FRIDAY RAVE. Do as I say, not as I do
Andrew Stewart
Let’s hope that people are waking up to the manmade climate change fear campaign, that the globalist elite themselves don’t subscribe to, as evidenced by their hypocritical actions at COP27.
Using rational thinking, how can anyone take the climate crisis seriously when:
1. There is NO empirical data (without cherry picked starting dates) supported with evidence, of a manmade climate change catastrophe.
2. Those who tell us to take it seriously show no evidence of taking it seriously.
So concerned (not) about the impact of their carbon footprint contributing to a global warming catastrophe, the globalist elite, including politicians from around the world who recently met at COP27 (27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), couldn’t even pretend to set an example for the rest of us. Us, the masses, who they want to impoverish with their globalist political agenda, which rides on the back of the manmade climate change catastrophe hoax.
Please don’t forget what Klaus Schwab founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum told us “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy”.
So concerned about CO2 emissions causing a catastrophic temperature rise, the globalist Marxist elite hypocrites, are reported to have arrived in their four hundred private jets into Egypt during COP27 to:
1. lecture us over emissions and the sins of wanting affordable heat, food and travel.
2. Discuss wealth redistribution from the West, which is at the core of the Globalist Marxist, Paris Agreement of 2015.
So concerned about a catastrophic temperature rise, the globalist Marxist elite hypocrites, , didn’t have a bug or worm on their plate, as they gorged themselves on what they tell us to eat less of.
Are you aware that the globalist Marxist elite and their dodgy climate change scientists are trying to tell us that we need to consume less meat, as cow farts are contributing to destroying the planet? Reduce meat consumption is an agenda from the 1968 Club of Rome, as was open borders, depopulation and the use of global warming as a world crisis to achieve global governance.
Scottish author and political commentator Neil Oliver (who I featured in last weeks #FridayRave said: “They’ve come to lecture us about eating less meat while they sit down to menus featuring beef, chicken, salmon, and sea bass and cream sauces. This is not leadership that we are seeing now, it’s desperation, it’s trolling us proles on a galactic scale”.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Cop27-Egypt-Activists-hit ...
https://www.breitbart.com/.../cop27-hypocrisy-globalists.../
which I hope challenges those deceived, to start caring for the people who are living now and stop supporting the globalist agenda of the religion of climate change.“Expensive energy is not a problem for those with private jets; it’s a nightmare for the impoverished”.
and
“The poorest in the world are already suffering to appease the guilt of the richest that fly around the world in private jets from their mansions and penthouses. The super-elites are the world’s greatest personal polluters but feel no guilt as they outsource the burden of living carbon net zero to others, with their get-out-of-jail Monopoly carbon credit swaps.
It’s hard to take seriously a celebrity who thinks climate change is such a crisis that he or she buys a beachfront property (sea levels rising?) and make no meaningful changes to address his or her’s duplicity. It’s the poor who should change, not us! How can this level of hypocrisy continue?”
For those who are still deceived by the manmade climate change catastrophe hoax, surely the hypocrisy shown by the Globalist elite at COP27, is stirring the brain cells to question, their actions, which expose that they really aren’t serious about manmade climate change catastrophe.
Worth reading Glenn Beck’s “The Great Reset” if you want a further insight to the real agenda, as it’s not about saving the planet from C02 (also known as plant food).
If you are from the left side of politics and want to read a book from a lefty exposing the fraud, it is worth reading Michael Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
Shellenberger, recently pointed out: “UN climate talks aren’t about the rich helping the poor. They’re about bribing corrupt leaders in poor nations to leave their fossil fuels for rich nations.”
According to Mr Shellenberger, “fanatical elites” are not pushing the climate agenda because they want to save the planet but because “they are against cheap energy and industrial capitalism because they lift up ordinary people and close the gap with the elites, who want distance and inequality.”
Further reference used in this rave
James Morrow: No time for concepts of distance, inequality
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/.../ec64bf5d1f90ed38cea ...
*********************************************
Critical Facts Ignored in the Climate Change Debate
Many Western countries are enacting policies to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) to less reliable and costly “green” energy sources (mostly wind and solar) while ignoring the critical benefits that hydrocarbons provide.
The outcomes will be nothing short of calamitous for more developed countries as their energy industries are crippled. Witness the energy crisis in Europe. At the same time, less developed countries are being prevented from partaking of the many benefits fossil fuels provide.
It is no exaggeration to say that the wide availability of fossil fuels almost exclusively resulted in the steep rise in the standard of living over the 20th century and into the 21st century. People live longer, are safer from extreme weather events, eat more, travel farther and faster, have more leisure time, drink cleaner water and breathe cleaner air, and produce more goods and services.
Take crude oil, for example. Not only are fuels derived from crude oil ideal for various forms of transportation, but we make thousands of products from it.
And while other energy sources have been developed over the same time period, fossil fuels as a whole still provide about 80% of the energy people use worldwide.
Only some extraordinarily dangerous risk from the continued use of fossil fuels could possibly justify abandoning them. So, should we just trust the ruling class’ war on fossil fuels and accept the suffering that will inevitably come? After all, these are complex issues involving climate and economic models and new and emerging energy technologies. How can the average citizen wade through all the data to decide?
Exposing Climate Alarmism
Any policy decisions about climate change and fossil fuels must be based on comparing risks and benefits. But when it comes to supposedly human-caused climate change (specifically, greenhouse gas warming), official statements from governments and international agencies such as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change do not consider the incredible benefits of fossil fuels. It’s no wonder so many people believe that our greenhouse gas emissions only present risks.
These risks supposedly include increased hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts, forest fires, and rapidly rising sea levels, among others. What’s more, alarmists claim the rising temperature will soon reach a climate tipping point, beyond which it all gets rapidly much worse and Earth becomes uninhabitable.
It’s surprisingly easy to disprove these claims, and you don’t necessarily have to be an expert. This makes me wonder how so many educated people can be so spectacularly wrong, but that is a topic for another day.
In disproving the claims, there’s no need to focus on personalities or dueling authorities. There are certain key findings that cut through the fog. The only tools you need are a basic understanding of trends and knowing how to spot misleading data.
For example, contrary to what most news outlets have claimed recently following Hurricane Ian, hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. have not increased in number or frequency since reliable records began being kept in 1851. Neither have they increased globally. Moreover, strong tornadoes in the U.S. have decreased significantly since 1954.
What was the worst decade for heat waves in the last 120 years? Would you have guessed the 1930s? And would you be surprised to learn that climate change has not worsened forest fires in the U.S.?
The average global temperature has risen by a little over 1 degree Celsius (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century. No one disputes this. Since 1980, it has been rising 0.16 Celsius per decade on average.
How much of this warming is man-made and how much is natural? In short, climatologists compare models that include human effects on the climate with what has happened in the real world.
This is where expertise helps. But you don’t need to be a climatologist to know if the models match reality. In fact, the models have been running much hotter than the actual temperature in recent decades both globally and for the U.S. This implies that the climate models overestimate the human contribution to global warming.
Still, what if we are headed toward a tipping point, albeit more slowly than thought? This concern might be more believable if we were living in unprecedented times. But paleoclimatology research shows that the current temperature, if anything, is on the cool side relative to the whole Holocene period (the period since the end of the last ice age). Since Earth didn’t encounter a tipping point when it was warmer, then it is extremely unlikely it will encounter one any time soon.
Why Green Energy Alternatives Won’t Work
Even if the risks of fossil fuels use outweighed their benefits, we still need to know if it is even possible to replace them. It’s surprising that this question is not asked more often. Certainly, the ruling class believes it is possible. But the facts say otherwise.
First, consider that although fossil fuels are burned to generate heat and are often converted into other forms of energy such as electricity, they are also used to make many products we use every day.
Oil is especially versatile. Only 45% of U.S. oil consumption actually goes toward making gasoline and 9% is used to make jet fuel. About 25% is for products ranging from solar panels, wind generators, and asphalt to tires, plastics, and waxes.
Agriculture also depends heavily on fossil fuels, both for powering farm machinery and making fertilizers and pesticides.
