Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

Sea level rise​

I was reading an article on Louisiana being threatened by rising seawater that sounded very much like local problems and came across the left graph from the Royal Society. What grabbed my attention is that it's practically a straight line, but it shouldn't be as temperature didn't change much until after 1980.
Most resources say sea level has been rising ~3.6 mm per year since 1880. It's what Florida uses when planning how to prevent flooding for the next 100 years.

While the slope does uptick around 1990 in the Royal Society chart, I was expecting to see something more dramatic like the cost of weather disasters where it follows the global temperature fairly closely. Something like this:


It looks like sea water rising was well on the way long before GHGs were noticeable enough to make a difference. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone, it just means we were in a warming cycle before the industrial revolution.

Melting sea ice obviously doesn't contribute to sea level rise, the water has to come from ice/snow on land. At the transition out of the last ice-age that dominated the last 20,000 years. It began with ice-caps over parts of Europe and North America and ended not so long ago with much of that ice gone but with sea levels having risen by more than 120 meters. Scientists have estimated there's enough land-ice today that if all melted the oceans might rise by 60 meters.




So, coastal cities like Miami should plan for sea level rise, three feet of water is a lot of water afterall, but it's a slow few millimeters a year problem so there's plenty of time to work out solutions. The Netherlands dike network extends for over 22,000km, so it can be done.

Myths around Sea-Level

• Florida will soon be under water
• Sea level fell in 2010
• Sea level is not rising
• Sea level rise is decelerating

Climate Change is Class Warfare​

The climate is up the spout and we’re to blame. The planet is boiling like a pan of porridge. We face the possible extinction of all life on earth. ‘Science’ says so. Anyone who questions it is a demonic scoundrel. The climate catastrophe is a 100% solid-gold, slam-dunk irrefutable fact.

Hmm. And yet, it is clear to anyone who has paid the slightest attention, that the tired, hysterical predictions of the climate alarmists (made repeatedly over four decades and based on their hypothetical computer-models) have proved to be spectacularly wrong, again and again and again. It does not take much digging (we have the internet these days) to discover that the outlandish claims of climate alarmists are flatly contradicted by lots and lots of perfectly good scientific evidence and data. We’re not talking here about fringe science put about by whackos. We’re talking about official data – mainstream science, published in respected journals. (Some of it is featured in my ‘climate-denier’ film, Climate: The Movie, available for free online).

The world is not boiling. We are, as any geologist will tell you, in an ice age – one of the coldest periods in the last 500 million years. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not unnaturally or frighteningly high. Compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history it is extremely low. And there is no evidence that changing levels of atmospheric CO2 (it has changed radically many times in the past) has ever ‘driven climate change’. If there had been, Al Gore would have said so in his silly film, but he didn’t. Hurricane activity is not increasing, nor are the number of wildfires, nor are the number of droughts, and so on and so on. This is what the official data say. You can look it up.

Of course this is all a bit embarrassing for the science establishment. The climate alarm is worth billions to them in climate-related funding. A lot of jobs depend on it. A lot of reputations are at stake. And it’s deeply awkward for the renewables industry, which turns over around a trillion dollars a year.

The climate alarm is not supported by scientific evidence. It is supported by bullying, intimidation and the censorship of anyone who dares to question it. Climate catastrophism is politics, shamelessly dressed up as science.

The climate scare was the invention of the environmentalist movement, which stands opposed to vulgar, dirty, free-market capitalism. They say there are too many people, consuming too much. We must be restrained and contained, for the sake of Gaia. The solution to the global, existential climate problem is higher taxes and more regulation.

At any social gathering, you can pretty confidently predict who will think what about climate, by asking them about taxes and regulation. People who love the Big State can’t get enough of climate chaos. People who want lower taxes and less regulation will roll their eyes and say rude things about little Greta.

Across the Western world, the state has grown enormously over the last century, vastly increasing the number of people whose livelihoods depend on state-spending, and whose jobs are related, directly or indirectly, to government control. In the U.K. and U.S. both, more than twice as many people now work in government as work in manufacturing. And this does not include all those (in the third sector etc.) who rely indirectly on government largesse.

These people depend on government. They are paid for out of taxation. In such circles to proclaim the joys of a small state, lower taxes and less government is a breach of social etiquette. You have crossed a moral line. You will be suspected of liking Donald Trump, of voting Brexit, of hating lockdown and compulsory vaccination, of defending the Second Amendment, of being a climate denier.

And indeed all this may well be true. These views tend to hang together. As do the views of those on the other side. To repeat, the climate alarm is in fact politics dressed up as science. We are, as more people are beginning to realise, engaged in a class war. On one side, the tax-consuming regulating class that feeds from taxation and bosses us about. On the other, the rest of us in the private sector, who rather resent paying taxes and being told what to do and how to live our lives.

This is the real basis for the consensus on climate change. The consensus exists among our sprawling, tax-consuming establishment. This is not a small group of people. It is an entire class. It is, if you will, the ruling class. It controls our civil service, our schools and universities, large parts of our arts and science establishments and much of the media. It is an intolerant class, deeply aware of its own interests. The taboo that surrounds climate scepticism is a reflection of its power.

It would be nice to think that politely pointing to the actual scientific data might put an end to all the climate chaos nonsense. Sadly it won’t. Because this ain’t about science.

cLIEmate change is hoax. They know it is, as they fly private jets, build megamansions on the ocean and sail diesel megayachts.

Why is the WHO Asking Doctors to Lie to Promote Climate Alarm?​

Last month, everybody’s favourite intergovernmental agency, the World Health Organisation (WHO), published a “new toolkit empowering health professionals to tackle climate change”. The toolkit is the latest attempt to enlist one of the most trusted professions into the climate war. But not only is this transparently ideological and condescending ‘toolkit’ lacking in fact, it requires ‘healthcare professionals’ to use their authority to eschew science and lie to their patients and politicians. The climate war is, after all, political.

The problem for climate warriors of all kinds since the climate scare story emerged in the 1980s and became orthodoxy in the 1990s and 2000s has been the rapid improvement of all human welfare metrics the world over. On the one hand, all life on Earth and the collapse of civilisation hangs in the balance – that is supposedly the implication of data that shows the atmosphere has got warmer. But on the other hand, people living in economies at all levels of development are today living longer, healthier, wealthier and safer lives than any preceding generation. The era of ‘global boiling’, as UN Secretary General António Guterres put it, also happens to be the era in which unprecedented social development has occurred.

That is a paradox if you accept the green premise that economic development comes at the expense of the climate. The UN, which has staked its authority on being able to address ‘global’ issues such as environmental degradation, is committed to defending the ‘global boiling’ narrative. But, at the same time, actively trying to retard the development of low-income countries risks undermining its authority in the developing world.

The statement made by the WHO’s introduction to its new toolkit epitomises the feeble efforts to square this circle, which try to spin interference in the development of low-income countries as being for their benefit:

Our world is witnessing a concerning trend of warming temperatures, extreme weather events, water and food security challenges and deteriorating air quality. The frequency and intensity of these events are surpassing the capacity of both natural and human systems to respond effectively, resulting in far-reaching consequences for health.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, for a ‘toolkit’ aimed at people such as doctors, who have a proven capacity to understand scientific literature, the toolkit offers little evidence in support of these claims. It says that “changing weather patterns and extreme weather events can reduce crop yields, potentially leading to food insecurity and malnutrition” and that the “breeding window for mosquito-borne disease is broadening due to changing weather patterns”. The reference for both of these claims is given in a footnote, which provides a link to the 2023 IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report, which says in relation to the first claim:

The occurrence of climate-related food-borne and water-borne diseases has increased (very high confidence). The incidence of vector-borne diseases has increased from range expansion and/or increased reproduction of disease vectors (high confidence).

Click to expand...

But dig a little deeper into the IPCC’s discussion on vector-borne diseases and you find the following figure depicting mortality risk of various climate-related factors for six regions of the world.


As the data clearly show, since 1990 there have been radical reductions in mortality caused by malaria, malnutrition, diarrhoeal disease, natural disasters and exposure to temperature extremes. The only departure from those trends is dengue, which in any case is of far less significance than the other factors, claiming approximately just 1.75 lives per 100,000 per year, compared with malaria, which claims more than 50.

How do these data compare with the WHO’s claim that “the frequency and intensity of these events are surpassing the capacity of both natural and human systems to respond effectively, resulting in far-reaching consequences for health”, and the “occurrence of climate-related food-borne and water-borne diseases” and the “incidence of vector-borne diseases” have increased? They do not compare. In Africa, deaths from malnutrition have fallen by three quarters between 1990 and 2017. Diarrhoeal disease mortality has fallen by two thirds in the same period. Malaria deaths have halved. Consequently, more than 10,000 fewer infants die in the world each day than died each day in 1990.

This is, or ought to be, all the more remarkable to anyone who tracks developmental data, because of the WHO’s longstanding attempt to link these diseases of poverty to climate change. In the 2002 World Health Report, the WHO claimed that 154,000 deaths were attributable to climate change, almost exclusively in High Mortality Developing Countries (HMDCs) – a figure obtained by estimating climate change’s impact on each of these diseases of poverty. Yet despite the radical progress that has been shown since 2000, the WHO has shown no interest either in revising its understanding of climate change or in developing an understanding of what has driven these improvements in global health, in spite of its name. Instead, it has doubled down on the climate-health narrative.

A similar ‘paradox’ can be shown by comparing the WHO’s statements on food security with other UN agencies’ data. There is no evidence of climate change adversely affecting agricultural production in vulnerable economies.


Yet the WHO’s toolkit urges “health professionals” to “communicate” the urgent climate crisis to ordinary people and to use their authority to influence politics:

Things you could say to a policymaker: Climate change is here now, and I am already seeing the impacts on my patients’ health. The health of some people is affected more severely, including children and elderly people, disadvantaged communities, remote communities, and people with disabilities or chronic illness.

Click to expand...

People are living longer and healthier lives. Infant mortality is way down. Far fewer people are living in poverty. But the WHO wants doctors and nurses to claim that the opposite is true. And worse than that, the toolkit advises those doctors and nurses not to debate:

Don’t debate the science Don’t get caught up in conversations that question climate science. It’s not up for debate. If conversation veers into this territory, redirect it back to your professional expertise and the links between climate change and health.

Click to expand...

But there are no “links between climate change and health”. And if there appear to be, these local or regional health trends run counter to the global trends. Therefore, there must be a better explanation than ‘climate change’. It may well be that extreme weather afflicts a place, or even that unusual weather causes the population of that place a number of problems, as it always has. But ‘extreme weather’ is both rare and as yet not attributable to climate change, on the IPCC’s own analysis. And so, if small changes in weather are coincident with negative economic change or health metrics, the cause is less likely to be meteorological than political in nature. For example, incompetence, especially that of undemocratic regimes’ bureaucracies, is very often the cause of hunger, thirst and the lack of basic services. And in their haste to find politically expedient correlations between weather and welfare metrics, researchers fail to consider alternative causes, despite the knowledge that humans are far more sensitive to economic forces than to nature’s whims.

Don’t believe me? Well, the evidence is extremely stark. Whereas the WHO wants to persuade doctors to ignore science to claim there are “links between climate change and health”, by far the strongest predictor of health is in fact wealth. Accordingly, the WHO 2002 report found practically no climate-related deaths in ‘Low Mortality Developing Countries’ and ‘Developing Countries’. There are no deaths “from climate change” where malaria, malnutrition and diarrhoea are eliminated by rising income levels.


Seen from this perspective, the WHO’s mobilisation of health professionals looks very much like a political campaign against wealth. Only such an ideological – and anti-science – aversion to wealth could put such emphasis on the link between health and weather, because whereas doctors can and should say that income and health are linked, the WHO presses them not to: the best thing that can be given to poorer people is ‘stable weather’, apparently, not higher incomes. The toolkit even anticipates this criticism, advising people how to answer the argument that “climate action is perceived as detrimental to the economy”. According to the WHO, this is “an untrue and unhelpful perception held by some people… which was repeated by some businesses and governments to delay the implementation of climate solutions”. A conspiracy theory, no less, which is supported only by the highly dubious claim that “for every dollar spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, approximately $2 are saved in health costs”.

Any doctor who took such an extraordinary and unevidenced claim about a new drug at face value and promptly started prescribing it to their patients would have his or her licence taken away. Britain, for instance, spends around £10 billion per year on subsidising its green electricity transition alone, yet there is no evidence of the NHS budget benefiting by £20bn. An analysis of Germany’s Energiewende estimates the annual cost at €45 billion, yet per capita expenditure on healthcare rose from €3,500 in 2009 to €5,700 in 2021 – an increase of 62%. Moreover, Germany’s green deindustrialisation has come at a heavy price, signalling to the world that not even a first-tier industrialised and wealthy nation can survive such environmentalism, with far reaching consequences looming for similar policies in the rest of Europe. The country’s status as Europe’s deep-green policy champion has passed and now half of Germans believe that lower prices should be put before emissions-reduction policies. German tractors, and for that matter French and Dutch ones as well, aren’t heading to the capital’s streets to protest against green economic and health miracles. The WHO’s claim is simply mad.

The reason the WHO’s toolkit is so bereft of evidence and logic is because it’s just political propaganda. The document credits authors who are not medical doctors and climate scientists, but psychologists at the Centre for Climate Change Communication located at George Mason University, led by Dr. Ed Maibach. As I have pointed out previously in the Daily Sceptic, climate shrinks’ unwelcome intrusion into climate politics does nothing to improve debate and only serves to antagonise increasingly intense conflicts. And their involvement in producing the WHO’s toolkit is no exception. This remote, conflicted intergovernmental agency claims the authority of ‘experts’, but its guidance instructs doctors to eschew science, evidence and debate – it literally advises them not to engage in debate – and instead to promulgate green ideology: the mythical claim that there are ‘links’ between climate and health, that the green ‘transition’ will improve health and that complying with emissions targets is cheap as chips.

The toolkit may give ‘healthcare professionals’ the justification to lie to the public and politicians, but that’s not ‘empowerment’, it’s just fibs. And its recruitment of psychologists to mobilise doctors and nurses as the instruments of a political agenda is yet more evidence of the urgent need to dismantle the WHO, for the sake of billions of people’s health and wealth.

Said a long time ago.

They want climate change and gun control put into the basket of "public health" so they can use their now well-practiced extra-constitutional public health emergency powers to ban guns and ration/control energy to the plebes.

Happy Earth Day!​

• 60 Minutes revisits climate change​

• Bloomberg: Economy is slowing because we're paying to fix things Climate Change caused​

• Climate change means deadly heat for Europe​

• India Approves $7 Billion Plan to Electrify Public Transport​

• EXTENDED RANGE FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANEACTIVITY AND LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITY FOR 2024

We estimate that 2024 will have 23 named storms (average is 14.4), 115 named storm days (average is 69.4), 11hurricanes (average is 7.2), 45 hurricane days (average is 27.0), 5 major (Category 3-4-5)hurricanes (average is 3.2) and 13 major hurricane days (average is 7.4). The probability of U.S. and Caribbean major hurricane landfall is estimated to be well above its long period average. We predict Atlantic basin Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Net Tropical Cyclone (NTC) activity in 2024 to be approximately 170 percent of their long term averages.

Click to expand...

Carbon Credits Are the Biggest Scam Since Indulgences—How You Can Avoid Being Fleeced​

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church convinced the commoners to buy indulgences to alleviate their sins. And they made a fortune in the process.

Similarly, today, our overlords—the mainstream media, central bankers, and their political allies—are working overtime to convince the commoners to pay for their alleged climate sins.

Enter carbon credits, government-issued permits that grant you the privilege to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide.

Although advocates promote them as a way to “save the environment,” in reality, carbon credits are nothing more than a devious mechanism to tax, regulate, and control you.

It’s not a coincidence that the most philosophically and ethically bent people are promoting them.

For example, at a recent World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, participants revealed and touted an “individual carbon footprint tracker.” It will track where people travel, how they travel, what they eat, and what they consume.

Carbon accounting is already creeping into many places, like Google Flights.



A federal carbon tax is already a reality in Trudeau’s Canada, and it’s causing the price of food and other goods and services to soar. But Canadians haven’t seen anything yet—the federal carbon tax will triple by 2030.

In short, there’s a growing push to implement the carbon credit scam worldwide. And that’s not a coincidence.

Remember, central banks only exist to harvest wealth from the populace through inflation and redirect it to the politically connected, an insidious practice known as seigniorage.

Fiat currency is the usual mechanism central banks use to perpetuate this fraud. They get most people to run on a hamster wheel most of their lives chasing after confetti money they create with no effort.

However, there is a limit to this process.

For example, the governments in Venezuela and Zimbabwe have debased their currencies to such an extent that they are worthless. They have squeezed as much wealth out of their populations through seigniorage as possible.

Governments in the US, Canada, the EU, and others still benefit from seigniorage, but they sense they are not getting as much juice from the squeeze as they used to. Price increases are hitting multi-decade highs, and the US dollar, the euro, and other fiat currencies are quickly losing their luster.

In other words, central banks are debasing fiat currencies to the point where they can no longer extract as much seigniorage as they used to. That presents bankrupt Western governments with a big financial problem and is why they need to find a new way to harvest wealth from their citizens.

That’s where carbon credits come in. They’re the new mechanism of seigniorage designed to transfer wealth from you to the politically connected.

The idea is to get people to run on the hamster wheel chasing carbon credits, an artificial construct governments create with no effort.

Think of it like this…

Imagine if Tony Soprano forced everyone in his neighborhood to buy “breathing credits” from him, which grant you the privilege to breathe a certain amount of air. And that, naturally, it would cost Tony Soprano nothing to create as many of these “breathing credits” as he wanted. He could also hand them out to his friends and others who did favors for him, creating a corrupt patronage system.

This is basically what governments plan to do with carbon credits. Except they are also gaslighting you by telling you they are helping save the planet. Without that patina of propaganda—which the media, academia, and the rest of the establishment reinforce—there’s a good chance the people would revolt.

What To Do​

The foundation is being laid to create a totalitarian system to track, control, and tax carbon—an element that touches every activity of human life.

Carbon credits are merely a way for governments, central bankers, and their allies to control the populace and secure continued seigniorage as the fiat currency system flounders.

It’s the biggest scam since the indulgences of the Middle Ages.

The good news is that there is still time to fight back. The bad news is that there isn’t much time.

The most effective thing the average person can do is to not store their life savings in fiat currencies and thus starve governments of seigniorage. That way, central bankers and their allies cannot use inflation to siphon off your monetary energy to fund the carbon credit system and other aspects of their nefarious agenda.

In other words, don’t put your life savings into something that someone else can create with little or no effort.

svetz said:

Click to expand...

Oh look. She messed up and hustled ideas that in the end turned out to be wrong and now she's trying to backpedal even though she supported governments censoring people who said electric cars are not the "solution" to much of anything.

She is now supporting what she said in the past was misinformation.

Fucking liberals, I swear

Checkthisout said:

Oh look. She messed up and hustled ideas that in the end turned out to be wrong and now she's trying to backpedal even though she supported governments censoring people who said electric cars are not the "solution" to much of anything.

She is now supporting what she said in the past was misinformation.

Fucking liberals, I swear

Click to expand...

They will most likely make off grid ppl hook up and feed the grid.
You will be rationed on your own solar out put. Hoarders.

The links Svetz keep posting (Electric Viking and the lady Sabine) are essentially just shills who are attempting to make money on youtube by parroting the narrative of the day. I have already made numerous posts proving that both are opportunists who are just in it for the money. There is a very good chance neither believe the BS they spew.

aenyc said:

The links Svetz keep posting (Electric Viking and the lady Sabine) are essentially just shills who are attempting to make money on youtube by parroting the narrative of the day. I have already made numerous posts proving that both are opportunists who are just in it for the money. There is a very good chance neither believe the BS they spew.

Click to expand...

Can you imagine if she did porn?

D71 said:

Can you imagine if she did porn?

Click to expand...

That's one way to get a man to turn to monkhood.

aenyc said:

The links Svetz keep posting (Electric Viking and the lady Sabine) are essentially just shills who are attempting to make money on youtube by parroting the narrative of the day. I have already made numerous posts proving that both are opportunists who are just in it for the money. There is a very good chance neither believe the BS they spew.

Click to expand...

Grant money to "inform the public".

Same thing happened during covid.

Checkthisout said:

Grant money to "inform the public".

Same thing happened during covid.

Click to expand...

Figure out way get rich and steal tax payer money. “Steal from yourself new green deal”

New analysis: climate concerns likely gave Democrats the White House in 2020​

Opinion: That's the great thing about close elections is small issues can determine who wins. So this fall, if you want to see climate action, get out there and vote for folks who don't think it's a hoax.

Candidates And Climate Change​

The biggest Climate Issue: Turning out voters​

How five crucial elections in 2024 could shape climate action for decades​

the human tipping point​

the human tipping point, when the damage becomes irreversible and the foundations of our economy, our politics and our world begin to crack.

Click to expand...

​

Can You Own an Electric Car if You Can’t Charge at Home?​

In some cases, people simply can't charge their EVs at home. Regardless of the reason, there are workable strategies that will allow you to own an EV even if you can't charge it at your place of residence.

Click to expand...

Opinion: If I couldn't charge at home I doubt I'd have a PHEV or BEV either. The Grocery store here does have level 2 chargers, but that's ~30 miles of range per hour and I only shop for groceries once a week. So, it's easy to see there have to be a lot of changes yet in the infrastructure for people to adopt to the technology change of EVs.

PHEVs can't really fill the gap as if you're not constantly recharging the daily range electrically there's no benefit. Hydrogen FCEVs or e:FCEVs could really shine in this application assuming some form of green hydrogen that was cost competitive with gasoline.

• 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
• How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
• How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
• How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works (with atmospheric layers)