Sediment from Europe’s oldest lake reveals 1 million years of climate history
Another assertion that crops up time and again is that climate change sceptics somehow believe CO2 pollution does not affect them but only affects poor people. Firstly, CO2 is not a polutant. Secondly, while pollution is a serious problem in some places it doesn’t affect sceptics as badly as it affects poorer people who vote Labour in Britain, Democrat in the USA, and socialist or leftist parties around the world – and if the left understood more clearly why this is so, they could be many times more effective at implementing the right environmental policies to deal with the problems.
Let me show you what I mean with the help of an American AGW sceptic site . Here’s a photo of Los Angeles on a clear day from 1990.
Smog like that used to be a huge problem, and that smog is not carbon dioxide (which is a colourless gas,) but probably a high concentration of nitrous oxide along with sulphates and other noxious gases. But today, Los Angeles looks like this:
The difference between those two photos is obvious. A lot of environmental policy changes were needed to get from point A to point B, and they worked. Mission accomplished.
Now, lets compare that to a photo of Chattanooga, Tennessee, from 1990:
And here’s Chattanooga today:
Other than 28 years worth of advances in camera technology, Chattanooga hasn’t changed much. In fact Chattanooga was considered one of the cleanest cities in America in 1990, and still is today. The environmental policies that were absolutely necessary in Los Angeles weren’t needed at all in Chattanooga.
One of the problems the left have is that their collectivist mindset demands one-size-fits-all solutions because they want everybody to be the same. However if you ask any fashion conscious woman how well do one size fits all solutions work in clothing, the answer will probably be too profane for a public forum.
One of the reasons socialism always fails is that for all their screeching to the contrary, socialists cannot abide diversity either at local or national national level. Thus we are seeing theEuropean Union falling apart as a result of its attempts to politically and financially integrate all its diverse member states (from industrial power house Germany, population 85 million,) to the island nation of Malta (population 350,000) with its fishing and tourism based economy.And we are seeing Britain (now out of the EU,) and other member states torn apart as divisions, between north and south, east and west, city and rural communities go unaddressed because the broad left, the neo – liberal, globalist consensus imposes national and global policies to problems that require local solutions.
The result of trying to pass national legislation to solve local problems is that you’re going to get a lot of push back from people who don’t have the problem you have. Moreover, they don’t want to spend money solving a problem they don’t have.
If I had, now how does the song go?, “A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,” for every time I’ve read ridiculous statements like “Conservatives hate clean air and water” in response to their opposition to proposed environmental legislation that would shut down entire industries, I would perhaps have accumulated enough to take a holiday in some unspoiled island paradise in The Caribbean – maybe. But what for.There’s plenty of unspoiled countryside around where I live in north Lancashire and the air is clean. Yet less than 50 miles away away in Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds the usual big city pollution problems apply
How can the left reasonably expect someone who can look outside and sees a lot of green, clean air, clean water, and a sustainably-developed/ undeveloped/unspoiled/unpolluted woodland, hillsides and valleys, fast flowing streams in all directions that they should pay more in taxes to fix problems that in most places don’t need fixing?And how incompetent would a government have to be to spend shitloads of taxpayers money in order to provide a nationwide solution to a problem that only exists in a few localities.
How can you reasonably expect someone who has zero need for more regulations, more constraints on their freedom, which would be completely unnecessary where they live, to be happy to pay the extra taxes and accept the curtailment of personal liberty?
Think it through. If a footballer breaks a leg during a game you don’t sent the whole team to hospital to have the broken bone set in a cast. If a kid eats something rotten and gets a gut infection you don’t give the whole school antibiotics.
The way left wing thinking works is like the guy with the shittiest yard in the street telling everyone else they should be doing more to keep the neighborhood nice.
In reality, most of the country, my country, your country, any country, is perfectly fine from an environmental impact standpoint. You wouldn’t pay someone to mow your lawn if your lawn didn’t need to be mowed. You wouldn’t pay a mechanic to fix your car if it wasn’t broken. And you wouldn’t be happy if government regulators came and said “Listen, we’re going to raise your taxes because people with overgrown lawns and inoperable cars can’t be arsed sorting their problems out.”
So, on the same token, why should communities who already do a good job taking care of the environment where they live be taxed and burdened with regulations to solve a problem they don’t have?
If the left understood this and focused environmental policy at the state and local levels, instead of the national and global, they would not be facing collapse here, in the USA, Europe etc. Why am I writing advice for the left when I am a libertarian you might well ask. It’s because I know I’m safe, the left never learn because they can never accept they are wrong. They can never admit those who oppose them might have a better understanding of a problem. Even now, after suffering a crushing defeat in the General Election two months ago, the UK Labour Party cannot acknowledge that working class voters abandoned then because they are perceived as out of touch with ordinary people, obsessed with minority issues like gay and trans rights, with pandering to Islamic extremists and with exporting more British jobs to China, India and other emerging economies in pursuit of unrealistic and self destructive targets for reducing CO2 emissions.
Greta Thunberg (well obviously the wealthy Marxists behind the far left campaign to destroy the economy of the developed world that the little Swedish muppet is fronting because of her ’emotional blackmail’ factor, and the Extinction Rebellion loonies have been ramping up the hysteria about an imminent, global climate catastrophy that could destroy life on earth.
Well us punters are not buying it, oh yes, mainstream media are dutifully reportint the scaremongering as if only a few obdurate die hards are still calling the claims of the warmageddonist lobby fake science, but in reality, while the noisy few, the virtue signalling addicts of the university brainwashed left are screaming and shouting the overwhelming majority of us just see it for what it is, a power grab by the globalist elites who want to abolish democracy, national sovereignty and personal independence and create an authoritarian world government.
That the human race is still “alive and well” after the preidicted catastrophes of 2000, 2005, 2010m 2012, 2015 and 2017 failed to materialise speaks loudly of our ability to adapt to the planet’s changing climate or of the hypothetical nature of the climate trends that were predicted to cause runaway tembperature incrases, rapidly rising sea levals, mass extinctions, the disappearance of the ice caps and all the rest.
The hypothesis that human activities, specifically the generation of carbon dioxide by industry, transport, home heating, agriculture and permafrost ment is causing the global temperature to rise is not supported by the climate models themselves. As for the reality (not something scientists are familiar with) the global mean temperature has not risen for twenty years.
Those highly scientific mathematical models of the climate that are using atmospheric CO2 as a benchmark for when tipping point is reached and climate change becomes irreversible have yet to match actual world conditions in their forecasting.
Additionally, some 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 2016 and 2018 are skeptical of human-caused climate change. In 2019, there are about 200 more such reports, including scientists in Finland who found “practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change” after a series of studies. Their results have been corroborated by scientists in Japan.
Chinese scientists say they have found evidence beneath a lake in northeastern China that ties climate change to 500-year sun cycles. And therein lies the major factor in earth’s changing climate . . . the variable output of the sun’s energy . . . cycling between Solar Maxima and Solar Minima conditions. Ominously perhaps, the sun is cycling towards the lowest energy output in two centuries, and the many record snowfalls and record cold temperatures (over 7000 in the U.S. alone) being set in many parts of the globe may be a precursor of the global cooling in our near future.
So rather than being scared into surrendering ourselves to the tender mercies of a global slave state, shouldn’t we be prepping to deal with the coming cold spell? To qoute a saying I’ve heard a lot these past few years –
Amid all the huff and puff about wind farms and the moonshine about solar power, this blog, while deeply sceptical of Carbon Dioxide driven climate change has always said if there is a need to move to clean technologies for generating electricity, nuclear was the only viable solution.
Nuclear power has of course faced implacable opposition from the Green Blob, whose opposition to anything with any chance of reducing CO2 emissions without destroying western civilization has blocked progress on nuclear, tide power, wave power and river barrages (sorry, can’t raise the river level a couple of inches, the mud flats are a habitat for two toed toads.”)
So where do we go now? Here’s one idea guaranteed to enrage the Green Blob. For that reason alone it must be worthy of consideration.
from New Atlas
Artists impression of one of the planned Nuclear Plants, source Rolls Royce via New Altas
Rolls-Royce has announced that it plans to build, install, and operate up to 15 mini nuclear reactors in Britain, with the first set to go online in nine years. In a BBC Radio 4 interview with business journalist Katie Prescott on January 24, 2020’s Today program, Paul Stein, chief technology officer for Rolls-Royce, said that the company is leading a consortium to produce factory-built modular nuclear reactors that can be delivered for assembly by ordinary lorries.
Currently, the world is undergoing a boom in nuclear power. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 448 operating civilian reactors and another 53 under construction. However, almost all of these are being built in Eastern Europe and Asia, with China alone building more reactors than the entire Western world combined.
Part of the reason for this is political with every reactor program in Europe or North America facing implacable environmentalist opposition and part of it is the expense of building and operating large reactors in an energy economy now dominated by cheap natural gas. However, one technology trend that could reverse this stagnation is the development of small, modular nuclear reactors that could be mass-produced in factories, carted to the site by ordinary lorries, and then assembled to generate cheap carbon-free electricity.
This approach, too, has its drawbacks, but Rolls-Royce believes that its consortium has got its sums right and can restart Britain’s nuclear industry by building up to 15 Small Modular Reactors (SMR) with an expected value to the UK economy of £52 billion (US$68 billion), another £250 billion (US$327 billion) in exports, and 40,000 new jobs by 2050.
Each power station is projected to have a service life of 60 years and generate 440 MW of electricity, or enough to power a city the size of Leeds. The estimated cost of the electricity generated is £60 (US$78) per MWh.
“Our plan is to get energy on the grid in 2029,” Prescott told the BBC. “The obvious sites to put them are what we call brown-field sites – sites where we’re running elderly or decommissioned nuclear power stations. There are two sites in Wales and one in the northwest of England. Eventually in the UK, we’ll be rolling out 10 to 15. We’re also looking to a significant export market. In fact, the current estimate for the export market for SMRs is £250 billion, so this could be a huge industry.”
According to a previous press release from Rolls-Royce, the British government has already promised £18 million in matching funds, or about half the present costs of the endeavor, with the consortium partners providing the rest. Prescott says that the advantage of the Rolls-Royce plan is that it doesn’t involve building a whole new reactor, as other companies have tried to do, but rather to adapt a present design. In addition, the reactors will be built along manufacturing lines rather than civil construction, which the company claims will drive down costs rather than inflating them.
Is Hatred Of Greta Thunberg Justified?
As the backlash against the Greta Thunberg cult gathers momentum a lot of lefties are asking why the little Climate Warriorette is so hated by so many people. As usual with the left, they are asking the wrong question. Just as they asked, “Why can’t you believe the scientists, when in fact not only is it always legitimate (and scientific,) to question and challenge scientific theory, so it is perfectly rational and logical to challenge the Cult of Saint Greta ….
Why Are The World Government Schemes, Agenda 21 and Agends 30 blanked by big media?
Since the early days on the old blog.co.uk platform we have from time to time raised the issues of Agenda 21 and Agenda 30, The New World Order, and the push for a global, authoritarian, socialist government. Any mention of these things in online forums is certain to get the author accused of being a conspiracy theorist, a right wing extremist, a nutcase, a young earth creationist and much worse.
Greta Thunberg Slams Australia for Coal Industry, Expands List of Climate Demands
Little Greta Thunberg, who was elected by nobody apparently now speaks for us all on matters relating to climate change. The Swedish climate change hustler who is making a fortune for her handlers from donations to her campaign, again castigated Australia for continuing to mine and export coal despite her previous complaints, adding a call for an end worldwide to the actibity to her list of climate demands to be delivered at the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos …
Climate protestors at Davos (Picture: Getty via Deutsche Welle)
Although climae change was the top issue issue on the agenda at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the so called ‘world No. 1 climate change denier, U.S. President Donald Trump was one of the main speakers. He and the darling of Social Justice Warriors, Swedish munchkin Greta Thunberg laid out competing visions for the future of the planet: Trump spoke of economic progress through technology which, he claimed, would also address the environmental problems leftist eco – warriors complain of. Thunberg extolled the hippy – dippy dream of abandoning civilisation and returning to to a planet friendly, hunter – gatherer lifestyle without mentioning that to fulfill her dream of a carbon – free world would mean millennials giving up their iPhones, plasma screen TVs, electric cars and other little politically correct luxuries. But little Greta has always been big on making demands about what people should be compelled to do but somewhat lacking when it comes to offering practical solutions.
Trump dismissed the concerns of environmental activists as “pessimism,” and said the world must ignore prophets of doom, in an impressive speech made political and business leaders at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, but his words were chosen with the US domestic audience very much in mind.
Climate change and global warming are topping the agenda at this year’s annual meeting in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, with activists at odds with businesses and governments about how to tackle the issue. We can only conclude from the importance attached to climate change that the global banking cartel have developed a way to make money out of it.
Here are a main points of Trump’s speech:
The US leader dubbed climate activists “prophets of doom” and rejected their warnings of climate related humanitarian catastrophe, saying: “Fear and doubt is not a good thought process.”
Despite the concerns expressed by the environment lobby about Carbon Dioxide emissions emissions, Trump trumpeted the success of the USA as one of the world’s largest producers of natural gas.
He announced that the US would be joining the WEF’s 1 trillion trees initiative.
When asked about his stance on climate change by reporters ahead of his speech, he said: “I’m a big believer in the environment. The environment is very important to me.”
Much of Trump’s speech was focused on praising his administration’s domestic economic successes including job creation, a resurgence of manufacturing and cutting through bureaucracy and saying that by rolling back regulations, prosperity “would come thundering back at record speed.”
“A nation’s highest duty is to its own citizens,” he said. “Only when governments put their citizens first, will they be invested in their national futures.”
Following Trump’s speech, Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg, recently exposed as a front for much older though no less immature far left activists when it was revealed her father is responsible for authoring her online articles and public speeces her online activities, writing and posting items in her name.
Greta predictably criticized world leaders and business executives for failing to meet their climate obligations. She also complained that her previous demands for action to drastically reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions had been ignored. As in all her speeches and articles, her lack of economic awareness or understanding of how the global economy works are glaringly obvious. She appears to believe CO2 emissions can be reduced simply by flicking a switch and completely fails to acknowledge that to achierve the things she want done overnight would actually take decades, cost millions of industrial jobs in the developed nations and trash the economies of those nations.
Critics have also been pointing out that she addresses all her remarks to western leaders and consumers and makes no criticism of the world’s biggest poluter, China, or other rapidly growing economies such as India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria. Ah well, I guess on planet Hippy – Dippy third world nations and people are above citicism. Trouble is, whenever the demands of Greta and her supporters are met by the developed world, targets are only achieved by transferring the dirty processes to economies the eco warriors will not complain about for fear of being called racist.
What makes me so sure the whole Thinberg phenomenon is a carefully managed Public Relations campaign is that nobody is asking: “Hey kid, you haven’t even reached school leaving age yet, you are certainly not old enough to vote, who the fuck elected you to speak for the people of the world?”
Addressing the audience of business leaders Thunberg said, as she has many times before “Unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight. The facts are clear but they are still too uncomfortable for you to address.”
“Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour. And we are telling you to act as if you loved your children above all else,” Thunberg said, repeating comments from her WEF appearance last year.
At a panel just before Trump arrived, Thunberg emphasized that moderate changes will not be enough to slow the impact of climate change. So if she gets her way, millions will starve and billions will be plunged into poverty as the industrial economies are shut down in order to achieve zero Carbon Dioxide emissions.
Greta Thunberg and her cartoon twin Pippi Longstocking
As the backlash against the Greta Thunberg cult gathers momentum a lot of lefties are asking why the little Climate Warriorette is so hated by so many people. As usual with the left, they are asking the wrong question. Just as they asked, “Why can’t you believe the scientists, they spend their lives studying climate, they know what they are talking about, why can’t you just accept the science is settled?” when in fact not only is it always legitimate (and scientific,) to question and challenge scientific theory, so it is perfectly rational and logical to challenge the Cult of Saint Greta.
“The science” on climate change was never settled of course, in fact a lot of it was very dodgy, being based on output from mathematical models run on computers managed by people with a career investment in persuading people to believe the catastrophes forecast by these computer models, which were fed adjusted data rather than information from observations of the real world.
This goes a long away towards explaining why none of the dire predictions of catastrophic natural disasters predicted by Warmageddonists over the past twenty five years has come true. It is 2020, snow is falling in Scotland and Northern England, in the USA, Canada, Germany, France, Scandinavia, yet climate sciencetits (not a typo,) told us with great certainty that snow would be a thing of the past by 2010. Likewise they told us rapidly rising sea levels caused by the melting of the ice caps would submerge low lying nations like The Maldives by 2010. Earlier this week my brother booked his annual post Christmas holiday in The Maldives. He’s pretty certain it will still be there, because he went to the same resort last year and found it above water.
And yet, despite all the demonstrable evidence to the contrary, Warmageddonists still insist we must accept that “the science” is correct because sciencetits (not a typo,) are very clever and they say the science is settled.
The Greta Thunberg thing took off, I believe, because the Warmageddonist movement had lost so much credibility, they were desperate to prevent the wheels coming off their globalist bandwagon. And so they resorted to the dirtiest of tactics. Now that is backfiring too.
I don’t think it is hatred of Little Saint Greta that drives the criticism so much as that people dislike and are angered by the way the girl’s handlers are manipulating her to be the poster child for a campaign based on a particularly nasty kind of emotional blackmail. It is the same kind of blackmail as was used at the height of the European Union’s when pictures of a drowned child lying on a beach somewhere in the Greek Islands was accompanied by screaming headlines in mainstream media about how heartless Europeans were in not welcoming anyone who wanted to come from a third world country to “seek a better life” (a very emotive phrase,) in Europe.
It turned out the boy was not from a migrant family at all, but had been taken along for the ride by his father who was in the human trafficking business and drowned when the overloaded inflatable boat sank on the crossing from Turkey to Greece with a cargo of people who had paid exorbitant fees to be smuggled into the EU illegally.
I believe Greta Thunberg has just turned 17 so I started commenting on her activities when she was sixteen and one of the things I remarked on was that she was like no sixteen year old Swedish girl I encountered when working in that country a few years ago. They are mostly stylish, fashion conscious and desperate to give the impression they are older than their years. Greta Thunberg looked and dressed as a ten or eleven year old would, i.e. as a child. And she conjured childish tears when talking about her childhood being stolen. It was all carefully stage managed to play on the emotions of adults. I actually referred to her as a wannabe Pippi Longstocking, a reference to the children’s fiction character created by Astrid Lindgren (https://www.astridlindgren.com/en/characters/pippi-longstocking) in the 1940s, a little girl with special powers.
If Greta’s childhood has been stolen it is not by climate change, but by the people who are using (or abusing perhaps,) her to advance a political agenda.
So my view, shared by many other people around the web, is criticisms of Greta Thunberg are not motivated so much by anger at her, the socially inept teenager with learning difficulties and Asperger’s syndrome, as anger at the fictional character created by those who are managing her campaign and putting words in her mouth. People are more likely to feel sympathy for her.
Beyond that, there is a growing stack of evidence that the “science” behind the climate change scare is fraudulent, and the fact that United Nations climate experts have confessed that they look at output from mathematical models when formulating their long term forecasts rather than giving priority to real world evidence.
All of this damages the credibility of the case for destroying industrial civilization as does the focus of Ms Thunberg and other activists on demanding that the liberal democracies bear the full burden of reducing CO2 emissions while China (https://originalboggartblog.wordpress.com/2019/11/21/clean-green-power-sucks-china-goes-all-out-for-coal/), India, Brazil, Philippines, Nigeria and other developing nations continue to develop their industrial base without regard for the environmental effects of their economic expansion. The link in this paragraph leads to a page which exposes how many new coal powered generating plants are under construction or planned right now in China, it is more than in the whole of Europe. India is following the same path.
Finally, “the masses” as left wing intellectuals contemptuously refer to us ordinary people who work hard for decent living, do not like being treated as if we are stupid or told what we must think and how we must behave. In a democratic society we have a right to question “the science” of climate change, and when questioned it does not stand up to logical analysis. So Greta Thunberg’s handlers who send her across the Atlantic in a specially built carbon fibre yacht (check out how CO2 intensive the manufacturing process for carbon fibre is,) and the other elitists who fly halfway round the world in their private jets for a lunch meeting (Yes Leonardo DefuckingCaprio, I’m talking about you,) are hardly going the right way about winning the battle for hearts and minds are they? Personally I feel no hatred to Greta (just don’t get me started on Leonardo DefuckingCaprio,) but think the people who turned her into a social media phenomenon should be exposed for the abusive opportunistic charlatans they are.
After a year of being given earache by Greta Thunberg, a pain in the arse by the posh, privileged crusties of Extincton Rebellion and having our heads done in by the ignorant, self – righteous prating of sciencetits, media luvvies, showbiz has beens, attention seeking politicians about the imminent climate catastophe that will destroy life on our panet, here’s a brief commentary on the track records of those useless arseholes who manage to milk money out of us poor taxpayers by predicting disaster, when actually they have no more idea of what is happening than you and I:
Source: Instargram: PFM
Fellow Slams The Royal Society as Nothing But a Lobby Group for Climate Change.
Another respected scientist comes out and denounces the science behind the climate change scare as a fraud. The whole thing has been a scam to justify punitive taxes on fuel and enable the rich to make fortunes trading carbon credits. Again it shows what a sack of rogues the climate science community really are.
Another Kick In The Bollocks For Warmageddonists And CAGWARTS*
I’ve had many arguments with the Warmageddonists, the people who have been saying that if we did not shut down all coal, oil and gas related activites the earth was going to turn into a giant furnace and we would all burn. When the scaremongering first started, the deadline for frying was “after dinner”. Then it got to “Tomorrow …… or the day after tomorrow perhaps,” then “next year”, “before 2050,” and eventually “soon.”
What if man-made climate change is all in the mind?
If our view of reality is shaped by the mind and our perceptions of information, how successful are attempts to manipulate the perceptions of the whole populations through manipulated data, spin and assertions of authority likely to be. As scientists and politicians moan that the public no longer take sertiously climate change scare stories, we have to conclude, not very.
Meteorologists Begin To Admit To Climate Engineering
The freethinkers and Libertarians of New Media have been questioning the pseudoscientific certainties of the global warming lobby for a long time. During that often acrimonious process (because the Global Warming lobby are ever bit as organised and as driven by blind hatred of those who question them as the Bearded Queens In Bridal Gowns lobby) and most of us have been accused of infanticide, genocide and worse. At last the respectable climate scientists (the ones who didn’t sell their arse for the corporate dollar) are speaking, and the media are listening.
Mad Scientists Now In A Race To Create Human – Animal Hybrids
Scientists all over the world are busy creating extremely bizarre human-animal chimeras. Once again The Daily Stirrer has to say “We told you so”. There is something very creepy and sinister embedded in the typical scientists desire to play God. It is a complete, psychopathic disregard for moral boundaries. If we can do it that …
UK Offshore Windfarms Produce More Rust and CO2 Than Electricity
A private case going through a British court of arbitration at the moment involves two very large supply organisations.
Unfortunately the case is being heard away from the prying eyes and radar like ears of the media. A 1996 Act Of Parliament enabled such things as a way to free up Court time taken up by complex technical disputes…. And, perhaps, to keep embarrassing truths away from …
Doctors may withhold treatment from patients with “green lifestyle issues.”
A few weeks ago an item on the BMA’s website linked to the “Doctors against climate change” group of the doctors’ trade union. This body of medico-environmental socialist – utopians stated …
The Two Faces Of The Politics Of Failure
What a mess the modern way of doing politics based on a politically correct consensus and social engineering has produced. The daily stirrer looks at how the bipolar left – right divide stops things getting better rather than helping get the developed world back on track.
Green Policies Will Not Save The Planet But Are Costing Poor Families The Earth>
Politicians bleat sabout the plight of the poor then press on with their clean, green, sustainable energy policies which include stealth taxes to subsidise expensive and inefficient wind turbine and solar panel power generators. Can they not see it is the green agenda that is driving up inflation …[Environment]