It is also very unlikely that jets, merchant ships, or large trucks will ever run on batteries. There are currently no substitutes for oil-derived products in the quantities required to operate these larger vehicles.
In short, we will still need fossil fuels. Almost all aspects of our daily lives depend on them.
Second, are there even enough raw materials to build all the wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles needed for a fossil fuel-free world? These new technologies require more mineral resources than our current fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure.
In addition to the common metals, electric vehicles require lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, rare earths, manganese, and zinc. Studies are already showing that the projected supply of some of these minerals for the transition to a fossil fuel-free world would fall far short of what’s needed.
The prices of these key minerals will continue to rise steeply, having the consequence of increasing the costs of not only electric vehicles, but of all the other products that employ them, including laptops, phones, copper pipes, and more.
Third, if we want to preserve the environment, isn’t it better to obtain energy resources from the deep dead zones of the Earth rather than from the delicate veneer of life at its surface? Or is it better to mow down the wild forests to grow crops to make biofuels and strip mine the minerals needed for the green transition? Lithium mining is hazardous to the environment, as is cobalt mining.
Should we go back to the bad old days before whale oil, fuel wood, and rubber trees were replaced by kerosene, coal, and petroleum products, respectively?
The Real Green Revolution
The so-called green revolution is not some hoped-for net-zero emissions Utopia. It is here now, and it is actually fueled by carbon dioxide. The very carbon dioxide we put into the air from burning fossil fuels is plant food, as all the carbon in a plant or tree comes from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The benefits are already evident as we see significantly increased “greening of the Earth” over the past several decades as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/11/02/critical-facts-ignored-in-the-climate-change-debate/
*****************************************************Hudson Bay Sea Ice Freeze-Up In 2022 For 5th Time Since 2015
This is the fifth year out of the last seven that enough sea ice has formed along the west coast of Hudson Bay by mid-November for bears to be able to head out to the ice, just as it did in the 1980s.
One of the independent polar bear guides on the ground near Churchill had this to say about the bears and freeze-up conditions this year:
“Bears started leaving on November 10; conservation emptied the jail on the 10th as well.”
‘The jail’ is the Churchill Polar Bear Alert Program’s ‘holding facility’.
While the Alert program folks have not released a report for this week (gee, I wonder why?), nearby tourist outfit Great White Bear Tours not only confirmed the bears were released from jail but posted a picture of a ‘green dot bear’: the mark put on problem bears released from the holding facility to keep track of them.
Bears are not released before there is ample ice along shore for them to move out.
Great White Bear Tours have been tracking bears moving offshore.
This information suggests the average date for bears leaving shore will likely turn out to be 12-14 November, again earlier than the average for the 1980s (16 Nov +/- 5 days) (Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017).
That makes five out of the last seven years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022) since 2015 that bears have left about the same time as they did in the 1980s.
While there are still be a few bears on the shore of Wapusk National Park that seem to be in no hurry to leave, a few stragglers doesn’t mean there isn’t ice available for hunting.
Sea Ice Conditions On Hudson Bay
This amount of ice is more than the long term average for this time of year (week of 14 November), according to the following CIS comparison chart, where blue is more than average and dark blue is much more than average:
Bears In No Hurry To Leave Shore
Some bears in good condition appear to be in no hurry to get out onto the ice, as the images below from 12-17 November on the shore of Wapusk National Park, courtesy Explore.org.
This phenomenon seems to mirror the reluctance of some bears in early summer to leave the retreating ice even when there is very little left.
Only a couple of WH bears tagged by Andrew Derocher’s team had left shore by 11 November and he hasn’t yet updated this information.
As he’s done in the past, chances are he won’t post another tracking map until the bears are all offshore, so we won’t be able to tell when most of them left.
But perhaps he’ll surprise us this year.
https://principia-scientific.com/hudson-bay-sea-ice-freeze-up-in-2022-for-5th-time-since-2015/
*********************************************************UK: The austerity we don’t talk about
A new age of austerity is upon us. And it is going to hurt. Even proponents of ‘austerity 2.0’ seem to agree as much. UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who today unveiled a £55 billion package of tax rises and spending cuts, has previously described his own economic plans as ‘eye-watering’ and ‘horrible’.
Unsurprisingly, there is no shortage of opposition to the chancellor’s grim proposals. The Labour Party, the broader left, economists, think-tankers and the media are bemoaning the bitter medicine. What is striking, however, is that prior to Hunt’s statement, the UK government had already committed itself to a parallel austerity programme – a far more painful set of measures that will squeeze living standards and smother economic dynamism. It is one of the most significant government projects of the postwar period, and yet it barely receives any scrutiny or pushback. In fact, many of those who are implacably opposed to Hunt’s austerity measures are among the loudest cheerleaders for this other impoverishing project. I’m talking, of course, about Net Zero – a polite term for green austerity.
Opponents to Hunt’s austerity are right when they say the measures are punitive and counterproductive. Britain’s public sector is already crumbling. Planned cuts to infrastructure spending will hurt growth and productivity. And if public spending as a whole is reined in too quickly, or if taxes are hiked too steeply, this could easily prolong and deepen this winter’s recession.
So why, then, is there silence about the other assault on our living standards? At its core, the Net Zero agenda is about limiting human activity to keep carbon emissions in check. Most of all, it is about limiting our production and use of energy – the lifeblood of a modern industrialised society. The current energy crisis is just a tiny taste of how painful it can be to be short of energy.
For the past few decades, politicians across the spectrum have put decarbonisation at the heart of our energy policy. In doing so, they have not only failed to secure cheap and abundant supplies of energy – they have also boasted about their efforts to make supplies more precarious. They have bet the house on unreliable renewables, which stop producing power when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. And they have delighted in the abandonment of reliable fossil fuels.
Britain now produces less electricity than it did 15 years ago – a process set in motion by New Labour’s Climate Change Act, which imposed legally binding CO2-reduction targets. The Net Zero policy doubles down on those targets. It was signed off in 2019 with barely any pretence of a debate. The process has barely even got started and yet we are already facing catastrophic energy shortages – shortages that were apparent even before the war in Ukraine. The National Grid is now warning there could be blackouts this winter. Soaring energy prices are eating into household budgets, imposing huge costs on businesses and pushing up inflation across the board. Hardest hit are the poorest, especially in those regions already grappling with the consequences of deindustrialisation.
As well as reining in energy production, and switching to less reliable methods, Net Zero will mean limiting and managing energy ‘demand’. The Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the UK government on decarbonisation, says that an astonishing 62 per cent of emissions reductions should come not from new carbon-free energy infrastructure or production processes, but from ‘behaviour change and individual choices’. That is because the technologies we would need to have Net Zero carbon emissions while maintaining current levels of energy use either do not exist or are not yet viable.
These ‘choices’ and new ‘behaviours’ will not be freely made or adopted, of course. Under the current Net Zero plans, cheap methods of producing energy, heating our homes and transporting people and goods will be phased out, banned or taxed very heavily at the very least. And costlier methods will be encouraged or mandated. Few people will volunteer to make these ‘choices’ because they all mean accepting a reduced quality of life – less consumption, less travel, a colder home. The CCC even wants people to eat less of their favourite foods, like meat, dairy and fish. This is rationing in all but name.
These measures are far bleaker than anything being served up by Hunt in his statement today. Yet rather than decry this assault on our living standards or the sabotage of our energy supplies, those who think of themselves as ‘progressive’ are all on board with green austerity. In fact, they want the government to go further and faster in cutting carbon emissions, regardless of the consequences. The Labour Party, for instance, has pledged to decarbonise the UK’s energy system in the space of just six years. The eco-cultists of Just Stop Oil want us to halt domestic fossil-fuel production. All are in agreement that the people must make sacrifices and should live a diminished, substandard ‘green’ lifestyle.
This is the austerity we need to talk about. The austerity we need to get angry about. It poses a serious threat to our living standards that no nation should be expected to tolerate. And yet the supposed critics of austerity are nowhere to be seen.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/11/17/the-austerity-we-dont-talk-about
***************************************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)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment