Monday, January 16, 2023

There were 5 years warmer than 2022

Since the global temperature peaked in 2016, the temperature has been essentially flat. Global stasis! Yet CO2 continues to rise -- showing that it is at best a minor influence on temperature

NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office have released the global temperature for 2022, showing it to be a warm year, ranked sixth warmest year. It was subdued, the researchers say, because we have had the third consecutive year of La Nina conditions.

The announcement was accompanied with the usual proviso that the past nine years were the warmest recorded. But anyone thinking about the claims and numbers should also look behind the headlines.

Fig 1 shows the global temperature anomaly this century: blue is HadCRUT5, Orange is NASA and grey is NOAA.

image from

What is quite apparent is that the global temperature record in the 21st century spends long periods relatively flat. The so-called hiatus, for instance, lasted from circa 2001 and 2013 and was ended by a very strong El Nino. Since then there has been another period of relatively unchanging temperature. Noticeable increases in temperature occur in the lead-in to an El Nino, such as the increase of approx. 0.3°C between 2011-2015.

The stepwise influence of El Nino events on the long-term trends seems very apparent. It was the strong El Nino of 1998 that marked the jump of global temperature to the hiatus, and the 2015 El Nino may have done the same.


Biden Lied About the Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline

As a justification for withdrawing the permits for the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline, which would have connected Canadian pipelines to pipelines in the Midwest and ultimately to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, President Joe Biden said the pipeline was not justified because we didn’t need the oil and it wouldn’t benefit the economy or produce jobs. We now know he lied.

Even before Biden made his decision to kill the pipeline project, studies showed just the opposite was true. Now, we have further proof of Biden’s duplicity courtesy of the Department of Energy (DOE). In a quiet release during the holidays when most Americans are distracted and not paying close attention to the news, the DOE issued a report that details the significant benefits the United States missed out on when Biden withdrew the pipeline permit as one of his first acts after entering the Oval Office.

The report has been largely ignored by the corrupt mainstream media.

The new report says 16,149 to 59,000 jobs would have been created during the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, with dozens more permanent jobs created to manage, maintain, and operate it. The economic benefits to the local and national economy would have been to the tune of $3.4 to $9.6 billion.

The project was supposed to add a new segment to the pre-existing pipeline that begins in Alberta, Canada, and ends at refineries in Texas. That added capacity would have supplied an additional 830,000 barrels of oil per day, with most of that coming from Canada’s oil sands.

Unfortunately, after more than a decade of regulatory whiplash, uncertainty, and hostility, TC Energy, the Calgary-based company that led the project, officially terminated it, leaving nothing but a press release and map of the terminated pipeline section on its website.

In addition to insisting KXL would not benefit the U.S. economy, the Biden administration claimed the pipeline would harm America’s climate goals. However, it is difficult to see how that is the case (if you believe those climate goals are necessary) considering the fact that the oil is being produced and eventually delivered to the United States. And it will still be used. The only real change is that rather than being delivered through net-zero emissions pipeline, it is now delivered by freight trains and semi trucks, which actually emit the very greenhouse gases the environmental lunatics are so concerned about.

Even more laughably, the other main reason Biden nixed the pipeline is because it would make him look bad to his friends abroad. In the Biden administration’s words, it would “undermine the global energy and climate leadership role of the United States.” Surely, they can’t be worried about looking bad to our allies in Europe, where electricity rates have skyrocketed and coal-fired power plants are making a comeback?

Interestingly, Biden’s buddies in Canada were none too pleased with the sudden cancellation. In 2021, Reuters reported the Canadian government was disappointed that Biden immediately canceled the project. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney vowed legal action, and said Biden’s decision was “a gut punch for the Canadian and Alberta economies.” He added that Biden’s foolish decision was an “insult” to Canada. A lawsuit was filed, spearheaded by the attorneys general of several states, and damages were requested by the Alberta government. Regrettably, TC Energy’s cancellation of the project rendered the suit “moot,” according to the U.S. government. Eventually, the case was thrown out.

What’s more, even Canadian indigenous leaders supported KXL. The president of the National Coalition of Chiefs called the cancellation, “a blow to the First Nations that are involved right now in working with TC Energy to access employment training and contracting opportunities.” Indeed, Canadian First Nations groups owned a 12 percent equity stake in KXL.

Had the KXL pipeline been built, it is unlikely oil and gas prices today would be as high as they are. Perhaps more importantly, had he not killed the project, Biden would certainly not have had to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or go begging hat in hand to authoritarian governments, first to Saudi Arabia and then to Venezuela, to increase oil exports to the United States.

The Keystone XL pipeline was not the absolute end-all-be-all for the economy or energy independence, but the costs of canceling it are a lot worse than the imagined international pooh-poohing that might have occurred had Biden allowed the project to be completed. Former Obama Secretary of Defense Robert Gates once said Joe Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." So, the boneheaded decision to kill the pipeline is really just par for the course for Biden.


Climate Change’ is shaping up to be the most expensive scientific fraud in human history

Yet another false religion

Wādī al-Ḥītān, also known as ‘The Valley of the Whales’, is an extraordinary paleontological site sitting 150 km south-west of Cairo, Egypt.

There, the fossilised bones of Archaeoceti (ancient whales), lay exposed in the sands of the Western Desert. The find includes rare specimens of Basilosaurus and Dorudo. 50 million years ago in the beginning of the Eocene, these creatures hunted in the warm, shallow waters of a vanished sea.

In news that will no doubt traumatise those who cling to human-centric climate change, the whales tell a story of a constantly changing Earth that cares little for the survival of its creatures. According to Daily News Egypt:

About 37 years ago at the Fayoum desert, where the 200-square-kilometre Wadi Al-Hitan is located, was covered with water as part of the old Mediterranean Sea ‘Tethys Sea’ which existed about 200 million years ago.

The Tethys Sea existed over Fayoum almost 200m years ago, before shrinking North and becoming the Mediterranean Sea and desertification turning the sea floor into a desert.

These fossil fields, discovered in 1902, are crucial because they helped to answer an enduring mystery in the evolution of whales – finally proving that they switched from being land-based mammals into ocean-going creatures.

Other places contain similar fossils, but nowhere is there such a rich layer of preservation allowing palaeontologists to reconstruct the long-lost ecosystem. Unesco, in an unusual moment of clarity, designated the area as a protected World Heritage site. It sits as an open-air museum with over 400 whale fossils and countless other priceless examples of prehistoric life lying in situ.

These are strange whales. In excess of 20 metres, they had both flippers and hind legs with feet and toes while their bodies were elongated, resembling enormous serpents. Unlike modern whales, they retained the powerful jaws and teeth of land-based predecessors.

The skeletons of modern whales contain vestigial hind leg bones that indicate a ghost-like past on land which serve no purpose in the water. They are being erased by the gradual process of natural selection leading scientists to guess that these creatures had once walked on land.

Finding transitional fossils to prove this is a game of luck, but in the case of whales, luck fell on the side of science. The legs, knees, and feet of the desert whales solidified the main theory but also discounted previously assumed ancestors causing a ruthless re-shuffling of life’s tree. Such is the brutality of physical evidence.

Science, if it wishes to be called such, must always bend to real-world data – even if it hurts our feelings.

This can be difficult for those who fall in love with beautiful theories, something that happens frequently to the scientists who dream them up and the ideological movements that worship them. Plenty of elegant theories have been crushed under the weight of conflicting evidence and this is never more dangerous than when humans associate a theory with personal ‘virtue’.

The miasma theory of infectious diseases, held as the gold standard by experts in the field of medicine, was superseded by modern germ theory. ‘Bad air’ or ‘night air’ was originally thought to be the cause of catastrophic epidemics that plagued the ancient world. Hippocrates popularised the globally-held view that bad odours caused illness. This belief, while ultimately wrong, was not entirely detrimental to the development of civilisation as it led to cities cleaning up rotting waste and the creation of water purification techniques which genuinely lowered the prevalence of disease breeding grounds.

The theory of classical elements – where all matter was composed of air, earth, fire, and water – persisted until 1789 when it was put to rest by Antoine Lavoisier in his work Elements of Chemistry. Mind you, the 90s-era Captain Planet children’s cartoon has a lot to answer for when it comes to children mistaking these features for ‘elements’. As for poor Lavoisier, he was rewarded for his efforts to improve the lives of the French peasants with a trip to the guillotine in 1794. It was said of his loss, ‘It took them only an instant to cut off his head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like.’ He was later exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Maternal Impression was extremely popular in which doctors believed the mother of a child could spontaneously create birth defects through her ill-thoughts. It was a nasty way to blame women for the malformed and tragic fates of their children. One of the most severely disabled figures in history, Joseph Merrick (known as ‘The Elephant Man’), said that his mother believed his condition was caused by her accident involving an elephant while she was pregnant.

