Recent Posts
-
Snowy 2.0 is the Trillion dollar Black Hole of Australia — sucking in energy, money, land, industrial relations, the dollar, our lifestyle
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Winter Solstice
-
Saturday
-
We were throwing-renewable-energy away at record levels in 2025
-
Friday
-
Pauline Hanson, the centrist, just wants a free market in electricity, and an end to the renewable energy bribery
-
Thursday
-
Blame the Climate Yeti again for making your life more expensive! (It’s a smokescreen)
-
Wednesday
-
The Sunrise Project funneled $343 million from overseas to push net zero
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
The US government has been secretly funding 120 dangerous biolabs around the world
-
Saturday
-
New report shows renewables are a drag on our national productivity
-
Friday
-
Thursday
-
Well, how convenient. AI data centers have arrived to be the fall guy for the Energy Minister
-
Wednesday
-
Billionaires are leaving the room with excuses — Bezos says “AI will solve climate crisis”
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
The Craziest eco laws against Farmers. Let’s check that science…
-
Saturday
-
China cooks the carbon accounting books by 400 million tons
-
Friday
-
The Wind Power Puzzle (add more wind turbines and get the same output)
-
Thursday
-
To save the world, Cement Australia stops burning coal and burns trees instead
-
Wednesday
-
On Fire! US hunger for gas power so large, wait time for turbines blows out to 5+ years
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
Saturday
-
Perth event Saturday May 30th: Green Greed and the Grid
-
Catastrophic warming already happened in Antarctica 130,000 years ago
-
Friday
-
Suddenly the Paris Agreement grows teeth
-
Thursday
-
Australian renewable investments evaporate in 2025: reaching a ten year low
-
Wednesday
-
The Bubble Pops: Big Miner BHP quietly backs away from decarbonization
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
Conservatives are tearing themselves apart over “The Paris Agreement”
-
Saturday
|
8.4 out of 10 based on 17 ratings
By Jo Nova
Don’t mention brown coal?
Last quarter I reported that the Australian Energy Market Operators (AEMO) had strangely “forgotten” to list the brown coal prices in its quarterly report, despite it being the second largest energy source in our national electricity market.
Other quarters, often they would include a graph comparing the average winning bids of all the major fuel types — a graph that surely is essential in these inflationary times where our electricity prices are setting record highs, rising by 25% this month, and we have a national debate on our energy crisis.
In the next quarterly report the AEMO did list the average “winning bids” of brown coal but didn’t do the comparison graph, so I’ve done it for them. If only they had room in their 68 page report and $450 million dollar budget so Australians can see, at a glance, which fuel source provides the cheapest wholesale generation by far, every quarter, all the time?
Despite all the inflation, the war, and the pandemic, brown coal generators are still making electricity for 3c a KWh. Shouldn’t Australians know that?
Compare that to current retail electricity prices in our renewables superstar state South Australia — where the cost varies from 33c to 47c per kilowatt hour.
Brown coal doesn’t “set” the winning bid as often as it used to when it was a larger proportion of our generation mix. Obviously, if it did, we’d have cheaper electricity.
The prices for solar and wind power were the nonsensical minus $24 and minus $41/ MWh. They’re not included because they are not despatchable, and most of the costs of the unreliables are hidden in subsidies. When we spend $20 billion on pumped hydro and transmission lines, those costs, like the batteries and demand schemes should be added to the wind and solar charges. When the rest of the reliable grid has to charge more to cover their costs of sitting around on “standby” — those higher costs should be added to the renewables bill too.
Brown coal is a national asset because it is impervious to international dramas and conflicts. It can’t be shipped far because it has a habit of catching fire on the boat, so there is no international market, instead we have hundreds of years of supply all to ourselves. The more we use, the more black coal and gas we can make billions of dollars with. Instead of being a renewable energy superpower, we could be a cheap energy superpower.
Australia made $124 billion dollars in export revenues from black coal last year
Imagine a world where Australian electricity prices were cheap again and industries moved here from all over the world. With the extra funds Australian families could afford laptops, music lessons, books and adventure camps for every child, or trips to the Whitsundays, Ningaloo, whatever turned them on. Parents might not have to work two jobs. What a life of riches we gave up so easily, with so little thought, because we were badgered and bullied into a futile quest to change the weather?
As it is, here in the Renewable Land, the Australian Labor Party has decided not to even talk about coal in its party platform, despite it being our second largest export industry. President Xi, Larry Fink, the WEF and the UN will be happy.
REFERENCE
The AEMO Quarterly Energy Dynamics (QED) reports
9.8 out of 10 based on 112 ratings
9 out of 10 based on 21 ratings
By Jo Nova
Across 30 countries heatwaves kill 20,000 people in European cities every year (and cold kills 200,000 but nevermind.)
The new paper by Pierre Masselot et al, is another round of medical investigation showing cold is somewhere between six and twenty times as deadly as heat is. Other studies looked at various countries, or specific regions. This study looked at cities across the whole of Europe. It was pretty big, covering 854 cities of 50,000 or more, and about 40% of the European population.
They picked cities because they are “particularly affected by environmental stressors and potential impacts of climate change”. So they’re admitting they looked at the worst possible living conditions for heat deaths. Obviously cities will be hotter than farms and ski resorts — so if heat deaths were a problem, this study would show it, except it didn’t.
Nobody mention coal, oil or gas…
Mysteriously Northern people in frigid climates were strangely “adaptable” to the cold compared to people in Eastern Europe. What could it be that helps people in Scandinavia deal with the cold so much better than people in Bulgaria?
Northern countries showed the lowest risks for heat but also relatively low vulnerability to cold given the much higher exposure to low temperatures, suggesting an adaptive capacity to rigid cold climates, especially when compared with countries in the eastern region.
The authors have many suggestions, none starting with f or rhyming with “cruel”:
The disparities observed in vulnerability to heat and cold could be associated with a number of factors, including the local climate, urban heat island effects, access to health care, or land cover (eg, the accessibility of water or trees). Previous studies have found associations between vulnerability to heat and green areas, PM2·5, population density, or economic inequalities.
Giving an insight into academic mindsets, if not into mortality, the paper mentions socioeconomic 14 times, but does not use the words “fossil”,”fuel”,”electricity” or “affordability”. And they don’t discuss air conditioning either. Apparently wealthy people just wrap themselves in socioeconomic blankets to stay warm or something like that. Maybe they have more pot plants to reduce the PM2.5s?
The authors, also don’t mention indoor temperatures or insulation. Presumably they don’t party with engineers very often — probably to the relief of the engineers.
Big-Government killed science
So this is modern “peer reviewed” science, packed with data, published in a supposedly “great” journal but speaking nonsense, and seemingly avoiding the obvious conclusions at every step.
In 2015 the giant Gasparrini paper showing that among 74 million people, cold kills 20 times as many people as heat does. But the government monopoly stranglehold is so strong these researchers cite that paper with no mention of the astronomical numbers — saying just that it “shows heat and cold are well established health risk factors.” Oh yes indeedy. They follow that with the ritual nonsensical incantation: ” The associated health burden is expected to increase with climate change.” How does that work in anyone’s head? Cold causes 95% of temperature related deaths but if we warm the world, more people will die?
As usual the study was funded by organizations that spend trillions on policies to “cool” the world, yet the authors declare they have “no competing interests”.
The study was funded by Medical Research Council of the UK (MR/V034162/1 and MR/R013349/1), the Natural Environment Research Council UK (NE/R009384/1), the EU’s Horizon 2020 (820655), and the EU’s Joint Research Center (JRC/SVQ/2020/MVP/1654). AU and JK were supported by the Czech Science Foundation (22–24920S).
The numbers:
Across the 30 countries, we estimated an annual average excess of 203 620 (empirical 95% CI 180 882 to 224 613) deaths due to cold and 20 173 (17 261 to 22 934) due to heat, which amount to attributable fractions of 7·01% (6·23 to 7·73) and 0·69% (0·59 to 0·79), respectively.
REFERENCES
Masselot et al (2023) Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact assessment study in 854 cities in Europe, The Lancet, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00023-2
Antonio Gasparrini et al. (2015) Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, May 2015 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0. Full PDF.
Image by StockSnap from Pixabay
9.8 out of 10 based on 92 ratings
9.1 out of 10 based on 19 ratings
By Jo Nova
It’s just another climate denier with a Nobel Prize in Physics…
 John Clauser, Nobel Prize winner. Dr John F Clauser of quantum entanglement fame, leaves no doubt about his thoughts:
“…climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”.
Despite that, the ABC and BBC types won’t pick up the phone to ask Dr John F Clauser why a man with his remarkable reputation would risk looking like an idiot, and speaking up as a climate skeptic. It’s not that they are afraid he might bore the audience or sound like a kook. They won’t ask him because they’re afraid he’ll have a good answer.
How much damage would it do to the cause if the audience finds out that one of the highest ranking scientists in the world disagrees with the mantra? It would break that sacred spell. Suddenly, the unwashed masses will realize “there is a debate”, and that all the times they were told “the debate was over”, they were being lied too.
The same team that tells us that we must “listen to the experts”, won’t listen to any experts they don’t like. They rave about “UN Experts” that hide the decline, but run a mile to avoid the giants of science. They’ll ask high school dropouts about climate change on prime time TV before they interview the Nobel Prize winners. It’s a lie by omission. It’s active deception. And the whole climate movement is built on it.
The thing about skeptical Nobel Prize winners is that they make the namecalling “climate denier” program look as stupid as it can get.
Thade Andy, RIPT:
Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Along with two others, Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist, was the 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light.
The CO2 Coalition issued a statement when Clauser joined their board of directors in May.
His studies of the science of climate provide strong evidence that there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world,” said Dr. William Happer, chair of the board of the CO2 Coalition.
According to Dr. Clauser, …” In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
— CO2Coalition
Other Nobel Prize winning skeptics in Physics include Ivar Giaever who won a Nobel for tunneling in superconductors in 1972, and Robert Laughlin who won the 1998 Physics Nobel Prize for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.
Climate skeptics not only outnumber believers but they outrank them too — not that point-scoring in the pagan consensus battle tells us what the truth is. The point of telling the world about prizewinning skeptics is to expose the mass media propaganda campaign and the hypocrisy of their sacred cows.
h/t Eduard H, Jim Simpson, Helen D, Willie Soon.
Photo by Peter Lyons
9.9 out of 10 based on 169 ratings
8.9 out of 10 based on 17 ratings
By Jo Nova
Fossil Fuels destroy skyscrapers now
The storms of 2,100 have gone underground and are wrecking your city as we speak. Climate Change has is weakening the foundations, shifting the ground underneath you.
If you don’t install enough solar panels, soon buildings will fall on your head.
Horror movie at 8pm. News headline for breakfast. What’s the difference?
This is the headline tonight in Scientific American, and many other media outlets:
Allison Parshall, Scientific American, July 11th 2023
The headline makes no sense at all unless you view it through the lens of the climate cult. It’s as if the words “climate change” have become a substitute for the word “warming”. This story doesn’t mention carbon emissions, and doesn’t talk about “the climate” either. It’s just a click-bait headline about the urban heat island effect and how apparently it is causing subsidence or shifting which may lead to cracks in buildings. We could write it off as the daft result of thirty years of propaganda on one university press team, except that it’s appearing simultaneously tonight in Scientific American, Daily Mail, Metro UK, SciTech Daily, andScienceAlert. Presumably some engineers who wrote a paper on subsidence and other subterranean issues decided they were missing out on attention, grants and UN junkets, and are shamelessly trying to jump on the green gravy train. They invented the term “underground climate change” and the newspapers mostly soaked it up. Bizarrely, they don’t even mention “fossil fuels” and the main reasoning in Scientific American was that it was “like climate change” because it took decades to happen and involved, well, temperatures. It’s that weak.
Nobody mentions, of course, that skeptics have been talking about the Urban Heat Island Effect for twenty years because then they’d have to mention how city thermometers are not remotely reliable, or how all those heatwave deaths are really due to the lack of green trees, shade and parks rather than the type of power plants.
But “Underground climate change” must have been a bit much even for the The New York Times, which is the only newspaper so far to balk at using the term in a headline. Though it did make it to the subheader. The NYT team is also the only one that mentioned “fossil fuels” — explicitly blaming them. What a stretch… We’re talking about heat underneath our biggest cities. As if the emissions of a coal fired plant 500 miles away are even remotely comparable to the effect of black asphalt, six feet above and soaking up the sun.
In big cities worldwide, humans’ burning of fossil fuels is raising the mercury at the surface. But heat is also pouring out of basements, parking garages, train tunnels, pipes, sewers and electrical cables and into the surrounding earth, a phenomenon that scientists have taken to calling “underground climate change.”
Rising underground temperatures lead to warmer subway tunnels, which can cause overheated tracks and steam-bath conditions for commuters. And, over time, they cause tiny shifts in the ground beneath buildings, which can induce structural strain, whose effects aren’t noticeable for a long time until suddenly they are.
The engineers and geoscientists at the core of this are strangely not calling for windmills and solar panels. Really, they just want a few schemes to recapture wasted heat, but dressed it up in Climate lingo. Since their schemes will not make anyone rich, and can’t be used to destroy independent businesses or help our enemies, presumably these ideas will vanish into the night…
But Ferguson and the other researchers interviewed for this story all say this wasted energy [underground] could also be reharnessed, presenting an opportunity to both cool the subsurface and save on energy costs. Subway tunnels and basements could be retrofitted with geothermal technologies to recapture the heat. For example, water pipes could be installed to run through underground hotspots and pick up some of the thermal energy. While that energy wouldn’t be hot enough to turn the water into steam and create electricity, it could still be used to heat buildings and other civil infrastructure. This approach may or may not be worth the effort because it would require a high up-front cost and, in the case of the Loop district, may add up to less than 1 percent of local energy demand. — Scientific American,
Our news media just cut and paste nonsense. Train the children.
–Original image by Solitare from Pixabay, Words by Jo Nova.
9.9 out of 10 based on 74 ratings
8.6 out of 10 based on 22 ratings
By Jo Nova
Apparently some New Zealand officials are toying with a whole new science curriculum which sounds like a return to the stone age. All the hard stuff about electromagnetism, elements, mass, motion, and molecular bonding has been replaced with UN Agenda 21 items like climate change and biodiversity.
Who needs to know the periodic table when you can learn the new religion of “Climate Change”? Knowing actual physics and chemistry will just hold you back in your drive to understand the intersectional suffering of the oppressed swamp antechinus.
By Rebecca Zhu, Epoch Times
New Zealand science teachers have raised alarm over an early draft science curriculum, which lacks any mention of physics, chemistry, and biology.
Mr. Johnston [senior fellow of the New Zealand Initiative think tank] warned that if this draft went through, high school graduates wanting to pursue studies in physical sciences or engineering would need to be taught from scratch by their university.
Who is Mr Johnston kidding? As if universities will fight for the physical sciences… they didn’t even fight for “male and female”. Academics are driving this shift to pagan worship of the new weather-making Gods. Science communication units at universities don’t even know what the scientific method is, they teach their students to “believe” the experts instead of teaching the fundamentals of logic and reason. Who needs Aristotle when you can have obedience?
Students that understand physics might grow up to be critics of the UN:
“Central concepts in physics are absent. There is no mention of gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, mass or motion. Chemistry is likewise missing in action. There is nothing about atomic structure, the periodic table of the elements, compounds or molecular bonding,” he said of the draft.
Rather than physics, chemistry, and biology, the document proposes teaching science through four contexts that appear to draw from fundamental principles of the United Nation’s Agenda 21: climate change, biodiversity, infectious diseases, and the water, food, and energy nexus.
The energy nexus is, after all, a battle for “Energy Justice” and gender-energy equality, and who doesn’t want that?
We know this because peer reviewed papers say so:
Differences in access to and use of energy services between women and men is at the core of gender-energy nexus research. Drawing from Khamati-Njenga and Clancy, we define gender as “the roles, privileges, attributes and relationships between women and men that are socially constructed and not biologically determined” [11]. This definition emphasizes gender as a social construct, which changes over time, space and context. Hence, the gender dimensions of energy access and use vary across social, cultural, economic and political contexts. …
— Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 138, March 2021, 110668, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110668
First they came for language, arts and history, then they came for biology, now they want the STEM courses.
Let’s fight like hell.
h/t R.B.
9.8 out of 10 based on 152 ratings
8.6 out of 10 based on 20 ratings
8.5 out of 10 based on 29 ratings
By Jo Nova
Thanks to Paul Homewood at Notalotofpeopleknowthat
Damaged EV’s apparently need a lot more space than damaged petrol cars do. During the first couple of days, they need fifty times as much space…
In the race to make all new cars electric, so we get perfect weather, we haven’t quite ironed out all the wrinkles. Like what will we do with thousands of potentially explosive batteries in damaged cars awaiting repair (or an early grave). According to The Telegraph, a new report by Thatcham Research poses some rather big questions. Not only do insurance claims for EV’s cost 25% more than petrol cars, and take 14% longer to repair, but in a space where we could safely park 100 injured petrol cars, we can only park two crook EV’s.
The government recommends the cars stay 15m apart for at least 48 hours. Apparently this is rarely done at the moment, so current costs of repairs are no indication of future performance…
Thatcham Research helpfully mapped out the quarantine zones so we can see how realistic this is.
 Thatcham Research How does this fit into the WEF “15 minute city plan” I wonder? It fits with you catching a bus, because only central bankers and senior public servants can afford to pay the insurance costs.
Apparently about 10,000 EV’s were involved in accidents in the UK last year that put their batteries at risk. But with government mandates by 2035, there might be 260,000 of the”infectious” EV’s needing quarantines. We could convert quite a bit of the countryside that isn’t covered in windmills and solar panels into giant car parks for sick EV’s.
ByTom Haynes and James Warrington, The Telegraph
Electric cars that sustain minor bumps are being kept 15 meters apart in repair yards over fears they might explode, adding to insurance bills.
Government guidelines recommend electric vehicles with damaged batteries should be “quarantined” from other vehicles due to the risk of battery fires. Damaged batteries pose a risk of “thermal runaway” where the energy stored in the battery releases rapidly, creating temperatures of up to 400C.
But the practice threatens to increase costs for the insurance industry by more than £600m, costs which ultimately could be passed onto drivers in increased premiums, according to a report by automotive risk firm Thatcham Research.
Managing this quarantine raises the insurance costs and waste (of resources, land, and money). As Thatcham calculate, the extra parking charges alone will add between £625 or £2500 per car to the repair costs. Not to mention the extra time the hire car needed, or the cost of shifting the quarantined cars around to far flung paddocks.
All in all, apparently EV cars lose value so fast that after just one year, if they need a new battery, insurers are better off writing the car off.
Remember the fields of brand new EV’s rotting in China? There is a certain kind of efficiency there. If we wait for these new cars to get damaged, they need a lot more space.
Car accident image: by Shuets Udono
9.9 out of 10 based on 94 ratings
8.2 out of 10 based on 21 ratings
Octopus in the city image by Эльвина Якубова
By Jo Nova
23 US state Attorneys General blocked the insurance wing of the global climate police
After the States fired the first “Antitrust” volley across the bows, the largest insurance giants in the world ran for the exits. Within weeks, what was a 30 member alliance became a shell of a dozen minor insurance companies. The NZIA has effectively admitted defeat — announcing that members won’t need to set or report on their carbon targets. Phew.
In 2021 many stars of the insurance world rushed to join the global climate activist cartel — the Net Zero Insurers Alliance (NZIA) — which would have turned their industry into another branch of the global UN and WEF climate police. The plan was to make it hard for unfashionable businesses to get insurance unless they went “Net Zero” and followed the policies the UN and WEF billionaires wanted. Democracy be damned. This effectively would have dragooned the coal miners, airlines, farmers, and publishers — practically everyone who needs insurance, into setting “Net Zero” targets above and beyond their legal requirements. All businesses would have to say the right prayers to the Carbonista Gods if they wanted to get insurance. Lord help any company that spoke against the regime!
If the cabal succeeded they would effectively shift power from elected governments to the people who wrote the NZIA rules. In January the NZIA had 29 members with $8 Trillion dollars US in assets under management. They launched their new “targets” at Davos at the latest World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting with the billionaires on skiing holidays. How convenient? But the Republican state attorneys general started talking about “antitrust violations” and sent NZIA members formal legal letters in mid May — whereupon the insurance companies bolted.
To understand just how pervasive and insidious this scheme was, look at how one carbon software company enthusiastically described it. Insurers had to report on carbon emissions from their entire portfolio, which meant pestering all the companies they insure to get them to cough up the data . Then they could decide whether to drop the “big polluters” (like those legal companies providing the electricity they used), or badger them some more to reduce their emissions.
The first step in an insurer’s journey to reach net zero is to measure the carbon emissions from its own operations, investment portfolio, and underwriting portfolio. The former is the easiest part. To measure emissions from its portfolios, an insurer needs to gather data from the companies in them, including assets held by policyholders – a difficult feat for most insurers to do accurately and regularly. However, with the right data management tools, insurers can start to baseline the companies or entire industries in their value chain and identify the largest sources of emissions. Then it’s up to the insurer to decide whether to drop the biggest polluters from its portfolio or take steps to help them transition to net zero, such as by providing guidance and incentives in its underwriting or claims management to adopt low carbon technologies or processes.
Think of how much the whole free market concept has been destroyed. Instead of serving customers, entire industries are trying to change Earth’s weather. In this case the people meant to be helping others spread the costs of storms, floods and accidents become their Nanny-managers, ordering them to sacrifice cows to Gaia to stop the storms before they start.
The insurance companies would become defacto climate police
The scheme would only work if nearly every insurance company joined it — otherwise clients would just abandon the bossy companies for nicer ones. But all insurers ultimately need money, so they are no doubt badgered themselves by the biggest financial institutions in the world. See how this web of coercive power builds? NZIA may be effectively neutered for now, which is great news, but the Big Bankers and Billionaires are still out there colluding. The UNEP “Finance Initiative” managed the insurers cabal but it also manages the banker one — called the Net Zero Banking Alliance or variously known as GFANZ. The banker collective is the $100 Trillion dollar black hole starting to swallow national economies.
The best US Republican states are fighting back against the Bankers, and they’re pegging them back, but the battle is not over. BlackRock is singing a slightly different tune now to what it was a year ago. ESG has become a dirty word, but the coercion has almost certainly just gone underground. Larry Fink may not want to use the term anymore, but he has turned your pension fund into leftist activist machine, and the underlings at BlackRock are still bragging behind the scenes about how they “run the world” and buy off US Senators. Some states and investors are backing away slowly, but as long as $100 trillion dollars in assets are managed by a few guys who drink champers together at Davos, the free market, and democracy, is on life support.
Post Note: For those who don’t know much about the WEF, start reading here. It’s worse than you think. Some of the richest people in the world are here to help us, whether we like it or not. They are the “select few” touched as our saviours. Climate lockdowns are coming and you will need to ask permission to leave your 15-minute-suburb. They said that.
h/t to NetZeroWatch, BallyB
9.9 out of 10 based on 88 ratings
9.5 out of 10 based on 20 ratings
By Jo Nova
A US judge has finally ruled what we knew all along — that it’s not OK for The US Government to collude with Big Tech to silence critics and political opponents.
It’s a reminder that Australians have no right to free speech. It’s time we had our own “First Amendment” written into the constitution. Instead of a referendum for a Voice for some Australians (which is happening this year) we need a Referendum for a Voice for All Australians — one that guarantees their right to speak, no matter what color their skin is, where their ancestors lived, or which team they vote for.
The US Republican States may yet save us all — the Attorney Generals of Louisiana and Missouri accused the Biden bureaucracy of actively colluding with the Tech Giants to suspend critics or remove comments. Finally, a judge in a District Court has ruled that this must stop.
By Tony Ozimek, The Epoch Times
A federal judge has made a historic ruling by partially granting an injunction that blocks various Biden administration officials and government agencies such as the Justice Department and the FBI from working with big tech firms to censor posts on social media.
Finally, something that slows the Industrial Censorship Complex — look how many government agencies are named:
Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana wrote in the July 4 ruling (pdf) that various government agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the State Department, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are prohibited from taking a range of actions regarding social media companies.
Effectively immediately, these agencies are not to phone, email, message or communicate with the social media giants with any sort of pressure to suppress opinions. It’s already having an effect. The State Department has just cancelled meetings with Facebook.
“This could be arguably one of the most important First Amendment cases in modern history,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, one of the plaintiffs, told The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders” in an interview following the ruling.
“If you look at the opinion that the judge lays out, he takes from our argument that this is basically one of the most massive undertakings of the federal government to limit American speech in the history of our country. The things that we uncovered, in this case, should be both shocking, appalling, and concerning for all Americans.”
The Judge explained that the government had used its power to silence the opposition:
“Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed,” Doughty wrote.
— Read it all at The Epoch Times
This ruling is still three years too late, and still subject to appeal. Many have died or suffered debilitating injury who might have been spared if voices had not been suppressed. People might have voted differently had they known about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Wars might not have been fought.
The Biden administration has already appealled, as any wannabee tyrant would — which shows how important this power to censor is to them. The two key Attorney Generals have vowed to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Robert Malone was advising Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana. He writes that even State AG’s struggle against the ocean of money that Big-Tech-Giants can bring to any legal battle. As Malone says, the State AG’s are constantly working with a limited budget, picking battles within a four year term, and probably worried about future political donations. It takes a brave AG to tackle Big Tech and the Biggest Government of all.
Australians never seem to be offered the referendums that matter the most
Two Australian Senators tried in 2019, and they say freedom of religion is a part of the Australian constitution, but freedom of speech and a free press are not:
Section 116 of the Australian Constitution protects freedom of religion by providing that the Commonwealth Parliament “shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
“Freedom of religion is enshrined in our Constitution, but freedom of speech and a free press are not subject to explicit protection; this is a deep-seated flaw in the foundations of Australia’s democracy”, Senator Patrick said.
— Centre Alliance Senators Rex Patrick and Stirling Grif, 2019
A deep seated flaw indeed.
The constitution itself is no magic talisman against evil — not without people prepared to die to defend it. But without the words to begin with, what is there to defend?
h/t to Philip P, David Maddison, Bill in AZ, Stephen Neil, David in Cooyal, Old Ozzie, Gab, Matt Taibbi.
Statue of Liberty Photo: Dominique James
10 out of 10 based on 111 ratings
10 out of 10 based on 16 ratings
By Jo Nova
The “hottest day” is not that hot, and very irrelevant
So the news cycle went hyperbolic over a single dubious hot day in records that only go back 0.01% of human existence. Remember when “30 year trends” were all that mattered?
Let’s ignore for the moment that the error bars on measurements of global temperature in 1899 would make any normal scientist blush. Who believes for one minute even today we can measure the global surface temperature to one hundredth of a degree? The cringeworthy insignificant digits were everywhere. On Monday the Earths surface was supposedly 17.01 degrees Celsius for the first time in “human history”. Then Tuesday it was 17.18C, Hallelujah. Who are we kidding?
Probably the biggest lie was to call this “human history” as if the ancient Egyptians were measuring the temperature on Earth and every day of the week. Are we really sure we know what the temperature was on July 3, 2201 BC? Maybe it was 17.31C that day — prove me wrong? We have no idea how hot the “hottest days” were for 99% of human civilization. The best proxies we have can’t tell us what the temperature was for 24 hour periods. We can’t compare 20 year smoothed averages with a single 24 hour snapshot. Well, scientific prostitutes can, but not real scientists.
If it was a record “hottest day”, it might have been the hottest day in the last 40 years (maybe, and if only we had good thermometers, didn’t put them at airports, near air conditioners and incinerators, didn’t go electronic, hide the calibration data, and adjustify the records, eh?). It’s a big so-what.
And in the end we know it there have been hotter years before in human civilization, and probably thousands of them.
Who is trying to erase the Holocene?
Don’t they teach climate scientists anything anymore? Karsten Haustein, from the University of Leipzig was telling the BBC that July will possibly be the hottest “since the Eemian”, 120,000 years ago, as if the Holocene optimum period didn’t exist.
A mere 5,000 years ago sea levels were higher, corals were happy, people thrived, and Greenland was a lot warmer. This was a global phenomenon — higher sea levels and some 6,000 boreholes drilled around the world show the same pattern.
It was hotter for thousands of years and CO2 was irrelevant. What the world needs are some real science journalists who can ask these badly trained junior modelers what happened to the Holocene?
 This graph shows the ice-core data up until 1855. The last 150 years (1705 to 1855) are highlighted in red to show the warming as the Earth began coming out of the Little Ice Age. Sea levels were higher all around the world
How could the oceans be higher all around the world if the world was not warmer? Sea levels have been falling for the last 7,000 years around Australia, they used to be nearly 1m higher in the South China Sea, South Africa and Polynesia and it’s a similar pattern around the world (thanks NoTricksZone). Studies on mangroves in Brazil show sea levels were about 2.7 meters higher in the mid-Holocene, and mangroves grew 34 kilometers further inland. (Fontes et al 2017). CO2 Science lists references all over the world. I am barely skimming the surface.
Other researchers estimate the waters flowing out of the Pacific Ocean past Indonesia were a full 2 degrees Celcius warmer 7,000 years ago. (Rosenthal, (2013). Somehow corals did not go extinct, ancient viruses didn’t wipe out the Sumerians, and humans spread across the Earth.
Sea levels were higher off the very geologically stable Western Australia 7,000 years ago. Across the other side of Australia in NSW sea levels were 1 – 1.5m higher.
 Sea level has been falling for 7,000 years in Western Australia (Lewis et al) A thousand stories of human pain and triumph from the last ten thousand years are being erased from the records. Australian Aboriginals apparently struggled through a 1,500 year mega drought about 6,000 years ago (see McGowan et al 2012). And massive fires raged across far north Australia 4,000 years ago that were far worse than today. (Rehn et al 2021).
Another proxy suggesting the Holocene warmer temperatures were global is the heat flow data measured in 6,000 boreholes across six continents down to about 2km. Sometime from 5,000 to 10,000 years ago temperatures were hotter than they are now.
 Location of boreholes for heat flow studies.  6,000 boreholes drilled around Earth show temperatures were hotter in the holocene. Figure 1. Suite of reconstructions of surface temperature history over the last 20,000 years. Nine curves correspond to three values of thermal diffusivity. The reference level is the mean of the instrumental record from 1961-1990 AD. (Huang et al 2008) The hottest day in the last 150 years is irrelevant.
REFERENCES
Keep reading →
9.9 out of 10 based on 108 ratings
8.8 out of 10 based on 20 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Print This Post | | 
Energy justice as a search light
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments