|
|
||||
|
The new Climate Consensus is just a junk keyword survey. Climate change is a branch of science that’s immature, complex, and has error bars a hundred miles wide. If 99% of scientists say the same thing, it’s a cult, not a science. The climate is not man-made but the irrelevant consensus surely is. By studying words in industry publications, Mark Lynas thinks he’s discovered a scientific truth. Instead he has just shown that skeptics get purged from peer review. It’s official now, 99% of peer reviewed articles have to say they believe in order to get published. He thought he was doing climate science but instead he studied sociology. If Mark Lynas proved anything it’s that he doesn’t know what science is, and only unskeptical papers pass peer review. It’s a sad sad statement about the state of the scientific-industry. Hypothetically, if we cared at all about unscientific opinion-polling of climate scientists, we’d just opinion-poll them. He could run up a survey and email it out. It’d still be a fallacy, but at least it would tell us what scientists thought. Instead, Mark Lynas and co have taken a long roundabout route to poll them by proxy. It’s the oddly hard-work-way to get an answer to a profoundly unscientific question that shouldn’t be asked in the first place. Science is not a democracy. No one votes for the Laws of Physics. They just are, and always were, whether or not the government funded the grant, the scientist wrote that up in an abstract, and some editor approved. Fifty shades of nonsenseSo Lynas et al, took 88,125 papers and randomly picked 3,000 of them, because they didn’t know enough climate science to pick out the 100 papers that matter instead. Having picked out 3,000 random papers they hunted for keywords in the abstracts to “find” skeptical papers. But there are human hands all over this gonzo chain of cause and effect. In the glorious age of Climate Witchcraft good scientists want to hide their opinions because they don’t want to be excommunicated, hounded, ignored, and never given a government grant again. Who wants a RICO? And if a scientist hid their skepticism in subclauses, tables, graphs or the 90% of the paper that isn’t the abstract, the dumb-word finder isn’t going to find them. Indeed the authors could hide their opinions just with novel keywords and the computer would miss that too. So if Governments only gave grants to find a crisis, they’d create a market for crisis science and crisis journals. And if counter opinions were sacked, exiled, mocked and ignored, and their papers were delayed, rejected, or just edited to bury awkward results, how exactly would a keyword survey of their abstracts prove anything about upper tropospheric moist adiabatic lapse rates? At best, it’s only telling us about moist bureaucratic grant rates. Most of these papers were not even about “attribution” or cause and effect, they were about the impacts of climate change which means the scientists who wonder if future spotted froglets will sit on smaller lilypads, or eat more striped dragonflys in 2060. These are Pollenologists who study whether flowers will bloom earlier, or petals will fall off faster in a warmer world. These are biologists and psychologists who never got past first year physics and who never looked under the bonnet of a climate model. The researchers know that but insist that the opinion of Frog psychologists tells us something about radiative physics on the third rock from the sun because, yeah, it “Seems unlikely” that biologists given golden gravy would still publish on spotted frogs if they were skeptical of models they never looked at.
What seems highly unlikely is the idea that skeptical scientists would still want to work at most universities where they will get treated like dirt. And what skeptical scientist would want to publish in IOP Science when it publishes junk like this? Lynas is just adopting the role of the media in the Circle of Science (below). His role is to use a mountain of papers that teach us nothing-much about the real world. Through a magical process of crystal word hunting he can find the secret signal showing that CO2 controls the climate.  The Circle of Science. The Government pays money to produce the papers it wants and the media uses the paper to scare more money out of the public. If climate scientists knew how the climate worked they wouldn’t need junk keyword surveys, they’d just predict the climate instead. We’d all know they knew what they were talking about because they wouldn’t keep making mistakes like telling us the Antarctic would warm twice as fast as the equator, that the hot spot existed, that storms would get worse, that the pause wasn’t real, the snow wouldn’t fall, and the droughts wouldn’t end. And they wouldn’t keep cooling the past, deleting their emails, their data and their prophecies of doom. h/t Raven, Simon. GRRREFERENCELynas et al (2021) Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf
Were those hypersonic missiles carbon neutral?Spot the odd one out: China has half of the worlds coal power fleet and the fastest growing nuclear power in the world. It is the world’s major manufacturing power, and has been for 11 years. It put a rover on Mars, has astronauts in its own space station (it’s third) and has flown to the far side of the moon. But it’s a developing country and while all its largest competitors are giving up their cheapest electricity source, China isn’t even turning up in Glasgow and hardly anyone really cares. China emissions exceed all developed nations combined. “The country is currently running 1,058 coal plants” China says that missile was just a spacecraft: Now China also has surprising weapons. China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic weapon two months ago, making strides with the technology that surprised and alarmed U.S. officials, according to a media report. In August, China launched a Long March rocket topped with a hypersonic glide vehicle, which ended up missing its target by just 24 miles (39 kilometers) or so, The Financial Times reported on Sunday (Oct. 17). The newspaper cited five unnamed people familiar with the launch, two of whom “said the test showed that China had made astounding progress on hypersonic weapons and was far more advanced than U.S. officials realized.” If someone had tried to set up a global scheme to cripple The West while helping China — it would have looked like the UNFCCC. China may not have started this off, and the West may be capable of suicidal self sabotage, but the CCP would be crazy if they weren’t funding green groups. Or even Green Parties: Greens Pledge to Cancel AUKUS, Cut Australian Defence Spending Amid China TensionsThe Australian Greens have pledged to push for sweeping changes to the Australian Defence Force if they hold the balance of power at the next election, including cuts to defence spending and cancellation of the AUKUS alliance. What more could President Xi want? Adversaries with a weaker industrial base and a weaker military. The Greens are the CCP’s best friends. China is rehearsing an invasion of Taiwan, and the West is planning to use our electricity plants to hold back the oceans. China is not even trying to reduce carbon emissions: Keep reading → Hello Nuclear Subs means Hello Net Zero Targets? HMS Ambush As I suspected, the whole Net Zero witchcraft push is being driven by our defense partners, and has nothing much to do with Australian voters. That explains why the government that won The Climate Election with a skeptical stance are now pushing blindly for “Net Zero targets”. It also explains why the public debate has shifted since the AUKUS deal just in time for Glasgow and has no content, apart from the insistence that we don’t want to be “left behind” in some global fashion race to wreck our electricity infrastructure faster than everyone else. Kudos to The Nationals who are still trying to respond to both The Voters, and the Science. Send them your support. With this admission from inside Cabinet, we see that the AUKUS sub deal was probably quietly loaded with a climate deal too. If you want our subs, and our protection, you need to obey the carbon cult. Translated — “the Western Alliance” means nuclear subs from the US and UK. The veil is pulled back on the illusion of Democracy. So now it’s “Build solar farms, and windmills, sign up for carbon credits or the US and UK won’t defend you?” Scott Morrison’s national security argument for net zeroby Greg Brown, The Australian Scott Morrison told Liberal MPs that climate change action had become a key pillar of the western alliance as he declared his intention to adopt both a plan and a formal target to reach net zero emissions by 2050. So the reason we may get “Net Zero Targets” and more expensive and unreliable electricity is because China is belligerently threatening us, and because the US Election was done with mass mail in votes, no security, no ID, and electronic voting machines that were hooked up to the internet.
Mr Morrison told MPs the plan included a “nationally determined commitment” net zero by 2050, declaring there were economic and security imperatives in transitioning to a carbon neutral future. He said Australia needed to rely on the western alliance “now more than ever” and a net zero commitment was important for Australia’s standing in the international community. Sources said Mr Morrison told Liberal MPs they needed to be aware Australia would be “drawing down on a lot of historical capital” if the government did not make the commitment to net-zero. So we are being bullied into it by UK and US forces, but perhaps they are being bullied too? After all, Joe Biden was “the Big Guy” in China CCP dealings. Perhaps that matters? Who benefits? Follow the money — ultimately this serves China and Big Bankers: Our weakened industrial might serves China, but the fake currencies serve Big Bankers, and big unaccountable government bodies (like the UN) serve both: Liberal MPs were left with the impression the government would expand the trading of international carbon credits, with Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor saying the system would be used by Pacific nations. “They said if we don’t buy (carbon credits from Pacific nations), if we don’t draw them into our ecosystem so to speak, then other nations will buy them and they will get dragged into their sphere of influence,” a Liberal MP said, who believed the “other nations” referred to China. We can speculate — the real powerbrokers here may be the CCP and the Big Bankers.
The Carbon Market is forecast to be the largest single commodity market in the world — bigger than oil, gas and gold. And it’s a market that has no connection to reality, no natural limits, and it can be used to favour compliant industries and companies with the right “tailored” loop-holes. If you annoy your rulers, they will arrange for your carbon punishment. And the people of those little Pacific Nations would rather we just gave them foreign aid direct. But if the money is funnelled through the UN, it makes the UN stronger, and if the CCP are allowed to keep using the UN as their lap dog (as they did with the WHO ensuring the spread of Covid) presumably that’s a good thing for the CCP too. We buy useless windmills for the islands which quickly fail, while the CCP funds coal fired plants and infrastructure that is worth something and will last for years. We are sacrificing our electricity grids and President Xi is here to help us.  … So we, as skeptics, have two choices — one is to support every last democratically elected representative and to protest, protest, protest! If there were giant marches in the streets it gives Scott Morrison more ammunition to take to Boris and Biden and point out how hard it is for Australia to comply. We stopped the trainwreck in 2009 with a mass email campaign in the weeks after ClimateGate and before Copenhagen. The other choice in the New Corrupt Order is to do what every other nation is, mostly pandering to symbolic targets while increasing their coal use. We could copy China which has put brakes on wind and solar subsidies, is going nuclear and in a massive way. China only ever agrees to make unenforceable long term commitments with no consequences. Nukes cost more than coal, but if we have to go “Net Zero” at least with uranium we aren’t adopting more of what surely IS a national security risk — more unreliable, grid destroying wind and solar “farms”. Some people wondered why I viewed the US election as more important than our Australian one, but this admission from Scott Morrison shows exactly why. The US election controls Australian policy too. This is a harsh lesson that we should always have been able to defend ourselves. Without a good defense force, Scott Morrison had to sell our soul to the team with bigger guns, more boats and bombs. This post marks the coming together of so many threads that I’ve been writing on for thirteen years. Here are some of those posts: All those caring Bankers want you trade Carbon. They just want to save the world right?
Carbon credits are just another “fiat” currency that make the rich richer:
Big Governments get bigger when they have to control the weather too:
The renewables industry is 100% dependent on the myth that “carbon” matters:
China is not even trying to reduce carbon emissions:
October 18th, 2021 | Tags: Australian Politics, Climate Money, Glasgow (COP), US Politics | Category: Australia, Big-Government, China, Corruption, Energy, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, USA |  Print This Post | | The Greens will not be happy. The push for pointless decarbonization inexorably leads to nuclear power. The UK is not only about to sign deals for 16 small nuclear reactors, they are shortlisting sites for a fusion plant. It’s another unintended consequence the Greens did not see coming. UK to put nuclear power at heart of net zero emissions strategyJim Pickard and Natalie Thomas, Financial Times U.K. ministers will put nuclear power at the heart of Britain’s strategy to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in government documents expected as early as next week, the Financial Times reported. Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is to unveil an overarching “Net Zero Strategy” paper as soon as Monday, along with a “Heat and Building Strategy” and a Treasury assessment of the cost of reaching the 2050 goal, the report said. The main strategy will have a heavy focus on Britain’s nuclear power program. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was expected to give the go-ahead to the documents on Friday, according to the report. The catch, consumers will have to pay a levy years before they get the electricity: The creation of a “regulated asset base” model will be key to delivering future large atomic-power stations. Under the plan, households will be charged for the cost of a plant via an energy levy long before it begins generating electricity, the report said. The nuclear levy is still a “Green Fee” or a “carbon tax”. But at least it won’t leave the country facing an energy crisis every time the wind slows. The UK still has plenty of shale gas to be fracked if only they’d let themselves use it. Half of Australians already support nuclear powerA recent Essential poll shows that without any public debate at all, 50% of voters already support nuclear power. When the undecideds (18%) hear that there are 450 nuclear plants around the world, the number of supporters can only grow. Australia will “go Nuclear” too if the Green Blob pushes us to adopt the witchcraft Net Zero goal that uses power plants as “weather changing” machines. The thing slowing nuclear power in Australia was that coal power was so much cheaper. There is an opening here for one of the big parties to pull a nuclear rabbit out of their hats. The Coalition may lose the coal territory seats of Queensland and the coming election, especially given how unpopular they are in WA too. The Australian Workers Union now backs nukes. Imagine if the Labor Party planned for nuclear power which would allow them to offset the emissions from an extension of coal stations. The Labor Party would suddenly look pragmatic, differentiate itself from The Greens, and the Liberals would be left holding the “Green Hydrogen” and Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro fantasy bag that no one believes in. One third of the Greens might even vote Labor because they support nukes.  Essential Poll https://essentialvision.com.au/support-for-nuclear-energy-in-australia October 17th, 2021 | Tags: Nuclear Energy | Category: Australia, Global Warming, Nuclear Power | Print This Post | | It’s an interesting moment in US history. Most Australians may not know what “Let’s Go Brandon” means. Our major news outlets haven’t yet mentioned this cultural phenomenon. It’s being censored. In the US, The People are not happy, and they’re finding new ways to protest. Traditional protests by the Unmentionables are being banned, or sabotaged by violent infiltrators and ignored by the media. It’s become dangerous to walk the streets and carry placards. A few fake protestors wearing horns can capture all the media glory — and the media is happy to use them to falsely define a largely Christian middle and working class phenomenon as “domestic terrorists”. So a movement has sprung up spontaneously at stadiums of thousands of people. How many Australians are even aware that mass chants of “F*** Joe Biden” are happening at football games in Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi and New Jersey? These are crude mass declarations of rebellion. It’s being called “a movement” and it’s spreading. Individuals can’t be punished or silenced, and while it’s a desperately pitiful national conversation, it makes a point. It’s gross disrespect for the Office of the President. So in front of that incendiary mass rebellion, an NBC TV Interviewer was interviewing a NASCAR Driver called Brandon. Anyone with eyes and ears knew exactly what was happening in the background, but she tried to pass off the “F*** Joe Biden” chant as “Let’s Go Brandon”. It was a form of brazen but desperate media gaslighting, and the non-left have picked it up as a slogan against both Biden and the media. “Let’s go Brandon” is the epitome of fake news. And as mysterious mentions of “Brandon” appear in social media, onlookers are being Red Pilled. Did 80 million Americans really vote for this most popular President ever, and is the media really telling us what’s going on? Tucker explains the phenomenon:
Australians might also find it eye opening to know how many people in the US are walking away from their job over vaccine mandates. Is that a nurse shortage you see? Are those storms over SouthWest Airlines? T-shirts and Hats for sale already.  Who wants a T-shirt?. Reap what you sow. Who started the gross disrespect for the Office of the President and using sport for politics? Not conservatives.
When a democracy surrounds the elected representatives with barbed wire, and the media denies the people a voice, they find another way. People who haven’t seen the F*** chants could watch Russia Today.
October 16th, 2021 | Tags: Censorship, Free Speech, Protests | Category: Big-Government, FakeNews, Free Speech, Funny stuff, Global Warming, USA | Print This Post | | .JPG) Edible crab like the one used in the study. Jean-Pol Grandmont Wiki It’s a Nightmare on Crab Street Crabs are being drawn to high electromagnetic (EMF) fields around undersea cables and getting trapped there for hours, “mesmerized”. They are not just immobilized, in lab tests it screws up their blood chemistry and circadian rhythm too. Nature-lovers might wonder what other marine life is also being impacted? What if the magnetic fields are playing havoc with migrating fish and turtles too? It might be handy to find that out before we build bigger taller towers offshore with bigger stronger cables. Where is the Green outcry, or the Save-the-crabs campaign? Perhaps some kinds of pollution are OK “for the greater good”? These are not some esoteric rare crustaceans, by the way, but common dinner crabs — the ones food chains and fisheries depend on. If these crabs were victims of coal plants the headlines would be a catastrophe. Underwater power cables are ‘mesmerizing’ crabs around ScotlandIn a new study, researchers found brown crabs ‘freeze’ when they come too close to the electromagnetic fields generated by these cables. This disturbing behavior may negatively affect the marine creature’s migration habits, among other things. For their new study, researchers at Heriot-Watt University studied nearly 60 crabs at the St Abbs Marine Station in Scotland and found that the high level of electromagnetism coming from the subsea cables is affecting the blood cells of the crabs, which could make them more susceptible to bacterial infections. And that’s not all. “This doesn’t sound like a problem”? The journalist feels they have to explain why this might not be so good to have mass unemployed crabs sitting around soaking in the milliGauss? Alastair Lyndon, a researcher from Heriot-Watt University and one of the study’s authors, said that crabs are attracted to the electromagnetic field and just sit still when exposed to it. While this doesn’t sound like a problem, if crabs aren’t moving they aren’t looking for foraging for food or a mate. The researchers also found the magnetic fields are causing changes in the animals’ sugar metabolism. Isn’t renewable energy supposed to “protect the environment”? Keep reading → October 16th, 2021 | Tags: Biology, EMF, Marine Life, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming, Marine, Marine Life, Oceans, UK, Wind Power | Print This Post | | Everyone knows what they are supposed to say, but one in four Americans won’t even say it. The CEI has done a new poll of 1,200 regular US voters. Supposedly 71% of Americans claim they are very or somewhat concerned, but it’s just a fashion statement for half of them.  Click to enlarge. When it comes to spending their own money to change the global climate, they don’t want to. Americans can’t be too worried about “climate change” if they don’t want to fork out more cash on gasoline and electricity to save the world. Fossil fuels might be destroying life on Earth, but 4 out of 10 Americans don’t want to spend an extra red cent on gas and electricity. That’s annually — a whole year of power and fuel bills. And remember, it’s only a theoretical question. Anyone can say they’ll spend a lot.  Click to enlarge. When will politicians realize that they are being gamed by all the inadequate meaningless surveys that only ask “do you believe”? Those surveys are apparently not designed to find out what the punters think about climate change. For all the world, their main purpose looks like being a tool to frighten and fool politicians. And if that’s the case, their vagueness is a feature, not a flaw. Americans say “give me my gas guzzler”Only a quarter of people in the US want to spend more swapping the old car for an EV. … Americans don’t want to be told what kind of car they should buy. Except for the baffling 1 in 7 people who want the government to choose their car for them. Perhaps they’re the ones who already own an EV, and what they really want are the government to force EV’s on everyone else. ….  Click to enlarge. Sensibly, while people don’t want to pay to change the climate, more are willing to spend money to reduce the impacts of climate change. Presumably they are thinking of sea walls, trees and flood levees. But even then, half of the population don’t want to spend more than $10 a month. It’s tiny.  Click to enlarge. A more telling question would be “what do you spend to reduce the impacts of climate change”. That would reveal how much people are donating to green groups and weather changing charities. But the CEI didn’t ask. The Washington Times Not one dollar: One-third of voters unwilling to spend anything to counter climate changeh/t Marvin W ….. REFERENCE CEI National Poll, October 2021, https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CEI-National-Poll-Final.pdf October 15th, 2021 | Tags: Polls | Category: Fashion, Global Warming, polls, Psychology, USA | Print This Post | |
Even if the professors there are being sincere and honest, we will never know whether they are only telling us what their Vice Chancellor, Supreme Ruler Sandra Harding, wants them to say. The government should not be funding this sort of institution. It serves its administration, not the Australian taxpayer. Two years ago, JCU had already spent $600,000 to make sure all their staff know they can’t criticize the uni. Peter Ridd was JCU’s best asset until they sacked him. He helped expose manipulated photos of reef fish by a JCU researcher, Oona Lönnstedt, who had already been caught fabricating data in Sweden. Yet JCU “investigated” and sacked Ridd faster than it investigated her suspicious lionfish shots. Every JCU employee’s work is tainted by this. We will never know what any JCU researcher really thinks, or which results were dropped in the bin, no matter what they say, because we know employees of JCU will be afraid to report bad behaviour, fraud, or sloppy work from other staff. Staff admitted they were too afraid to use their uni emails. Their quality assurance is terminally flawed. This makes the entire institution useless as a research body. JCU protects reputations, not the reef. The government could fix this entire embarrassing debacle in five minutes. They just need to withhold JCU funding ’til the uni gets new management and demonstrate unequivocally that they support free speech.  Peter Ridd’s book. Click to order. VC Sandra Harding’s judgement is so poor that JCU’s reputation will not recover until she is replaced. She who The Big Win was free speech laws a year agoDespite the loss in the High Court today, let’s not forget that the judgement was about Peter Ridd’s original contract. The biggest win from his battle is that the government finally, belatedly, did something a year ago to define academic freedom. This decision doesn’t affect that, though academics, especially at JCU won’t feel inclined to test it. So JCU’s case and the High Court decision will help the cheats, frauds, and fashionable academics to relax. Winning! Australian Govt writes laws to protect people like Peter Ridd at universitiesOctober 2020: As Education Minister Dan Tehan told Sky News: “[James Cook University] wouldn’t have been able to prosecute Peter Ridd if these laws had of been in place.” “By defining academic freedom in legislation, Education Minister Dan Tehan is ensuring the dismissal of an academic like Peter Ridd can never happen again,” said Mr Rozner. This Act is the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Act 2020. Academic freedom means the following: Though was free speech enshrined in law, or did the Government just make it a “moral code”? Keep reading → October 13th, 2021 | Tags: Academics, Ridd (Peter) | Category: Academia, Australia, Free Speech, Global Warming | Print This Post | |  The Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant by Pareixk Federi The global energy crisis is squeezing the green religion to its logical endpoint. As long as we pretend “carbon” is pollution, the only way out of the maze for badgered politicians is nuclear power. The renewables industry may have thought that beating us over the head with climate propaganda was going to make renewables dominant and profitable, but it may just push everyone into nukes instead. With the gas price crisis, wind drought, and coal shortage, suddenly everyone is talking about nuclear power: Nations Go Nuclear As Prices Spike & Renewables FailMichael Shellenberger National leaders around the world are announcing big plans to return to nuclear energy now that the cost of natural gas, coal, and petroleum are spiking, and weather-dependent renewables are failing to deliver. France was reducing nukes from 70% to 50% of its total power generation fleet, but not any more: “The number one objective is to have innovative small-scale nuclear reactors in France by 2030 along with better waste management,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. “But the mood has now changed,” the paper writes today. “Macron said on Tuesday he would begin investing in new nuclear projects ‘very quickly.’” — Financial Times. Public support for nuclear energy rose 17 percentage points in France. “I do not want our country to lose its energy sovereignty under the pretext of an absurd energy transition copied from Germany,” said a conservative French presidential candidate seeking to defeat Macron. Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable. Yesterday, Japan’s new prime minister, Fumio Kishida, defended his pro-nuclear policies in Parliament. Kishida came to power on a pro-nuclear platform. Half of Australia wants nuclear powerThe AUKUS “nuclear subs” announcement was a bolt from the blue after decades of Nuclear-free energy debates. But a recent poll shows Australians are rapidly growing to like the idea. Of course, electricity prices have rocketed since 2015 too, adding to the shift. In 2015, forty percent of Australians supported it, and forty percent opposed it, and one hundred percent of politicians avoided discussing it. Now suddenly, we’ve bought a couple of nuclear subs and in a blink 50% support nuclear power and only 30% oppose it. Just like that, and with no discussion, suddenly nuclear power has potential. Imagine what the numbers would be if people actually discussed it? The bottom line is that the West had better hurry. China is the Fastest growing Nuclear Power in the worldAs Jo Nova said in May: China is poised to be the largest global nuclear power by 2030, overtaking the USA in the next nine years. In the last twenty years, China has increased its fleet of nuclear power reactors from three to 49, with 17 more plants under construction. That means it will soon surpass France which has 57 reactors. At the rate the USA is closing plants, China may hit the No 1 spot faster than expected. China has a nuclear Belt and Road project too, Argentina, Iran, Pakistan:Future projects are also being developed in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South America Brown coal is still the cheapest kind of electricity there is, and we are mad not to use it, especially because it’s only $30 a MWh and feeds plants and we have a 300 year supply sitting there in the ground.  Rise of Nuclear Power in China. Graph. October 13th, 2021 | Tags: Nuclear Energy | Category: Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear Power | Print This Post | | On the one hand, our bureaucrats are telling us coal power in Australia might be finished by 2035.  .. On the other hand, in the rest of the world, coal prices are hitting records, China and India are suffering rolling power cuts. In China, floods have shut about 10% of the 682 coal mines in the Shanxi Province. China is so desperate for coal that a few days ago, it finally unloaded the Australian coal it held hostage in the 80 bulk carrier ships that have languished offshore for months in a petty trade war. Pune, in India is in a coal shortage crisis, forced to shut down 13 power plants because they’ve run out of coal. They’re asking people to be “sparing” between 6 and 10 both morning and night. India has 135 coal fired plants in total, and fully 70 of them are currently working with less than four days coal supply. China coal futures hit record as flood swamps mine hubEven with the efforts, China could face a coal supply gap of 30-million to 40-million tonnes in the fourth quarter, Citic Securities analysts said in an October 8 report. A shortage of the fuel could cut industrial power use by 10% to 15% in November and December, which would potentially translate into a 30% slowdown in activity in the most energy-intensive sectors like steel, chemicals and cement-making, according to UBS Group AG. The State Council said electricity prices will be allowed to rise by as much as 20% against a benchmark, compared with a current cap of 10%. Meanwhile BHP is suddenly renegotiating the coal assets it was giving away a bit too cheaply. Kerry Schott’s declaration of the death of coal is a brave announcement given that Australia is still 70% coal powered. In 14 years it would take a big shift to get it to down 50%, much less zero. But it’s especially heroic given what’s happening in the rest of the world. It’s almost like Kerry Scott had the press release on her desk since the last COP ready to be released “on schedule” for this one. Why Australia will be THE biggest winner from the global energy crunch – with China’s ban on coal backfiring as prices surge to record highsThe Daily Mail It’s just a blip. Satire: Infrastructure Bill Includes Capitol Building Expansion To Hold All The Pfizer Lobbyists
h/t Tom Nelson Not satire: There’s plenty more lobbying where that came from: Pfizer’s full FDA approval could lead to even greater profits
Pfizer reported $5.6 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2021 — that’s up more than $2 billion (from $3.5 billion) from its second quarter of 2020 report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the first half of 2021, Pfizer reported nearly $10.5 billion in net income. The company brought in $6.9 billion in the first six months of 2020. In 2020, Pfizer spent $13.2 million on its lobbying efforts — that’s up from $11 million in 2019 and the most the company has spent on lobbying since 2009 during the debate over the Affordable Care Act. Speaking of profiteering: Merck’s 4,000% Markup of Taxpayer-Funded COVID Drug Is ‘Extortion,’ Critics SayPharma giant Merck is facing accusations of price gouging after it charged the U.S. more than $700 per patient for a taxpayer-funded coronavirus treatment that, according to research, costs just $17.74 to produce. And plenty of ways to potentially lobby: Political staffers and top bureaucrats score good Pfizer jobs. Nice career path if you can get it: REVEALED: Pfizer Lobbying Hits Decade High as DOZENS of High-Profile Political Appointees Become Big Pharma Repsby Natalie Winters and Raheem Kassam October 6, 2021, RightsFreedoms Many of the new Big Pharma hires have come from consulting firms with deep and historical links to the current White House, and President Joe Biden himself. In October alone Pfizer tapped Sudafi Henry, Joe Biden’s former legislative affairs director from his days as Vice President. David Schiappa, a longtime Republican staff member of the Senate holding the role of Secretary for Leader Mitch McConnell, is also lobbying for Pfizer. It might be all legal. What would stop this trainwreck? An investigative media. Anyone seen one? … By Jo NovaThe only people worth silencing are those who are right
Google is waging a war against skeptics because skeptics have the truth on their side and they win debates too easily. How do we know? There are plenty of wrong people on the internet, and acres of misinformation, but Google is happy to feed those creators. The Flat Earthers are not spreading fast on Youtube, they’re not attracting millions of views. But no one needs to cut off their money supply because their arguments aren’t persuasive. To stop those ideas from running amok, the world only needs free speech. Google announces: …a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change. Google demonetizes content creators who deny climate changeby Ian Miles Cheong, Rebel News Arrogance knows no bounds: The tech giant claims it will be able to differentiate between content “that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim.” Who needs scientists anyhow –just Google the truth instead of doing all those experiments? It’s time for skeptics to hone their skills in satire and parody. Let’s screw those algorithms! For content creators who were relying on Youtube adverts, losing the monetization could kill the business, it’s a cruel blow. Google’s behaviour is grossly unfair and deceptive. It sold itself as a “platform” deceived people into watching and sharing their creative talents, and on November 1 could wipe them out. But good talent can still find a way — not only are there other, better video homes, but it’s so much better to get a business model that doesn’t feed or rely on Google. My advice would be to connect with your audience, set up a blog or a website, and ask for help and donations. Use Youtube while you still can, to set up a list. Does anyone believe the Google-excuse?“In recent years, we’ve heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change,” said YouTube in its policy update notice. “Advertisers simply don’t want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don’t want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.” This is a company that specializes in harvesting data and placing customized adverts with a highly targeted audiences and they say they can’t stop solar panel adverts showing up on climate skeptic sites? At the nub of it all, is the dangerous popularity of skeptics:Bloomberg reports that on YouTube, inaccurate videos about climate change received more than 21 million views and frequently ran ads, according to research in 2020 from Avaaz. The explosive report prompted members of Congress to admonish the tech giant, which proudly boasts about its environmental record. The latest censorship step shows how fragile the global warming movement has become. Google wouldn’t be silencing skeptics if it wasn’t losing the arguments. And Google wouldn’t be losing if they had truth on their side. They have billions of dollars, control of almost 90% of all internet searches and support from governments, uni’s, professors, the UN and the whole renewables industry. All the truth needs is a fair and open debate. h/t Marvin W October 9th, 2021 | Tags: Free Speech, Google, Tech-Giants | Category: Free Speech, Global Warming, Social Media | Print This Post | | … |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2026 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senate leaders revealed today that Biden’s “Build Back Better” infrastructure plan will include $86 Billion for a brand-new Capitol Building construction project. The Capitol will be expanded to hold 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 1,423 Pfizer lobbyists.
.JPG appelé tourteau par les gastronomes. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT){kind=link}
Recent Comments