The luminiferous aether was an extremely popular idea that space was saturated by a mysterious substance that allowed light to travel. Waves require mediums and logically scientists assumed that the same must be true of light. At the time, space was reliably reported to be a vacuum, so in order to fit observations, the aether was given properties that made it invisible and un-measurable – in other words, properties that amounted to it not existing at all. It was a theory created to fit one known fact which frustrated scientists to the point they had to sit down and instead consider ways for light to travel without a medium. The aether did not fall out of favour until Einstein’s work on Special Relativity. This is a corner of science that is still evolving, with the discovery of quantum theory’s vacuum energy muddying the elegant solution. It is not the aether as envisioned by previous scientists, but its existence does raise questions about the nature of energy and while the quirks of vacuum energy are observed, its true nature remains unconfirmed. Who knows, it may be thrown on the scrap heap in due course.

There are thousands upon thousands of scientific missteps made by humans desperately trying to answer questions about the world with limited technology. Modern science remains littered with these relics, such as the nostalgically named ‘standard candles’ of astronomy and the vicious debate between Convention Current Flow coined by Benjamin Franklin versus the real direction of Electron Flow. Franklin was wrong, but the drawing convention held. Many scientists believe that we should stop teaching each generation the error and update the system. But that takes effort, so ‘science’ leaves the error and tells students to visualise the reverse of what’s written.

To quote one publication:

Why the scientific, engineering, and academic communities refused to change to electron flow is not known. It is likely that the feeling was that electrical theory was always taught using the conventional current flow model and there was no particular need, desire, or reason to change. Change is difficult and tradition dies hard.

If you feel like starting a war among engineers – this is a good place to start after a few glasses of champagne.

In the past, religious organisations tended to be the powerful institutions that held onto scientific theories and modelling long after scientists wished to move on under the weight of conflicting evidence.

This desire to clutch at discarded theories arises from the problem of power. Science is often interchangeable with ‘knowledge’. Those with knowledge of the world are considered to be powerful, particularly in human eras where most people could not read, let alone describe natural processes. Information was akin to magic, often dangerously so. The church and, to a lesser extent, political institutions, used science to validate their power in the eyes of the public. Just as ‘the divine will of God’ anointed Kings, supreme knowledge about the universe appointed the Church in all its various forms around the world.

Power implies stability and was used to prop up dynasties. These institutions were a poor match for the shape-shifting nature of science which exists in a perpetual state of evolution, changing its mind and refining its ideas.

Two particular scientific ideas infuriated the church during the great upheaval of Enlightened Thought: the Earth being demoted to a planet orbiting the sun, and humanity finding its magical biological status downgraded to ‘just another animal’. Neither of these helped promote the idea that we were the centre of God’s creation. While these discoveries conflicted with the teachings of all religions, they clashed with the Christian religion due to its proximity to rapid scientific expansion happening in Europe.

Modern religion has learned to make peace with observed reality, adapting rather than allowing science to dismantle it. We may call this a sensible arrangement to avoid a nasty ideological war between reality and faith.

This topic is brought up not to upset religious readers, but to hang a lantern on a dangerous parallel taking place today that has no such peaceful intentions.

Science is once again beholden to powerful institutions that have built their reputation, financial dominance, and political supremacy on scientific theories. These theories are propped up by notoriously flimsy modelling that continues to fall short of its apocalyptic promises.

The desired establishment of a globalist (and boldly socialist) bureaucracy – held together with international corporations that usurp the sovereignty of democratically elected leaders – is being justified by the threat of global apocalypse.

If that apocalypse is a lie – if its doomsday is a fabrication – then all of the money and expansion of power has been enacted under false pretences.

‘Climate Change’ is shaping up to be the most expensive scientific fraud in human history with its falsity betrayed by the failings of bizarre theocratic ‘preachings’. We should be asking questions like, why is the scientific community using radicalised children to promote its narrative? Does that sound ‘normal’ or sane? Why are its leaders telling children not to go to school but rather to glue themselves to city streets or scream in deranged fits of hysteria?

Children are offered up to appeal to the emotions, rather than logic, of adults – which should have been the first warning sign that something extremely dangerous is taking place.

Challenging this ‘science’ threatens the most powerful people in the world – and their fortunes.

This is why we find their scientific ‘consensus’ regarding climate change propped up by enormous academic grants and corresponding punishments, ensuring that science is ‘guided’ toward confirming climate change bias.

The lack of an apocalypse remains climate change’s biggest problem. Its second biggest problem is 4.5 billion years of geological history. Every time a climate ‘end date’ slips by, it invalidates the cherished beliefs of those who can only be described as zealots, charlatans, and victims of propaganda.

Science says that the world is not ending, and if it is not ending, it’s time to claw our country back from these ideological squatters.

The whales in the desert are all around us. We are tripping over evidence that the world is not ending – that droughts and floods are part of our natural cycle – and that it is normal for nasty weather to rough us up on a semi-regular basis. The tides are not drowning us nor is a global catastrophe gnawing at our city walls.

Emotion, not reason, holds us to the lie of apocalypse – no doubt feeding the laughter of those behind the curtain of power.


EV Owner Needs Replacement Battery, Told She'll Have to Wait Four Years to Get It

An electric vehicle owner from rural Alaska found out that owning an EV is less than ideal when she was told it would take four years for her to get a replacement battery pack for her Chevy Bolt.

Patricia Atkinson, who lives in Sitka, in Southeast Alaska, a town so small and isolated it has no public charging stations, bought her electric car from a dealer in Seattle, Washington. She had to travel to Washington to buy the car because there are no car dealers in her small town. But recently she was told that her EV is the subject of a fire hazard recall that has affected around 140,000 Bolts.

Suffering through a recall is bad enough for residents of Sitka. The town is on an isolated island, 12 hours from the mainland on a boat that only comes once a month, according to industry website, Inside EVs

Also, because of the lack of dealers anywhere near the cold environs of Sitka, Atkinson would have to go to Juneau, Alaska, to have her battery replaced. So, the whole situation is a major ordeal. But, apparently, she will have plenty of time to make her plans after she was told that a new battery would not be available for four years.

The Juneau car dealer explained that it is not to blame. The manufacturer only allows the dealer enough supplies for eight battery pack swaps a month and with hundreds of EV owners on a waiting list for the repair, Atkinson’s slot is quite a few years down the road.

Atkinson is faced with a major decision. Does she continue using her car despite the fire hazard, or does she store it and be without a car for the next four years?

The Juneau dealer’s limitation is not unusual. Atkinson called the Seattle dealer where the car was originally purchased, and they told her the same story noting that they also have a year’s-long waiting list. And this is even after General Motors claimed that it has already replaced 62 percent of the faulty packs in the 2017-2019 model years.

However, while GM may be doing well with those model years, it has replaced less than three percent of the battery packs in the 2020 and 2021 models.

The long wait is not just a problem for the Bolt that is under a recall. A shortage of battery packs is expected to grow, according to Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares, CNBC reported in May.

“The speed at which we are trying to move (toward electric vehicles) is so high that the supply chain and the production capacities have no time to adjust,” Tavares said.

“The point is, when we want to move too fast with a big magnitude and there is not enough feasibility studies, we may be bumping on this kind of stuff,” Tavares added. “You’ll see that the electrification path, which is a very ambitious one, in a time window that has been set by the administrations is going to bump on the supply side.”

The problem is not new. Clean Technica reported in 2019 that “Electric car growth produces battery shortages, carmakers can’t match production with demand.”

The replacement of a battery pack is an expensive repair, no matter which make of EV you have. According to KTLA, the prices vary, but they seem to start around $9,000.

As the Biden administration continues to try and shove EVs down America’s throat, the TV station noted that hybrids such as the BMW i3, Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius, and Hyundai Ioniq cost anywhere from $9,000 to $11,000 to replace the battery pack. And the Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, and Tesla Model 3 will cost between $17,000 and $19,000. Other larger models can cost up to $18,000 to replace a battery pack, the station added.

These costs are in some cases approaching the average cost of an entire used gas-powered car.

This is just one of the problems with owning an electric car.

The stories about EV failures are growing by the month. Just two weeks ago, for instance, an EV owner in Virginia found that his car would not charge in the frigid Christmas week weather.

Only days ago, another EV owner said that he has had so many problems with his Tesla Model 3 that he’d rather just bag the whole EV deal and go back to a gas-powered vehicle.

Last year a group of EV owners even hectored their neighbors to limit their use of electric so that EV owners would be able to charge their cars because the local electric grid wasn’t able to handle both home electric use, and home-based car-charging stations.

Minor inconveniences are part of life, to be sure. But the costs of replacing a battery pack is far from a minor inconvenience and it makes owning an EV a very expensive prospect.




No comments: