracy theorists.
The following statement from the report underscores their frustration with “climate deniers” and the platforms they use to oppose the UN’s agenda:
Globalists want conformity regarding climate change and will go to extreme lengths to marginalize, censor, and discredit dissenters. They talk a good game about enforcing universal freedom of expression, but on climate and other issues vital to their agenda, free speech is not tolerated. Though they readily acknowledge that controlling information may lead to greater levels of authoritarianism, surveillance, censorship, and the erosion of human rights, it seems they are willing to overlook these offenses to protect their precious climate agenda.
If they can successfully shut down debate about climate change, then soon any topic that threatens their aims will be off limits. The UN deems itself a protector of human rights but plays a major role in the media-censorship complex. Its attempts at crushing opposition to the climate narrative betrays their mission and reveals authoritarian tendencies.
COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE OR ADVOCATING SUPPRESSION?
A recently released report issued by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) claims that new forms of climate denial have emerged. These new arguments don’t deny that the climate is changing and is caused by human activity, but instead contend that:- The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless.
- Climate solutions won’t work.
- Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.
The basis for their report stems from use of “an AI based model called CARDS,” short for Computer-Assisted Recognition of Climate Change Denial and Skepticism. CARDS is designed to identify and categorize climate denialist claims in text. The researchers used CARDS to analyze YouTube video transcripts from 96 mostly right-wing, conservative leaning channels including prominent ones like BlazeTV, Jordan Peterson, and the Heartland Institute.
CCDH has a big gripe with social media companies they believe are not doing enough to stem the tide of rising climate denial. They want to eliminate the ability for any “climate denier” spreading “conspiracy theory statements” to financially benefit from their content, as evidenced in the following statements:
Their demonetization and censorship recommendations come even after admitting that the CARDS model is only up to 78% accurate, could not perform any fact checks on the claims made in the transcripts, and that lack of punctuation caused results to be skewed.
Image: The New Climate Denial Report, Page 40
The CCDH is a sketchy, UK-based, advocacy group that has produced various reports inciting censorship against those they disagree with. Their efforts against “anti-vaxxers” culminated in several reports that led to the deplatforming, demonetizing, and discrediting of many individuals and organizations exposing pandemic-related fraud and COVID-19 vaccine falsehoods.
CCDH’s The New Climate Denial report has been promoted through mainstream outlets like CNN, MSN, Yahoo, and USA Today. It could impact the cited individuals and organizations the same way it affected those targeted in its Disinformation Dozen reports a few years ago. Though their stated mission is to “protect human rights and civil liberties online,” they practice the opposite by advocating the revocation of these rights for climate and vaccine narrative challengers.
HOW THE MEDIA-CENSORSHIP COMPLEX PLANS TO TACKLE CLIMATE DISSENT
Two things are very clear from the recent reports issued by the WEF, UN, and CCDH. One, is that climate skepticism is on the rise. The second, is that they are threatened by the very existence of those who dare to refute their narrative. Many strategies to stem the tide of climate cynicism have already been employed with new ones currently being tested.If one dares to publicly question the science regarding climate change, one or more of the following tactics may be used to impede the effort:
- Awareness Campaigns
- Artificial Intelligence
- Censorship
- Civic Listening
- Content moderation
- Demonetization and Financial censorship
- Deplatforming
- Digital armies
- Education
- Fact checking
- Media and information literacy
- Prebunking/psychological inoculation
- Shadowbanning
- Trusted Messengers
- Text mining / Automated text analysis
- Whole-of-society approach
- Climate Feedback
- Covering Climate Now
- European Media and Information Fund
- FactCheck.org
- Global Disinformation Index (GDI)
- International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) (Poynter Institute)
- Media Wise (Poynter Institute)
- Newsguard
- PolitiFact (Poynter Institute)
- Reuters
A plethora of legacy and social media companies also utilize the services provided by these organizations. A small sampling includes Associated Press, NPR, NBC News, Newsweek, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Nation, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, WhatsApp, Twitch, and LinkedIn. A look at Covering Climate Now’s list of partners provides an even broader view of the media’s enforcement of the climate agenda.
As if governments, corporations, and organizations weren’t enough, universities such as Columbia, Harvard, Oxford, and University of Southern California also perpetuate the climate propaganda by training journalists in their institutions.
By treating climate change as a national security threat, the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have also been enlisted in the fight against mis- and disinformation.
In addition, individuals within both the left and right wings of the two-party paradigm collude to curtail free speech. It is a grave mistake to believe that calls for censorship from either side of the political spectrum are beneficial. They are both integral to perpetuating the media-censorship complex.
WHY HAS CLIMATE SCIENCE BECOME NONDEBATABLE?
If it wasn’t apparent before, it should now be crystal clear that there is a vast empire united against those questioning the climate narrative. They are determined to perpetuate the myth that there is universal consensus on the facts.The truth is there is no real consensus on climate science. The UN and its network of public-private partnerships (PPP) just make it seem that way. In this regard, the UN climate stance is akin to Anthony Fauci’s claim that questioning him was like questioning science itself. Honest and open debate on the issue should be continued by allowing opponents opportunities to present their case without fear of censorship, harassment, exclusion, or cancellation. Instead, there is constant reinforcement of a fictional consensus while divergent opinions are labeled as dangerous conspiracies.
Climate consensus figures as high as 97 and even 99.9 percent have been touted by former US Presidents, researchers, and media outlets in the past. But is this claim true? If it were, then why would there be so much effort to silence a mere one to three percent who deviate from the scientific echo chamber? Would all these battles be worth the time, energy, and money being spent on just a few dissidents, as they claim?
Much of what qualifies as climate research is funded by institutions that have already bought into the doomsday mantra of impending man-made disaster. The industry is rigged to favor researchers who set out to prove “official” claims. Funding and publication are often withheld from those who do not toe this line. As a result, statistics are skewed to make it seem like there is universal consensus.
Past research has demonstrated claims of scientific consensus on climate change to be fraudulent. In a paper published in 2023, a team of researchers disproved the conclusions reached in a 2021 study claiming there was greater than 99% consensus on climate science in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
The claims were refuted by demonstrating that studies expressing neutral opinions were misclassified and papers communicating skepticism were ignored. This clear case of academic malfeasance is not the only example where scientists used falsified research and conspired to silence those contradicting the alleged consensus. Even if the 99% consensus assertions were valid, the notion of consensus-as-truth does not pass the test for authentic scientific validation. The majority can still be wrong.
A recent article posted by The Good Men Project, which “exposed” the climate deniers behind the recent farmer protests in Europe, proclaimed that “Scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is equivalent to that on evolution.” This statement came in response to a request from protest organizer James Melville for a national debate on climate and net zero policies. Never mind that evolution is not a proven fact. Equating climate change to evolution shows it is also unproven and can be argued against. Again, the majority can still be wrong!
Remember when Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson made claims that their COVID vaccines were all well over 90% effective in stopping transmission? As evidenced in the following video, those proclamations did not hold up very well, did they?
A massive army has been assembled to ensure that rival claims will not see the light of day for long. But why is it that the powers that be would rather falsify research, smear dissenters, and spend billions of dollars to silence critics rather than continuing to debate the issues?"The Vaccine is 100% Safe and Effective"
...
pic.twitter.com/O1RbSvt2EY
— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) September 25, 2023
An article written by Gregory Whitstone, Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, presents a valid argument for continued scientific debate on climate change, stating:
You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the climate-apocalypse mantra are science-deniers. The truth is that a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are skeptical of the party line on climate. A whole lot more…
There are some scientific truths that are quantifiable and easily proven, and with which, I am confident, at least 97% of scientists agree. Here are two:
- Carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in recent years.
- Temperatures, as measured by thermometers and satellites, have been generally increasing in fits and starts for more than 150 years.
We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.
The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture.
How can greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 be the sole agent causing rising temperatures when it is an essential element for all life forms? Given the growing world population, it seems that greater levels of CO2would lead to greater benefits. Plants need CO2 to thrive, yet the fight against it is accelerating.
Scientists have now stated that cow burps and farts and even human breathing are bad for the environment because they contribute to the emission of methane and nitrous oxide, both believed to contribute to global warming. This is beyond absurd!
We are on the slippery slope to a dystopian nightmare if the trend toward censorship and marginalization continues. There is no good reason why continued debate featuring those on all sides of the issue should not be occurring, unless of course there are other reasons for ramming this fear-based agenda down our throats.
We’ll examine the other reasons in Part 2 of this series.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
and yet here you are, voicing yours's and other deniers opinions. (seems all is good)
No. I just think that overwhelming scientific evidence is better than overwhelming social media bull shit.
So Chemtrails are now undeniably confirmed.
These people are insane (And everyone that believes in the GloBULL warming hoax)
A secretive project conducted from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the San Francisco Bay will shoot trillions of aerosol particles into the sky to increase cloud cover in the name of preventing global warming, and details have been held back to “avoid (a) public backlash.”
The experiment is being dubbed America’s “first outdoor test to limit global warming.”
Shuchi Talati, the executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, remarked how the test had been “kept under wraps” with little public engagement whatsoever.
A similar experiment that was set to be conducted over Sweden by Harvard University and had previously received funding from Bill Gates was cancelled last month after opposition from campaigners and Indigenous groups.
The Scientific American report warns that artificially creating cloud cover “could alter weather patterns in unclear ways and potentially limit the productivity of fisheries and farms.”
But they’re just going to go ahead and do it anyway.
Participants in the project declined to answer emailed questions or interview requests about the experiment in San Francisco.
According to a report by the New York Times, the secrecy is based on concerns that if the public knew the full scope of what was happening, “critics would try to stop them.”
The chemtrail conspiracy theory, which has been around since the early 90’s at least, is based around claims that contrails released from the jet engines of aircraft linger around in the sky for hours and produce de facto cloud cover to block out the sun.
These people are insane (And everyone that believes in the GloBULL warming hoax)
Secretive Experiment To Shoot Aerosols Into The Sky Over San Francisco To Increase Cloud Cover
A secretive project conducted from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the San Francisco Bay will shoot trillions of aerosol particles into the sky to increase cloud cover in the name of preventing global warming, and details have been held back to “avoid (a) public backlash.”
The experiment is being dubbed America’s “first outdoor test to limit global warming.”
The report notes that there is little data on the potential negative effects of such geoengineering projects and that they “could also harm communities and ecosystems in unexpected ways.”
Shuchi Talati, the executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, remarked how the test had been “kept under wraps” with little public engagement whatsoever.
A similar experiment that was set to be conducted over Sweden by Harvard University and had previously received funding from Bill Gates was cancelled last month after opposition from campaigners and Indigenous groups.
The Scientific American report warns that artificially creating cloud cover “could alter weather patterns in unclear ways and potentially limit the productivity of fisheries and farms.”
But they’re just going to go ahead and do it anyway.
Participants in the project declined to answer emailed questions or interview requests about the experiment in San Francisco.
According to a report by the New York Times, the secrecy is based on concerns that if the public knew the full scope of what was happening, “critics would try to stop them.”
Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that such experiments have been taking place for years, even decades, with some even asserting that weather modification has been conducted via “chemtrails” released from military and commercial aircraft.
The chemtrail conspiracy theory, which has been around since the early 90’s at least, is based around claims that contrails released from the jet engines of aircraft linger around in the sky for hours and produce de facto cloud cover to block out the sun.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Southern blight Spreads
A stem and root rot disease that affects 500 plant species is caused by a fungus, Agroathelia rolfsii. It’s often thought of as affecting hot Southern gardens, but was first seen in Pennsylvania in 2018.How Urgent is Climate Change?
When compared to global nuclear war, the spread of communism, inflation, cost of health care, or gun violence it seems pretty small because we don't see the changes in our day to day lives. We don't see or attribute the suffering it causes like we do on child-labor in African countries or the billions in the sex slave industry.| Whatever your big concerns are, climate change is probably making them worse. For example, weaning the world off gas & oil removes income from countries (e.g., Russia) reducing their ability to wage wars. Inflation: The cost of Weather Disasters Probably the most concrete cost to point to is the increase we've spent on weather related disasters as shown to the right. Each years it costs us billions, had we had the foresight to spend that money on prevention we could have fixed the problem by now. | 
|
| The longer we delay, the more it costs us Because it's not urgent, we delay. As we delay more GHGs go into the atmosphere where they will live for 100s of years. So not only will the temperature go higher, but we'll have problems for longer. The only line in the graph to the right that keeps things were we are now (you know, spending $600 billion a year on weather) is the green one. Current policies, because it's not urgent, put us at 2.5 to 2.9C by 2100. Some tipping points have already started and they can push the temperature beyond expectations. Reducing emissions is a start, but what's there stays there for 100s of years unless we spend to remove it faster. That means we're already committed to 100s of years of warming. | 
Emissions going down doesn't halt warming |
It is Killing people as well as animals
The WHO predicts that between 2030 and 2050 there will be 250,000 additional deaths from climate change induced undernutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress alone. A study from the Monash University found there were five million deaths annually due to abnormal hot and cold temperatures between 2000 and 2019. The Bramble Cay melomys is the first species officially recognized to have gone extinct from climate change.
Migration
People coming across the border worry you? Some of those people are leaving their homes due to environmental changes. The EU has been flooded with people leaving thier homelands, and it's happening here too. One million Somalis were displaced by drought in 2022 alone. ref
We don't know what we Don't Know
The original climate change accord set the +1.5C to be safe and give some margin from the +2.0C where it was believed tipping points would come into play. The problem is, a lot of the dangers we face and where tipping points occur are based on puzzling the past events together. If it were one thing it could happen sooner or later. But it's not one thing, it's many things; so some will happen sooner. Some (melting of ice with methane, loss of albedo from melting ice) are already happening.
What can you do?
All the little things you can do will help of course (e.g., composting, insulation, home gardening, switching to an BEV/PHEV/FCEV for your next car purchase).
But probably the most important thing you can do is vote for the guys promising climate change action and get interviewed why you did. If enough people say both parties were essentially the same on big issues and it was climate change that tipped the balance the other parties will notice and adapt. Currently, the top leadership of the parties are fundamentally different on this issue. The election will probably be close, so even a small percentage switching their vote will make a difference. ref
New Paper Challenges Unproven Claims Effect of Human-Caused Carbon Emissions on Climate is “Non-Discernible”
Every now and then, a giant of modern science should be allowed to express himself in language that we all understand. In the informative Climate: The Movie, the 2022 Nobel physics laureate Dr. John Clauser thundered: “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap, in my opinion.” While not expressing himself in such forthright terms, the Greek scientist Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis might agree. He recently published a paper that argues it is the recent expansion of a more productive biosphere that has led to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth. It is widely argued that changing atmospheric carbon isotopes prove, most if not all, recent warming is caused by the 4% human contribution from burning hydrocarbons, but such anthropogenic involvement is dismissed by Koutsoyiannis as “non-discernible”. Koutsoyiannis is Professor Emeritus of Hydrology and Analysis of Hydrosystems at the National Technical University of Athens.The isotope argument has been around for some time and has been useful in closing down debate on the role of human-caused CO2 and its supposed effect in causing a ‘climate emergency’. The carbon in living matter has a slightly higher proportion of 12C isotopes, and recent lowering levels of 13C, which accounts for 99% of carbon in the atmosphere, are used to promote the idea that it is caused by burning hydrocarbons. But Koutsoyiannis argues that the more productive biosphere has resulted in “natural amplification of the carbon cycle due to increased temperature”. He suggests this may be a “primary factor for the decrease in the isotopic signature 13C in atmospheric CO2”.
Clauser’s remarks, along with contributions from a number of other distinguished scientists, have led to widespread attempts to shadow-ban Martin Durkin’s Climate: The Movie in mainstream and social media. If Clauser and scientists like Koutsoyiannis are correct, there is no need for the Net Zero global collectivisation. Trillions of dollars can be taken back from the Climate Industrial Network to be used to solve more pressing environmental and social problems. In such circles, the idea that humans control the climate thermostat is regarded as little short of pseudoscience. In the film, the former Princeton professor William Happer says he can live with the descriptive suggestion ‘hoax’, although he prefers the word ‘scam’. Disregarding the role of natural forces and promoting a 50 year-old hypothesis – science speak for ‘opinion’ – that can’t even agree on the degree of warming caused by higher levels of CO2 – holds little attraction for these sceptical science minds.
During the course of the Durkin film, the evidence mounts that the warming ‘opinion’ can’t explain any of the climate change observations seen over the last 500 million years of life on Earth. As the Daily Sceptic has noted on numerous occasions, it would help if there was at least one peer-reviewed paper that proved conclusively that humans caused all or most changes in the climate. A politically-manufactured ‘consensus’ and appeals to UN authority do not count.
Koutsoyiannis provides some of the historical background to the evolution of the isotope story, and its use to promote the ‘settled’ science narrative around CO2. The generally accepted hypothesis “may reflect a dogmatic approach or a postmodern ideological effect, i.e., to blame everything on human actions”, he observes. Hence, he says, the null hypothesis that all observed changes are mostly natural has not seriously been investigated. To add weight to his contention, Koutsoyiannis repeats the infamous claim made recently at a World Economic Forum meeting by Melissa Fleming, Under Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations: “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it.”
The Koutsoyiannis paper is long and detailed and he uses data obtained from the California-based Scripps Institution that has been measuring isotopic signatures since 1978, along with proxy data going back five centuries. The complex workings can be viewed in the full paper with the author concluding that instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years shows no discernible signs of human hydrocarbon CO2 emissions. He also found that the modern record did not differ in terms of net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks from the proxy data, including Antarctica ice cores, going back 500 years.
The lack, or otherwise, of a discernible human-caused carbon isotope signature is an interesting branch of climate science to investigate, although, as we have seen, it is constrained by the political requirements governing the settled science narrative. In 2022, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts broke ranks and examined the atmospheric trail left by the isotopes. They discovered that the amount of CO2 released by hydrocarbon burning since 1750, “was much too low to be the cause of global warming”. The scientists found that claims of the dominance of anthropogenic fossil fuel in the isotope record had involved the “misuse” of statistics. They stated that the assumption that the increase in CO2 is dominated by or equal to the anthropogenic component is “not settled science”.
They warned that “unsupported conclusions” of human involvement “have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary and ineffective in curbing global warming”.
ROFL
An amount of land equivalent to the Isle of Wight has been added to the shorelines of 13,000 islands around the world in just the last 20 years. This fascinating fact of a 369.67 square kilometre increase has recently been discovered by a group of Chinese scientists analysing both surface and satellite records. Overall, land was lost during the 1990s, but the scientists found that in the study period of three decades to 2020 there was a net increase of 157.21 km2. The study observed considerable natural variation in both erosion and accretion. Of course, the findings blow holes in the poster scare run by alarmists suggesting that rising sea levels caused by humans using hydrocarbons will condemn many islands to disappear shortly beneath rising sea levels. By means of such flimsy scare tactics, as we have seen in many other cases, desperate attempts are made to terrify global populations to accept the insanity of the Net Zero collectivisation.
The scientists said their data suggested that sea-level rise has not been a widespread cause of erosion for island shorelines in the studied regions. “Presently, it is considered one of the contributing factors to shoreline erosion but not the predominant one,” they explained. Needless to say, none of this will detain the attention of climate hysterics in both mainstream media and politics. The Guardian was in fine form last June stating that rising oceans will extinguish more than land. “It will kill entire languages,” it added, noting the effect on Pacific islands such as Tuvalu. Those areas of the Earth that were most hospitable to people and languages are now becoming the “least hospitable”.
Silly emotional Guardianista guff of course, but happily it does not seem to apply to Tuvalu. A recent study found that the 101 islands of Tuvalu had grown in land mass by 2.9%. The scientists observed that despite rising sea levels, many shorelines in Tuvalu and neighbouring Pacific atolls have maintained relative stability, “without significant alteration”. A comprehensive re-examination of data on 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls with 709 islands found that none of them had lost any land. Furthermore, the scientists added, there are data that indicate 47 reef islands expanded in size or remained stable over the last 50 years, “despite experiencing a rate of sea-level rise that exceeds the global average”.
The Maldives is also a poster scare for rising sea levels, with the attention-seeking activist Mark Lynas – he of the nonsense claim that 99.9% of scientists agree humans cause all or most climate change – organising an underwater Cabinet meeting of the local Government in 2009. As it happens, the Maldives is one of a number of areas that have seen recent increases in land mass. Other areas include the Indonesian Archipelago, islands along the Indochinese Peninsula coast, and islands in the Red and Mediterranean Seas. Notably, the coastal waters of the Indochinese Peninsula had the most substantial gain, with an increase of 106.28 km2 over the 30-year period. Of the 13,000 islands examined, the researchers found that only around 12% had experienced a significant shoreline shift, with almost equal numbers experiencing either landward (loss) or seaward (gain) movement.
The scientists identify many reasons why islands can grow in size despite the small annual rises in sea level seen in many parts of the world. It is noted that island shorelines are constantly changing due to factors such tides, winds, nearshore hydrodynamics and the transport of sediment. On inhabited islands, human action such as fish farming and land reclamation can be important.
Of course, humans action can have a number of unintended consequences, notably the mining of coral and the breakdown of natural water barriers. Island states such as the Maldives have not been slow in coming forward to claim ‘climate reparations’ from guilt-tripped citizens in the developed world. But tourism has dramatically boosted income in the Maldives to first world levels at a time when the locals have mined coral in industrial quantities to build ports, airports and resort developments. In the process, ocean life diversity has been lost and the islands are often less protected from storm waves that can flow direct to the shoreline. In a recent essay, a group of scientists and economists charged that coral mining “has resulted in massive degradation of shallow reef-flat areas, with important negative impacts on coastal protection”.
The Chinese findings are important in helping destroy the claim that many low-lying islands will simply disappear beneath the waves in the near future due to human-induced climate change. They show how shoreline changes are a persistent and ongoing process that is subject to many natural and human influences. Most of the poster islands used for climate scares such as Tuvalu and the Maldives have increased in size of late, and are hardly suitable to whip up fear of a claimed climate ‘emergency’. Sea level rise is not a “predominant” cause of the changing coasts, the scientists note.
Islands That Climate Alarmists Said Would Soon “Disappear” Due to Rising Sea Found to Have Grown in Size
An amount of land equivalent to the Isle of Wight has been added to the shorelines of 13,000 islands around the world in just the last 20 years. This fascinating fact of a 369.67 square kilometre increase has recently been discovered by a group of Chinese scientists analysing both surface and satellite records. Overall, land was lost during the 1990s, but the scientists found that in the study period of three decades to 2020 there was a net increase of 157.21 km2. The study observed considerable natural variation in both erosion and accretion. Of course, the findings blow holes in the poster scare run by alarmists suggesting that rising sea levels caused by humans using hydrocarbons will condemn many islands to disappear shortly beneath rising sea levels. By means of such flimsy scare tactics, as we have seen in many other cases, desperate attempts are made to terrify global populations to accept the insanity of the Net Zero collectivisation.
The scientists said their data suggested that sea-level rise has not been a widespread cause of erosion for island shorelines in the studied regions. “Presently, it is considered one of the contributing factors to shoreline erosion but not the predominant one,” they explained. Needless to say, none of this will detain the attention of climate hysterics in both mainstream media and politics. The Guardian was in fine form last June stating that rising oceans will extinguish more than land. “It will kill entire languages,” it added, noting the effect on Pacific islands such as Tuvalu. Those areas of the Earth that were most hospitable to people and languages are now becoming the “least hospitable”.
Silly emotional Guardianista guff of course, but happily it does not seem to apply to Tuvalu. A recent study found that the 101 islands of Tuvalu had grown in land mass by 2.9%. The scientists observed that despite rising sea levels, many shorelines in Tuvalu and neighbouring Pacific atolls have maintained relative stability, “without significant alteration”. A comprehensive re-examination of data on 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls with 709 islands found that none of them had lost any land. Furthermore, the scientists added, there are data that indicate 47 reef islands expanded in size or remained stable over the last 50 years, “despite experiencing a rate of sea-level rise that exceeds the global average”.
The Maldives is also a poster scare for rising sea levels, with the attention-seeking activist Mark Lynas – he of the nonsense claim that 99.9% of scientists agree humans cause all or most climate change – organising an underwater Cabinet meeting of the local Government in 2009. As it happens, the Maldives is one of a number of areas that have seen recent increases in land mass. Other areas include the Indonesian Archipelago, islands along the Indochinese Peninsula coast, and islands in the Red and Mediterranean Seas. Notably, the coastal waters of the Indochinese Peninsula had the most substantial gain, with an increase of 106.28 km2 over the 30-year period. Of the 13,000 islands examined, the researchers found that only around 12% had experienced a significant shoreline shift, with almost equal numbers experiencing either landward (loss) or seaward (gain) movement.
The scientists identify many reasons why islands can grow in size despite the small annual rises in sea level seen in many parts of the world. It is noted that island shorelines are constantly changing due to factors such tides, winds, nearshore hydrodynamics and the transport of sediment. On inhabited islands, human action such as fish farming and land reclamation can be important.
Of course, humans action can have a number of unintended consequences, notably the mining of coral and the breakdown of natural water barriers. Island states such as the Maldives have not been slow in coming forward to claim ‘climate reparations’ from guilt-tripped citizens in the developed world. But tourism has dramatically boosted income in the Maldives to first world levels at a time when the locals have mined coral in industrial quantities to build ports, airports and resort developments. In the process, ocean life diversity has been lost and the islands are often less protected from storm waves that can flow direct to the shoreline. In a recent essay, a group of scientists and economists charged that coral mining “has resulted in massive degradation of shallow reef-flat areas, with important negative impacts on coastal protection”.
The Chinese findings are important in helping destroy the claim that many low-lying islands will simply disappear beneath the waves in the near future due to human-induced climate change. They show how shoreline changes are a persistent and ongoing process that is subject to many natural and human influences. Most of the poster islands used for climate scares such as Tuvalu and the Maldives have increased in size of late, and are hardly suitable to whip up fear of a claimed climate ‘emergency’. Sea level rise is not a “predominant” cause of the changing coasts, the scientists note.
Similar threads
