Climate change fueled witch hunts… Then and now
European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries targeted witches that were thought to be responsible for epidemics and crop failures related to declining temperatures of the Little Ice Age. A belief that evil humans were negatively affecting the climate and weather patterns was the “consensus” opinion of that time. How eerily similar is that notion to the the current oft-repeated mantra that Man’s actions are controlling the climate and leading to catastrophic consequences?
The first extensive European witch hunts coincided with plunging temperatures as the continent transitioned away from the beneficial warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (850 to 1250 AD). Increasing cold that began in the 13th century ushered in nearly five centuries of advancing mountain glaciers and prolonged periods of rainy or cool weather. This time of naturally-driven climate change was accompanied by crop failure, hunger, rising prices, epidemics and mass depopulation.
Large systematic witch hunts began in the 1430s and were advanced later in the century by an Alsatian Dominican friar and papal Inquisitor named Heinrich Kramer. At Kramer’s urging, Pope Innocence VIII issued an encyclical enshrining the persecution and eradication of weather-changing witches through this papal edict. The worst of the Inquisition’s abuses and later systemic witch hunts were, in part, empowered by this decree.
This initial period of cooler temperatures and failing crops continued through the first couple of decades of the 16th century, when a slight warming was accompanied by improvements in harvests. Clearly, the pogrom against the weather-changing witches had been successful!
Unfortunately for the people of the Late Middle Ages, the forty years or so of slight warming gave ground to a more severe bout of cooling. The summer of 1560 brought a return of coldness and wetness that led to severe decline in harvest, crop failure and increases in infant mortality and epidemics. Bear in mind that this was an agrarian subsistence culture, nearly totally dependent on the yearly harvest to survive. One bad harvest could be tolerated, but back-to-back failures would cause horrific consequences, and indeed they did.
Of course, the people’s misfortunes were attributed to weather-changing witches who had triggered the death-dealing weather, most often in the form of cold, rain, frost and devastating hailstorms. Horrific atrocities were alleged of the witches, including Franconian witches who “confessed” to flying through the air to spread an ointment made of children’s fat in order to cause a killing frost. Across the continent of Europe, from the 15th to the 17th centuries there were likely many tens of thousands of supposed witches burnt at the stake, many of these old women living without husbands on the margins of society.
The worst of the witch hunts occurred during the bitter cold from 1560 to about 1680. The frenzy of killing culminated in the killing of 63 witches in the German territory of Wiesensteig in the year 1563 alone. Across Europe, though, the numbers of witches continued to increase and peaked at more than 500 per year in the mid-1600s. Most were burned at the stake; others were hung.
The end of the witch hunts and killings tie closely to the beginning of our current warming trend at the close of the 17th century. That warming trend started more than 300 years ago and continues in fits and starts to this day.
In the Late Middle Ages, a large segment of the population actually believed that evil people could negatively affect the climate. It appears that we haven’t learned the lessons of the 16th century and the dangers of stirring unfounded fears concerning changes to our climate. Perhaps in the not too distant future we will have the benefit of hindsight and realize that people like Al Gore and Dr. Michael Mann were the Heinrich Kramers of the early 21st century, trying to convince us all that we can control the uncontrollable — the natural cycles of the Sun and Earth that are operating today, just as they have for many millions of years.
https://co2coalition.org/2021/10/29/climate-change-fueled-witch-hunts-then-and-now/
*********************************************Biden Tries to Explain Driving Cross-Country in an Electric Car, It Goes Horribly Wrong
As gas prices soar across the country, President Joe Biden attempted to explain the benefits of electric cars. Predictably, his explanation was more confusing than it was helpful.
Biden was giving a speech Thursday describing his two massive spending sprees, also known as the Build Back Better plan and infrastructure bill.
According to a White House transcript, Biden was describing the need to replace buses and cars with electric alternatives like rail and electric cars.
“When you buy an electric vehicle, you can go across America on a single tank of gas, figuratively speaking,” Biden said. “It’s not gas. You plug it in.”
Biden at least admitted his “tank of gas” analogy was figurative, so he apparently understands electric cars do not actually run on gas. That is where his knowledge of electric cars seems to end.
Biden’s suggestion that you can drive across the country in an electric car on the equivalent of one tank of gas is false on multiple levels.
First, electric cars have a shorter range than gas cars. The average electric car can travel 250-350 miles on a single charge, the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies reported. The 350-mile range is comparable to many gas cars, but UC Davis said only higher-end brands like Tesla have that range.
To most logical people, the equivalent of one tank of gas would be a full charge in an electric vehicle. Considering the country is a lot longer than 350 miles, it would be impossible to travel across the country on one charge.
Once the electric car does run out of gas, re-charging it is not nearly as simple as getting a tank of gas.
UC Davis reported in a standard 120V outlet like the ones in a normal home, a fully electric car can take 20 or more hours to charge. Even with a 240V outlet, full charging takes four to eight hours.
Some vehicles are equipped for “fast charging,” meaning they can get an 80 percent charge in about 20 minutes. That is still significantly longer than a typical stop for gas.
This is not to say that no one should buy an electric car, because they certainly have benefits. However, stopping for 20 minutes every 250-350 miles on a road trip is undoubtedly an inconvenience.
When Biden says electric cars can go across the country in one figurative tank of gas, his comment is at best misleading and at worst completely ignorant. In reality, electric cars have to stop more often and for longer than gas cars.
It is easy to see why Biden would want to start pushing electric cars. In just the last couple of months, gas prices have skyrocketed at an alarming rate around the country.
According to AAA, the national average for a gallon of gas was $3.399 as of Thursday. That was an increase of more than 20 cents since the previous month, when the average was $3.187.
On Oct. 28, 2020, the average gallon of gas in the United States cost $2.151. In just 365 days, the average price has risen about $1.25 per gallon.
Every time Americans go to the gas pump, price increases remind them of the current state of our country under Biden. He can lie about electric cars all he wants, but he cannot hide what’s happening in the United States.
*******************************************
Broken chargers, limited ports, queues: The reality of driving from London to Glasgow using an electric car
At a rough estimate it took him 15 hours to make a trip which would have taken five in an ordinary car
It was at my first charging stop that I realised driving an electric car from London to Glasgow might not be as straightforward as I had thought.
I had started in Westminster feeling upbeat about my challenge. I was driving a Kia e-Niro, a family SUV with a range of about 275 miles. With the map telling me it was 400 miles to Glasgow city centre, I reckoned two charges should see me through.
So the journey to my first charging stop at Norton Crane Services on the M6 Toll was a breeze. That's where reality hit home. Only three of the four rapid charging points were working - nowhere near enough for the number of electric vehicles wanting a top-up.
Some people gave up, but I stuck it out. Even when I got to the front of the queue it took several attempts for the car and charger to talk to each other and for the electrons to flow.
Sorosh told me to get used to it. He'd had an electric car for three months and rated his experience 50:50. He loved his car, but not the charging infrastructure. "There is a lot of work to do if they are scrapping all diesel cars by 2030. It's nowhere near ready," he said. "They have got two charging spots here when you need at least 10."
For part of my journey, I was joined by Philippa Oldham, a director and engineer at the Advanced Propulsion Centre UK.
She said cars have become a serious proposition for motorists, with many now capable of well over 200 miles, roughly three times the range of the best-selling electric just eight years ago.
But my car could still take almost an hour to charge up - far longer than I would normally spend at a service station.
"It is a long time," Philippa agreed. "But is that the time for a lunch stop, to make a few phone calls and check emails?
My next charging stop was Tebay Services. But once again I hit a hitch. Two rapid charging points were out of action. Another wouldn't work because the machine was already charging another car.
It was exasperating. It was 8.30pm, I still had 270 miles to go and just 70 miles left on the battery.
This wasn't range anxiety. This was charger anxiety. If I drove on to the next service station would I find a working machine or have to call for a breakdown truck?
I gambled and won. At Southwaite Services, south of Carlisle, I had four chargers to myself, all working. It was a massive relief.
According to Zap Map, the UK has just over 26,600 chargers. But a report by the Competition and Markets Authority this summer found one in 25 of those aren't working at any given time on average. For rapid chargers, the kind I was using, it's one in 10.
I made it to Glasgow at midnight after a stressful drive.
The government has allocated more money to upgrade the charging network. But one has to wonder whether that is going to happen fast enough for all the drivers now doing the right thing and buying electric.
********************************************
'World's greenest residential building' reduced to 20 storeys after Brisbane City Council questions size
Lodged in July last year, Aria Property Group's Urban Forest development originally proposed a 32-storey, 382-unit apartment tower on Glenelg Street in South Brisbane.
Designed by Koichi Takada Architects, the application received international attention for its promise to be a tower covered in greenery including trees and shrubs, hiding much of the building structure under plants.
The tower was designed to have nearly 300 per cent green coverage and aims to secure a 5-star rating from the Green Building Council of Australia on the back of its subtropical design.
The original assessment report lodged with the council for the tower last year said the design's "unprecedented level of landscaping" would create a striking building on the city skyline.
However, the plan generated concern from locals who feared the tower was oversized and would permanently change the inner-city suburb's character.
Concerns about its impact on a neighbouring heritage-listed church, a local school, and the number of apartments were also raised in submissions.
More than a year later, the application is still being assessed by Brisbane City Council.
Earlier this year, at the council's request, Aria reduced the size of the tower to 24 storeys, but the council was not satisfied.
In August a council planner requested further reduction of its size to fit the neighbourhood plan.
"The overall proposed building height and number of storeys is required to be reduced in response to ... the South Brisbane riverside neighbourhood plan code," the officer wrote.
The planning code covering that area of South Brisbane has a height limit of 12 storeys, which many residents in submissions on the development insist should be heeded.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-27/urban-forest-building-downsizes-south-brisbane/100571768
***************************************My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment