Reposted from The No Tricks Zone
In an interview with publicist Roland Tichy, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt – one of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement – said we have in fact three generations time to revamp the world’s energy supply system to one that is cleaner and sustainable.
He rejects the Fridays For Future claim that there are only 12 years left.
Climate catastrophe not taking place
In the interview, moderator Tichy reminded that civilization began 7000 years ago, a time when it was “3°C warmer than today”, and Vahrenholt responded saying he expects civilization to continue for another seven thousand years. There was no tipping point back then, why would there be one today? “Warmth and moisture have always been good for mankind,” said Vahrenholt. “Cold has been man’s worst enemy.”
Plenty of time to move rationally
The German professor also said that the claimed catastrophe “is not taking place” and that policymakers are trying to use “panic and fear to get the people to act.” Much of the warming measured since 1850 is the result of natural warming taking place due to the end of the Little Ice Age, he explained.
Germany’s green fantasy
Later the German professor of chemistry calls the belief that wind and sun are able replace fossil fuels “fantasizing” and that Germany, with its 2.3% share of global CO2 emissions, can rescue the global climate “a fairy tale”.
Meanwhile, the warming of the last 150 years is in large part caused by natural cycles. “In the 20th century the sun was more active than at any time over the past 2000 years.”
Economically, Vahrenholt believes that a frenzied rush to renewables will lead to “horrible” economic consequences from European industrialization.
On the topic of a scientific consensus, the German professor says this is a claim made by the IPCC, which run by the UN with an agenda behind it.
Electric cars a “crackpot idea”
Vahrenholt also believes electric cars powered by batteries is not a feasible technology, and that other experts quietly call it “a crackpot idea”, and don’t speak up for fear of losing research funding. The vast majority of funding comes from the German government.
“Paris Accord already dead”
The professor of chemistry, co-author of a recent bestseller, also describes Germany as a country in denial when it comes to the broader global debate taking place on climate science, and declared the Paris Accord as being “already dead”.
“The Accord is already dead. Putin says it’s nonsense. […] The Americans are out. The Chinese don’t have to do anything. It’s all concentrated on a handful of European countries. The European Commission in massively on it. And I predict that they will reach the targets only if they destroy the European industries,” said Vahrenholt.
He characterizes Europe’s recent push for even stricter emissions reduction targets to madness akin to Soviet central planning that is doomed to fail spectacularly.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see more and more individuals pointing out the fallacies around so-called renewable energy. Perhaps someone in a position of authority will take notice and do something to halt this “renewable energy” damn foolishness.
Finally some rational thinking but will it get media attention?
Of course not! Disaster sells, whether it be real disaster or predicted disaster, and the media wants to sell news, that is how it makes money. Find more people to predict disaster, and then promote it.
The purpose of the media…the mainstream media…is not first of all to make money, but to be the Ministry of Propaganda for those that own and control it. It is simply the mouthpiece of its owners, and those owners are megalomaniacal, wealthy, powerful sociopaths. What they vomit out non-stop are the narratives that its owners want the sheople to hear over and over and over again until they believe the lies and become zombified supporters of their Ministry of Propaganda. Brainwashing is the name of the game. Climate change, panic-demics, water shortage, war, false flags…whatever it takes to keep the sheople fearful and willing to give up their liberties and independence for any promise of safety. “We’ll keep you safe,” say the wolves to the sheep.
I call it crisis porn. Everything is an “unprecedented” (the most over-used word of the 21st century) crisis.
It’s not that people are sheeple. It’s that many people actually desire to be told what to do and think. Taking orders relieves one of all the hard work of living.
Virtue-signalling is one’s public display of loyalty to the greater authority (GA), typically a moral authority, that removes all moral ambiguity and makes life a mindless breeze (except for the 5% who live by personal ethics). Display then becomes the passport to general acceptance.
Unless the GA needs a scapegoat for its inevitable and fatal programmatic failures. Then arrest, trial, and execution of the wreckers can hit anyone.
But as the probability that any specific person takes the hit is low, no one will see the danger to themselves when someone else is hoisted to the gibbet.
Collectivism is the enemy of individual freedom, and reflexive collectivism is the mortal enemy of a future for our species.
Pat I’ll frame that . . .
Generally, Pat, I agree with you. However, I would change a word.
“Taking orders relieves one of all the hard work of living.”
Taking orders relieves one of all the hard work of thinking.
Or, Taking orders relieves one of all the hard work of being responsible.
Good analysis, Pat.
This is the biggest obstacle that sceptics have to overcome, and it is a deep-rooted facet of human nature that you have well identified. It also underlies a lot of the ‘clout’ of religion. Not without reason do Christians speak of a god “whose service is perfect freedom”[although many will argue that the church itself has departed grossly from the original message].
Religions work in ordinary life because they are prescriptive. Although that is no longer true of Christianity – which may be why it is haemorrhaging church attendance – it is still true in spades of Islam, which tells you not only what to think, but also gives you a schedule of instructions and even a timetable by which to lead your daily life. Islam is adding many converts.
I agree Pat. With all this hoopla about a clean source of fuel for transportation they should be looking at hydrogen powered vehicles. Emissions are water.
… “unprecedented” (the most over-used word of the 21st century) crisis.
“Worse than previously thought” is right in there.
From my file of tag lines smart remarks etc:
If the Climate Change headline says,
“Worse than previously thought”
Historical data has been re-written.
Oh, good Lawdy!!!! Apostasy!!!! Was stimmt nicht mit ihm?? The world is going to simply fall apart because of what he said… or not. A lot of people are going to be really, really mad at him. He told Da Troot and — ooohh, Lawdy, Lawdy, Lawdy, whatever will the Greenbeaners do???? (My guess is the nonsense with the effigy in a public square…. but what do I know?)
I feel much better now. Some chocolate chip cookies, a nice hot cup of tea, and a good book solves everything.
Thank you for publishing that. All is not lost, no matter what…..
Sara, you might want to put some “mommies little helper” in that hot tea, like, before it’s too late?
OH, Ron, I do enjoy a good bout of sarcasm and snide remarks, when the occasion calls for it.
If I’m reading things with even a small degree of accuracy, the whole Greenbeaner/ecohippie/save the planet charade is showing cracks in its surface, which may be why these people are speaking out. Let the little nidgewits whine and cry and complain and throw tantrums. Sometimes, the truth they don’t want to hear is painful.
Also, to be clear, I forgot to add that civilization more than likely began somewhere in the Middle East between 12,000 and 15,000 years ago, at a place in Syria called Tel Qaramel. I say “more likely” than Professor Vahrenholt’s “7,000 years ago” because the physical evidence is there.
Four round stone towers about 17 feet in diameter, with stone walls as much as 3.5 feet thick were found about 11 years ago, and a fifth, possibly of earlier construction has recently been found. Stone and bone implements were also found.
I will NOT be surprised if even older construction is found, excavated and dated.
To find really old remains one should search the sea bottom. Ancient towns probably were situated close to the shore line. 15000 years ago that was 100-120 meters down.
Sara writes “civilization more than likely began somewhere in the Middle East between 12,000 and 15,000 years ago, at a place in Syria called Tel Qaramel.”
Since you enjoy reading a good book, try this one by Graham Hancock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXIWnzGLnw
GRAHAM HANCOCK – AMERICA BEFORE: THE KEY TO EARTH’S LOST CIVILIZATION
The video above is a good synopsis of the book.
He shows all branches of so called science have the same groupthink that we see in the climate cultism – archaeology being one. Both groupthink and cancel culture, and consensus bias have been in evidence with archaeology for some time, and Graham has been pilloried until some new evidence has been steadily coming to light in the last decade.
Numerous scientific papers and studies find evidence of civilization up to 130,000 years ago in North America!
The dating of approx 12,000 years ago, was a global cataclysm, which destroyed the rather advanced civilization at the time. But his research goes further and is most interesting.
It is a fascinating 3/4 of an hour, the above video, and I am sure the book is equally riveting.
That looks good! Thanks! I know Heidelberg man preceded Neandertals and Us (Cro Magnon), showing up about 800,000 years ago, and their remains and campsites, with things they made such as spearpoints and javelins and cutting tools, have been located repeatedly.
I will look at that. Thank you!
“Numerous scientific papers and studies find evidence of civilization up to 130,000 years ago in North America!”
Name a few.
MarkW writes:
““Numerous scientific papers and studies find evidence of civilization up to 130,000 years ago in North America!”
Name a few.”
Hancock’s book has the references to papers, however Amazon preview omits the reference pages.
https://www.amazon.com/America-Before-Earths-Lost-Civilization/dp/1250153735/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1602244196&sr=1-1
Check out the Amazon link, and click on the book to “look inside” and there are many references to these papers in Chapter 4. He lists the authors and the paper’s subjects in this chapter but you cannot access the footnotes unless you buy the book.
More germane to WUWT, Hancock documents how this groupthink and consensus science nonsense is not limited to Climate Catastrophists! It is ingrained in academia in all branches of so called science! (Hancock documents this problem with archaeology, and I can attest first hand it exists in physics too – if you find evidence that challenges the orthodox view)
Sara,
Vahrenholt did not say that human history began 7,000 years ago. The reference was to gold artifacts on display in the museum where the interview was recorded and it was the host who made the comment beginning at 0:33 in the video. He asks Vahrenholt if the world will still be around in 7,000 years or as Fridays for Future claims, it will end in 12 years. Vahrenholt then replies that the world will in now way end and mentions that 7,000 years ago the temperature was 3 degrees warmer than today. It will certainly still be here in 7,000 years. There’s no reference at any point that civilization began 7,000 years ago.
Hope the prof. Has tenure. That level of honesty would get him fired at most universities.
The majority of American professors are now adjuncts living hand to mouth. We won’t see any climate change skepticism from them.
Smart man that Professor Fritz. Could he kindly have a word with the new Boris Johnson? The old Boris got it about right when he once claimed that wind power couldn’t ‘blow the skin off a rice pudding’, never mind power a modern industrialised economy. We live in hope!
Varenholt is a good guy, and does carry some authority, but I understand that in Germany he has been successfully portrayed as a fringe scientist who has no support amongst his peers. Part of that may be his tendency to exaggerate – or at least to fail to qualify – his statements. It gets him noticed, yes, but gives plenty of hostages to fortune.
One example is to call electric-powered vehicles a ‘crackpot idea’. It isn’t, and it will come. It will come whether or not the alarmists hold sway, although it will come very much more quickly if they do. It will come first in the cities, where air pollution is a legiimate concern, and it will be a long, long while before it is practical on the open road, and even longer for trucks, but it will come. It will come in parallel with the rollout of autonomous vehicles. It will not, in the long term, be stymied by a lack of resources. The suggestion that we will run out of cobalt, or lithium, or some other key product, is as misguided as the idea that we will run out of oil.
But of course, it will give central authorities more power over the people, and individual freedoms will have to restricted in order to achieve it. And it will be expensive. Very, very, very expensive.
He should have qualified his remarks to this measure, which I expect he knows perfectly well (I may be unfair to him in this, of course, as I don’t read German)
You’re advocating communism to pay homage to the gaia religion. This will end well!
You misunderstand me. I’m not in favour of a single penny of subsidy for the EV program, nor of any tax breaks, obligations or mandates to assist them. I’m merely claiming that Electric vehicles are very likely, eventually, be a big part of our society, even if global warming had never been dreamt up, and that to call the idea ‘crackpot’ has little justification.
EV’s have been around in one form or another since 1838. The problem is the physics and chemistry of batteries. Just look at the performance of the latest cell phones which have the most advanced batteries. Woefull!
The idea that electrics will ever play more than a niche role, so long as we are limited to chemical batteries, is a crackpot idea.
And where will the electrons come from?
Gasoline cars haven’t been the a source of urban air pollution for about 40 years. There is a relatively minor problem with diesel engines, but nothing that can’t be controlled. Anyone who advocates electric vehicles in order to eliminate air pollution simply isn’t following the science.
Electrics will never be practical for the open road or for trucks, not until anti-matter power is perfected.
I remember once being on a GSA fieldtrip in Baja. Our fuel tanks were getting low. We came to a small village that didn’t have any electricity. However, some enterprising person had built a platform, hauled in some 55-gallon drums of gasoline, and supplied gasoline fed by gravity. We gladly paid a high price for a scarce commodity. I can just see it now — Some progressive arriving in the village and saying “Where can I re-charge my Tesla pickup truck?”
Although, one advantage I can see is that if you have plenty of food and water, and carry some solar panels, you can wait a few days while your battery recharges in the wilderness (assuming the weather cooperates). But, portable, high energy-density fuel does have a lot of advantages.
Again, go to the video and check the context. Vahrenholt said that other scientists with whom he has spoken call battery-powered autos a Schnappsidee (something you think up after drinking schnapps). The reasons he gave prior to that comment were that the overall effect of EVs is to emit more CO2 than a diesel car for most of its useful lifetime. So it is not a question of whether electric vehicles are technically feasible but rather that they are not a solution to reducing CO2 emissions before the supposed end of the world in 12 years.
Every scientist in Germany who doesn’t support the climate change dogma gets his or her reputation in danger and if they’re too young to retire, even lose their jobs. MSM and Antifa ensure that open discussion doesn’t happen. Vahrenholt even headed a company that produced wind turbines, but states that a renewable energy fraction over 50% compromises the whole system (see Climate Warning (Calgary)). As far as E-Autos are concerned: new battery technologies have to be developed. Some promising research is ongoing in the field of fluoride based cells. The availability of elements needed (Fluoride, Boron) and the higher resulting energy density (7 X) speaks for them (although Cobalt is also mentioned): https://www.electrive.com/2020/08/14/toyota-developing-flouride-ion-battery-with-1000-km-range/ They need to discover a way to operate them at room temperature (without heating), which could mean a loss of energy density though …
Mack refers to the ‘new’ Boris Johnson. He came about because Carrie, his partner, is a known Climate Worrier. Little hope of sense from him any more, I’m afraid…
I’ve been hugely disappointed by Boris.
A few years ago, in a Telegraph article, he described climate change alarmists as “doomsters” – one of his favourite words.
But no longer. He spouts the usual climate change nonsense. And he seems to have been completely taken in by the Covid equivalent of climate change fantasy, including a junk computer model that predicted 500,000 deaths and junk senior government scientists who recently published an appalling and anti-scientific hockey stick graph that would have made Mann proud.
I would have been a lifelong conservative voter, but no longer. At minimum, to regain my vote they would have to promise to scrap the Climate Change Bill and take Britain out of the Paris suicide pact. But I’m not holding my breath.
Chris
I’ve been a little gentle on Boris because I thought he was focused on Brexit and couldn’t deal with any additional political footballs until that is sorted. It’s getting close and he’s only as good as the last thing her did for me, so it’s almost time to shift focus. Anyway, I’m Canadian and can’t vote in the UK unless I claim my citizenship via my father’s birth. Have to watch powerlessly. Same as the U.S. election and my own idiot Trudeau for now. Frustrating!
In just a few months you will get to watch King Biden and Princess Harris shower taxpayer money and huge tax credits to all the high cost players in the solar sector and other renewables. The highest cost ones are loudest and hungriest with the most lobbyists and most ridiculous claims of renewable energy jobs to be saved. Watch them get the most benefit from round 2 of “we don’t pick winners” and you get to bail out the donor, non-player, losers like Solyndra. You will also see them sling vast taxpayer funds at research on new technology that also ignores the current low cost leaders driving the industry. This will be more of a nod to universities and other labs while the private sector best-of-breed players move along separate and apart with better working tech in the field. The taxpayer money thrown at EV and battery companies will exceed their sales in the first few years and all in the name of saving the eUAW union jobs.
Biden won’t be around for this scenario, whoever wins the election. Google “Torricelli, Robert”.
Biden’s plan is mostly a retread of Obama’s economic stimulus plan from his 1st campaign. The money was all wasted then; it will be all wasted this time. Why we need another infrastructure building plan when Obama supposedly did it 12 years ago is a question the MSM doesn’t have the spine to ask.
Oh and to others above–EVs are a crack pot idea.
Biden’s economic plan boils down to increase taxes on the rich and use the money to buy votes.
The only difference is that in this case, they seem to be defining rich as anyone who makes more than the minimum wage.
Meanwhile, the warming of the last 150 years is in large part caused by natural cycles. “In the 20th century the sun was more active than at any time over the past 2000 years.”
The topic is riddled with misinformation, and the above is no exception.
It is simply not true that the sun has been more active than at any time over the past 2000, or 10000, or 12000, or whatever years. https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-Solar-Activity.pdf
On the other hand it is not necessary to try to advance that wrong argument.
TSI is not the whole story.
Changes in the particle and wavelength emissions from the sun have an effect on atmospheric chemistry that changes global albedo and thus global temperature.
There is no absolute requirement that TSI alone determines planetary surface temperature.
Leif is wrong to suggest that there is such a requirement.
I would say that it is TSI plus atmospheric mass plus the strength of the gravitational field that determines the surface temperature and TSI is modulated by albedo variations that are in turn determined by internal system characteristics.
Albedo variations are then compensated for by internal convective adjustments which is why planets can retain atmospheres indefinitely despite a multitude of potentially disruptive internal system characteristics.
Such as changes in the proportion of radiative gases.
He did not say that, you are putting words in his mouth. He was clearly referring to solar activity , which is governed by the Sun’s magnetic dynamo, not solar irradiance which is governed by the Sun’s thermonuclear output.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/what-is-solar-activity
Changes in the particle and wavelength emissions from the sun
Is totally unspecified and vague. Thus carries no weight, just hand waving.
Presumably these ‘changes’ are related to solar activity which have not changed as claimed.
Unless, of course, someone has “fiddled” with the data since then .
Has someone “adjusted” the data to suit an agenda, I wonder.
Unless, of course, someone has “fiddled” with the data since then .
Data fiddling is not unheard of in so-called “climate science”
A reminder to you Leif that your belief is based on reconstructing data and we can’t validate those reconstructions. To make a claim that it is wrong as if it is some sort of fact places you at crackpot status.
Why don’t you try something more technically correct that “you believe it to be wrong” or “it is arguably wrong by reconstruction”.
And what is Vahrenholt’s claim based on? The data is the best we have.
“you believe it to be wrong” is not how V frames it.
I agree it should have been prefaced with “I think” or “it is arguable” but we are also dealing with a reporter doing an interview so we would need the exact words he used. You are posting direct no 3rd party in the chain so your words matter more.
That is a rhetoric question because you do know the data on which Vahrenholt is basing his claim, since you copied that data for your reconstruction.
This is the data as published:
According to one of the latest past solar activity reconstructions (Wu et al., 2018), solar activity has been very high in a multimillennial comparison during the 20th century:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/07/aa31892-17/aa31892-17.html
You qualify as misinformation something based on a peer-reviewed and published paper because something you wrote and was never published? Tsk, tsk. People should not believe so much what you say.
You qualify as misinformation something based on a peer-reviewed and published paper because something you wrote and was never published?
Reconstruction of the sunspot group number: the backbone method
Leif Svalgaard, Kenneth H Schatten
Publication date 2016/11/1
Solar Physics Volume 291
Pages 2653-2684
“We have reconstructed the sunspot-group count, not by comparisons with other reconstructions and correcting those where they were deemed to be deficient, but by a re-assessment of original sources. The resulting series is a pure solar index and does not rely on input from other proxies, e.g. radionuclides, auroral sightings, or geomagnetic records. “Backboning” the data sets, our chosen method, provides substance and rigidity by using long-time observers as a stiffness character. Solar activity, as defined by the Group Number, appears to reach and sustain for extended intervals of time the same level in each of the last three centuries since 1700 and the past several decades do not seem to have been exceptionally active, contrary to what is often claimed.
Apparently you are unable to run a simple 70-year running average on SILSO monthly sunspots. That gives you the answer you so obstinately refuse to see:
1935-2005 was certainly the 70-year period with highest activity in at least 600 years.
Funny how the period with highest solar activity in 600 years coincides with the period of highest temperatures in 600 years and yet there is no relation.
1935-2005 was certainly the 70-year period with highest activity in at least 600 years.
Not so. e.g. https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2020/EGU2020-17086_presentation.pdf
It looks like you are lacking in knowledge of trends in solar activity. All you can do is “tsk, tsk”.
If you think that there was a 70-year period with more solar activity than 1935-2005, perhaps you can point it to me so we can discuss and present arguments. All the rest is just arm-waving and “I’m the authority” type of arguments.
Show me the data for a 70-year period with higher solar activity.
SILSO database at:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt
Shows the 70 year period 1935-2005 at a monthly average of 107.6 sunspots.
Go ahead. Show me a 70-year period with higher activity.
SN normalized to GN [divide by 19.65] and then average SN and GN.
Use yearly values as there are no monthly values before 1749.
Note that there is no significant difference between 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
GN = Group Number, SN = sunspot number
No tsk, tsk here, just plain old data.
You are welcome to use my plot in your further ‘studies’.
If you just want to loo at the raw official SILSO sunspot numbers, here is a plot for you
http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot
This removes all arguments about selection shenanigans
From https://leif.org/research/Three-Centuries-of-Solar-Activity-Update.pdf
As you can see [if you bother to look] there has been recent progress in resolving the issue of solar activity the last 300+ years [no long-term trend].
Progress has been slow because bad science lives forever, but we are getting there.
You now have that on good authority.
So you couldn’t find a 70-year period with higher solar activity than 1935-2005, obviously.
That’s not surprising because there is none.
We can go to yearly data and back to 1700. The data is here:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
As easy as running a 70-year average over the dataset.
The winner peak is 1935-2004 with a yearly sunspot average of 108.49
The second peak is 1725-1794 with a yearly sunspot average of 93.78
The third peak is 1827-1896 with a yearly sunspot average of 88.77
There is no dividing in centuries that mean nothing to the Sun. There is no averaging extended maxima with extended minima. There is no taking no authority’s word for it. Anybody can check and see that the highest activity 70-year period took place between 1935-2004. It is known as the Modern Solar Maximum and it had over a period of 70 years 16 % more sunspots on average than the next known previous peak in activity that took place in the 18th century.
The winner peak is 1935-2004 with a yearly sunspot average of 108.49
The second peak is 1725-1794 with a yearly sunspot average of 93.78
What you don’t realize is that the early data has a much larger error bar than the modern one. And that therefore the difference is not statistically relevant. What the ISSI team is now doing is to collect new data for the 18th century in order to bring down the error bar. Also, the SN still uses the old Wolf assessment of Staudach’s group count which was undercounted by some 25% (see https://leif.org/research/Recount-of-Staudach.pdf). It may well turn out that the 18th century was more active than the 20th. At this point all we can say is that they are of the same order of magnitude within their error bars, which, BTW, is very large before 1749.
It may help you to study a recent result from the team
(especially section (c) of the graph). (Muñoz-Jaramillo, A., Vaquero, J.M. Visualization of the challenges and limitations of the long-term sunspot number record. Nat Astron 3, 205–211 (2019)).
One of the problems with the SN is that it lacks error bars for the 18th century.
The peer-reviewed published GN does not have that problem, so we can compare the 70-year averages directly:
1725-1794: 5.59+-0.58 i.e. somewhere in 4.61-6.56
1935-2005: 5.54+-0.21 i.e somewhere in 5.24-5.65
That is all we can say, i.e. statistically identical
I was one year off [sorry – but it also shows the sensitivity to choice of end-points. And one shouldn’t really ‘hunt around’ for what one likes best. The proper way is to choose end-points at the same phase of the sunspot cycle, e.g. at minimum; even if that makes the two time intervals slightly different in length].
This is what it should be [using your biased end-points]:
1725-1794: 5.59+-0.58 i.e. somewhere in 4.61-6.56
1935-2004: 5.48+-0.21 i.e. somewhere in 5.28-5.69
That is all we can say, i.e. statistically identical
This too is somewhat poorly translated. The comments immediately preceding the solar effect comment have been omitted. Vahrenholt stated that it was ocean oscillations which drive sea ice changes. Then he made the statement at 9:18 which you contest that “we have in the last 50 years the strongest solar effect in the past 2000 years”, but this was not a claim that it was the sun that drove the changes in sea ice.
It would be wise to comment on what was actually said than to rely on the translation.
Professor Vahrenholt sounds like a very reasonable person.
The Professor will probably be attacked by the alarmists for being so reasonable.
He is attacked since years as he and Sebastian Lüning published their book “The Neglected Sun”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/highly-controversial-german-climate-book-to-appear-worldwide-in-english-september-1st/
From the above article: “Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt . . . said we have in fact three generations time to revamp the world’s energy supply system to one that is cleaner and sustainable.”
Wow, that’s 60 years (per modern math). Whew! I was getting so concerned about pronouncements from James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and the IPCC (to mention just a few) that we had only 2-15 years left before the CAGW catastrophe becomes irreversible and mankind is doomed to a CO2/runaway heat death.
I can sleep much easier now. Thanks.
People are having babies at an older age now, so maybe 3 generations is 90 years! Adulthood comes at about 50 for most of them so maybe 3 generations is 150 years! Must be a bright side to all the immaturity I see in the world.
Excellent point!
““The Accord is already dead. Putin says it’s nonsense. […] The Americans are out. The Chinese don’t have to do anything….”
And there you have it folks. Simple and to the point.
Yeah, the Chinese are building coal fired power plants like hot cakes ( numerically and quality-wise) and they have over 300 million people living on their coasts. Are they crazy or do their scientists not agree that everything will be underwater in a few years?
Or Mao’s communists planting 18m rice seeds per acre because they accepted Lyshenko’s communist biology that seeds were good communists and would grow better close together.
Like our own idiotic government here in Ireland. They took a break from shuting businesses and restricting movement to fight a coronavirus respiratory infectious causing to the death of 0-1 people >80s each day to announce that we will be carboln neutral by 2050.
How many bird killing windmills will that require?
Why do we allow idiots to rule?
Bit if Biden gets in, America will be right back into the Paris accord …
And the US will be screwed up and down by Brussels/Europe, to ensure the US will pay the lion share of the multi trillion dollar bill.
China and India, etc., will largely remain of the hook.
I wonder how many people realise that the continued prosperity of the WHOLE WORLD relies on the demented Biden sock-puppet NOT getting elected. !
It has been very sad to see Boris Johnson and senior members of his party having been deceived by the climate Armageddon nonsense. The UK is now on the wrong path and likely to suffer debilitating consequences in due course.
Also, Prince William, David Attenborough and many others.
I have, at best, 20 or so more years to live, probably less, and I am going to have to watch this depressing farrago play out.
Back in the 1950’s and 60’s the news was all about positive prospects for the future using technology to move forward.
Now every news report is negative. All positive progress is being ignored.
I have seen the world go from a hope for unity and progress to disunity and fears of disaster and it has coincided with the loss of confidence of western civilisation under pressure from socialism and the increasingly debilitating influence of ethnic minorities within their host communities.
It could have been so much better if the safe production of nuclear energy had been a priority and if ethnic minorities in western nations had been willing to learn from and engage in their welcoming (relative to past standards) host societies instead of harbouring hostility and resentment.
The world now has more people on average living longer than ever before with supplies of food and energy more than keeping pace and the ability to preserve the environment also running in parallel (but lagging in poorer nations) yet all we hear is gloom and pessimism.
That success is entirely attributable to White civilisation yet all we hear about is of past grievances from those who would never have been able to match such achievements whilst their own history is no better in their dealings with each other. Our Black community is thoroughly complicit in the slave trade which was an African institution that would have continued to this day if it were not for the sensitivities of the British.
There needs to be a fight back from rational optimists with the irrational pessimists being thoroughly discredited as soon as possible.
The evidence is all around us but those in power in the West lack all confidence and inspiration.
Stephen, I am about the same age and of the same feeling. What’s happening is bizarre.
I post comments in The Times, Financial Times and Telegraph but there are more people shouting me down than agreeing. So few want to look beyond scary headlines and see if there is truth and reason.
Indeed, Stephen.
It’s probably why we Generation Jonsers are jonesing for the better ‘future’ we were promised way back then.
The truth is out there, it merely gets shouted down by the aptly heretofore-defined ‘crisis pornographers’.
It seems insane.
UK Q1 2020 – 47% electricity from renewables. No grid outages.
Where is the problem?
Be very glad there is still so much GAS to stabilise the grid.
Windy WEATHER in February.
A lot less produced in Q2, thank goodness for the huge drop in demand, hey griffool
SO MUCH GAS needed for RELIABILITY. !
Hope its a mild winter, griffool.!
fred250, griff is one of those people who take techonology for granted, and doesn’st realize how easily it can break.
And how much GAS was used for domestic non-electricity purposes, Griffool
And how much will be needed in winter, especially if everyone is still locked indoors. .
Be very THANKFUL of that GAS supply, griffool.
Even with Covid, global COAL production will likely grow AGAIN in 2020.
https://www.mining.com/global-coal-production-to-grow-by-0-5-in-2020/
Just thermal coal is expected to climb to 7.6 billion tonnes by 2023
Great news for plant life, for sure. 🙂
Griff – UK renewables are still backed up by gas. Baseload is still carried by nuclear.
Duplicating power generation is a huge waste of resources and capital. It also negates the supposed CO2 benefits of operating renewables. The future of a national grid powered by intermittent renewables is pure fantasy. You can have 47% on occasion but you can’t power the UK reliably with renewables.
And the fundamental problem going forward is cost – renewables continue to hugely increase electricity costs. By power value, electricity is around 5 times more expensive than gas. Just check your utility bills.
Because you have to keep the fossil fuel plants at hot idle all of the time, it is debatable as to whether wind and solar actually reduce CO2 emissions at all.
Nice of the old people to turn off the heat they can no longer afford. That and then fact that 50,000 of them are dead kinda helps out. Unfortunately, everything the Greens do is based on lies. The real cost of this power is buried under layers of subsidies and twisted and contorted billing structures. Anything to keep the public from finding out the truth.
Solar power- in Britain! HAHAHAHA!
47% for a few minutes, once.
They did not get 47% for the whole quarter.
I have something like the same future life expectancy, and agree on most points. Physics will win, but we seem to be taking a very expensive and stupid route to the inevitable realisation. I am not sure why you need to mention ‘white civilisation’, although I can understand the temptation to provoke in the current climate. What colour was the skin of Socrates? Discuss, without getting in a bad temper, or offending anybody.
Stephen Wilde – I am in the same position. Its like watching the world go mad. To me there are so many elephants in the room, but to the general public and the politicians they are invisible.
TS
The Paris Accord is and always was a great cocktail party circuit.
All this green energy will do is move more manufacturing and wealth to China and India, where they will pump out more c02. Green energy creates more co2 instead of less. The co2 just moves to China and India.
TSI is not the whole story.
Changes in the particle and wavelength emissions from the sun have an effect on atmospheric chemistry that changes global albedo and thus global temperature.
There is no absolute requirement that TSI alone determines planetary surface temperature.
Leif is wrong to suggest that there is such a requirement.
I would say that it is TSI plus atmospheric mass plus the strength of the gravitational field that determines the surface temperature and TSI is modulated by albedo variations that are in turn determined by internal system characteristics.
Albedo variations are then compensated for by internal convective adjustments which is why planets can retain atmospheres indefinitely despite a multitude of potentially disruptive internal system characteristics.
Such as changes in the proportion of radiative gases.
Leif is wrong to suggest that there is such a requirement.
You are wrong to suggest that I suggest such a requirement.
Vahrenholt is wrong to suggest that solar activity recently has been the highest in 2000 years.
I would say that it is TSI plus atmospheric mass plus the strength of the gravitational field that determines the surface temperature and TSI is modulated by albedo variations that are in turn determined by internal system characteristics.
So, you are saying that since the mass of the atmosphere and the gravitational field do not vary, the only thing that determine the surface temperature is internal system variations. I.e. not the sun as TSI from the sun only varies by one in a thousand.
That’s your opinion. You could be the wrong one for saying it is not.
Berggren, A.-M.et al., Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L11801,
doi:10.1029/2009GL038004:
“We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period.”
As you have said many times, 10Be cannot be trusted much because it is subject to climate contamination. If 10Be is contaminated by climate then it cannot be used as an argument against the 20th century being a period of unusually high solar activity. It is then simply not reliable enough.
Pedro, Joel, et al. “Evidence for climate modulation of the 10Be solar activity proxy.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 111.D21 (2006).
“We have demonstrated a significant anti-correlation between changes in 10Be and oxygen isotope ratio (which we interpret as a climate variable) at Law Dome. The anti- correlation occurs over a period of time short enough to exclude variation in 10Be production. Climate modulation of 10Be transport and deposition must therefore be implicated. … Until the extent of climatic modulation of the 10Be proxy can be more adequately quantified the technique of reconstructing cosmogenic isotope production rates directly from 10Be concentrations in ice should be exercised with caution.”
Your 10Be card is not valid.
“should be exercised with caution.”
Your 10Be card is not valid.
There is a big difference between ‘caution’ and ‘not valid’.
In the case of solar activity there is additional evidence from the observations of sunspots and aurorae and geomagnetism. So due caution is indeed exercised.
Due caution is exercised by Wu et al., 2018 also, and they see increasing levels of solar activity for the past 600 years.
it does nothing to prove that something they utter has to be true. Their claims have to be supported by logic and facts.
In my case the prediction [and the estimate of error] is based on observations and the assumption that the polar fields is a proxy for the next cycle [as much theory and physics suggest]. So, as I said: my prediction is just a “further test of the polar field precursor method”. Nobody is talking about ‘proofs’. With each passing correct prediction the support for the assumption grows stronger, to the point [perhaps in a hundred years] where we can accept it as an observational ‘fact’.
Now, in evaluating the likelihood of success, I will maintain that half a century’s study of the issue lends more credence to the prediction than the opinion of arm-chair laymen’s [possible] bias claims. That is why the CV carries weight.
being one of the foremost researchers on this, my opinion counts.
Yours? not so much…
Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal to Authority
https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336
Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.
A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact.
I’m sure that Lord Kelvin felt similarly when he estimated the age of the Earth.
If you are to have open heart surgery it pays to defer to authority.
The situation here is no different, especially [as you cite] when the argument is well supported by facts and logically valid inferences.
Attempted academic bullying, should be below you, Leif..
But its obviously your MO.
Leif
The trick is not to be the very first patient the heart surgeon works on. Because after the first one, they have experience and a track record that can be checked. Doing the identical procedure many times hones their mechanical skill. That is in contrast to a theorist, who is in new territory every time they present a new theory. Granted, that a theorist has high probability of being right if they have a track record of good forecasts. However, it is no guarantee that the next novel idea will be correct. That is why post-publication peer review is still an essential part of science, instead of just saying, “Well, they have always been right in the past; therefore, we can uncritically accept everything they write or say henceforth.” I’m just saying that being an expert gives one bragging rights, and allows one to slap something up on the office wall, but it does nothing to prove that something they utter has to be true. Their claims have to be supported by logic and facts. Citing the subjective opinion of being “one of the foremost researchers” gives some credibility, but it is not proof. I can say that having lived nearly four score years, I have a good track record on many things. However, I’m not infallible, nor would I ever try to convince someone I am. When challenged, the last thing I would consider is pulling out my C.V. and waving it around.
That is in contrast to a theorist, who is in new territory every time they present a new theory. Granted, that a theorist has high probability of being right if they have a track record of good forecasts.
BTW, I’m not a ‘theorist’ with a new theory. I am an observer, see e.g.
https://leif.org/research/Stanford-Solar-Obs.pdf
which, BTW, is interesting reading.
Our observational track record now covers successes for four cycles SC21-SC24 and we shall see about SC25 in due course [perhaps 4 years or so].
For Clyde:
it does nothing to prove that something they utter has to be true. Their claims have to be supported by logic and facts.
In my case the prediction [and the estimate of error] is based on observations and the assumption that the polar fields is a proxy for the next cycle [as much theory and physics suggest]. So, as I said: my prediction is just a “further test of the polar field precursor method”. Nobody is talking about ‘proofs’. With each passing correct prediction the support for the assumption grows stronger, to the point [perhaps in a hundred years] where we can accept it as an observational ‘fact’.
Now, in evaluating the likelihood of success, I will maintain that half a century’s study of the issue lends more credence to the prediction than the opinion of arm-chair laymen’s [possible] bias claims. That is why the CV carries weight.
Leif
While you disavow being a theorist, and claim only to be an “observer,” I don’t think that you have thought things through. A bird-watcher who participates in the annual national bird inventory, and submits the counts to the organizing group, is an observer. Anyone who takes observations (whether self-collected or published by others) and tries to make sense of them, through something as simple as a mental model, or tries to predict what future observations will be, requiring at least a supposition or tentative hypothesis, has transitioned from the realm of observation to theory! That is, if there is a purpose to making observations beyond something meaningless like counting grains of sand on a shifting beach, then you are a theorist — whether you realize it or not. However, I think that someone who knows they are acting as a theorist will do a better job because they will have more insight on the appropriate kinds of observations to make. It is likely that someone who is a pure “observer” is in the employ of someone who actually has some curiosity and vision. It is unfortunate that you only consider yourself an observer. You probably have more potential than that.
It is unfortunate that you only consider yourself an observer. You probably have more potential than that.
In my field a ‘theorist’ is one who does not [ever] make observations. One cannot be in this field for more than half a century without “thinking things through”.
If that’s the case Leif, I wish you had been involved in researching ‘renewables’, before they started rolling it out.
Certainly highest period of TSI since the LIA.
Unless you some data showing the RWP had even higher TSI, then you are just dealing nonsense.
Don’t show outdated data and hunt around for links that seem to agree with your bias.
This is what the TSI experts now think TSI was doing:
“This historical TSI reconstruction is my own “unofficial” series using corrections that I think reflect the most realistic and up-to-date estimates of the solar variability over the last 400 years, such as the recent revisions to sunspot-number records”
From Greg’s website: https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
The internal system characteristics I have in mind are the system responses to solar wavelength and particle changes which do appear to affect albedo via cloudiness variations.
So it is the sun.
Svensmark thinks it is all about cloud seeding from more cosmic rays whereas I am of the view that changes in the degree of jet stream meridionality/zonality lead to cloudiness changes.
system responses to solar wavelength and particle changes
What changes, specifically?
Glad you asked:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
What has been happening to ozone above 45km over the poles since 2004 ?
I ask because I haven’t come across anything relating to the issue in recent years.
Light AKA thermal emissions don’t see gravity and thus gravity can only play thru other mechanisms (such as greenhouse gases, clouds etc). I find your whole statement weird. Perhaps you may want to explain what you think happens if Earth was denser and had twice the gravity it currently has and what you think substantively changes. There are problems with the solar system orbitals if that was true but lets assume we balance it up some abstract way so Earth remains where it is.
LdBc,
If Earth had twice the gravity but the same atmospheric mass then the surface temperature would be the same as it is now.
The mass of the atmosphere would be denser at the surface but the atmosphere would be less high so the lapse rate slope would be steeper to compensate and thereby keep the system in hydrostatic equilibrium.
The lapse rate slope marks the point of balance at any given height between radiative and non radiative energy transfers.
Thus conduction would remain highest at the surface but would decline more rapidly with height.
The global warming movement has done huge damage to the environmental movement. People who actually care about the environment should rightly be irked by those pushing ‘global warming’/’climate change’. Michael Shellenberger comes to mind.
I used to tell people I was a Conservationist and that I was strongly involved with the environmental movement. Then Climate Change hijacked all the terms so I run from those labels now.
I helped purchase land for conservation – so that migrating birds would have a place to feed and breed, and duck hunters a place to go to plug some ducks. I helped to purchase land where caves are located to protect bats – before mankind starting building the giant bat-swatters they call wind turbines. This was environmental conservation when it actually meant something.
All the environmental groups I used to support are now more worried about climate change then actually doing anything useful. All my funding (which was never a lot but what I could afford) has been cut off. I no longer donate my time to them. I know a lot of people that feel the same.
We seem to have lost the idea that nature should be part of people’s lives. Aldo Leopold said people would cease to be free when they could no longer wander in the wild places. link That’s in stark contrast with the ‘conservationists’ who think humans should be excluded from the wilderness.
You are so right Bob. They want to lock the gates on National Parks, and bulldoze our rural areas to build wind turbines and industrial solar works.
Holidays for us meant visits to National Parks and country drives, camping with our children and being around nature.
I guess the plan is to keep us locked up indefinitely.
How can they call themselves conservationists while they rape the planet of it’s resources causing immense environmental damage? It is certainly in no way sustainable and it’s all for naught!
If we fail to address environmental issues in a rational and holistic way, the damage we do to the economy will rebound as much, much greater environmental damage in the long run. Economic progress is key to environmental progress. Unfortunately, the Greens are all Lefties who have zero understanding of economics and fail to see that the expansion of the economy is what will save the environment.
He is pretty much spot-on on all accounts IMO. The only point I would have corrected him on is, it is not that we have 3-generations to decarbonize for climate reasons, but we likely have 3 generations to find and build acceptable alternatives to fossil fuels simply because of increasing scarcity by then. The CO2 emissions are a non-issue. The long-term lack of sustainability of recovery at reasonable efforts of extraction are the real issue with fossil fuels.
Agreed.
Nuclear fission is the only existing technology capable of replacing fossil fuels on a large scale. For now, anyhow.
With improvements in battery technology (esp. the “million-mile battery”), electricity from nuclear power could even replace a big part of the fossil fuels used in the transportation sector.
The problem is that if CO2 emissions decline greatly, then CO2 levels will soon do likewise, which will harm agriculture. If CO2 emissions fall to 1/3 the current rate (of about +5 ppmv/year), then atmospheric CO2 concentration will decline to under 370 ppmv. That would be bad.
The cooling effect of such a decline will be slight — perhaps a couple tenths of a degree Celsius. But an 11% decline in atmospheric CO2 level will have a substantial adverse effect on crop yields and drought resistance.
Dave,
We just have to start building a lot of public works projects like hydroelectric dams that require a lot of cement! A properly designed water projects program could move water from the Pacific Northwest across the Coast Range to arid land in Montana, Idaho and Nevada and expand farm land while producing massive amounts of CO2 for all to enjoy!
Yes, cement is the ticket
Here in Canada there is not a squeak made by the government regarding cement based CO2 emissions.
Oh, as long as it’s located in Quebec, then it’s ok.
Important point to mention
Creating cement releases lots of CO2, but the cement reabsorbs that CO2 as it ages.
MarkW
Cement extracts CO2 at the surface contact with the air. That starts immediately. However, the lower the ratio of surface to volume, the longer it will take to reabsorb. Thin-walled buildings will likely equilibrate within their design lifetimes. Massive projects, like dams, are much less likely because the rate will decrease with time.
True. Here’s an article:
https://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-learning/concrete-technology/concrete-design-production/concrete-as-a-carbon-sink
The so called million mile battery, still only delivers a couple hundred miles per charge.
It also only lasts a million miles when pampered with perfect lab conditions. Never too hot or too cold. All charges and discharges follow the perfect laboratory curves. It is never left fully charged for long periods of time. Etc.
David Streeter, someone in authority did put a halt to this nonsense, Donald Trump took the USA out of this insane shambles, sadly that is part of the reason the insane-o leftist trash hate him with such violence.
If you want to see a damned fool Gov. perusing this crap completely against his constituents whishes…look to Morrison from Australia and the NSW State Gov. and vote accordingly. I was a Liberal voter in Aus. until they got rid of Tony Abbott, just as Lord Moncton predicted, but will never vote for this “unrepresentative swill” ever again. State or Fed.
Yesterday I heard briefly that the NSW Gov. are about to ban Gel ball blasters, a toy gun similar to, although much less potent than a paint ball gun. They have tiny little 6 ml water based gel balls which can fire about 20 meters max. and barely make a mark on you when hit on bare skin at point blank range. A child pointed one at a car…and that’s it. The child did not fire it, and even if he did? So bloody what? The disgusting idiot in the car went to the police and our vile nanny state carbuncle in chief is going to destroy an entire industry based on this shocking crime….meanwhile they still bring in Muslims known for terrorist activity and ISIS membership because they are Australian Citizens and also just in the usual immigrant quota, completely against the will of the people…my Dad had a word for these people, it started with an F. He wasn’t wrong.
Yesterday was the day my love for Australia finally failed. I now cannot stand this idiot country and would leave to live in Russia or other countries that value a bit of personal freedom without nanny looking over my shoulder making sure I have all the right documentation when I need to go to the toilet etc. How did this happen? We used to be a nation of real men, now a nation of committee members, soy boys, Karens, little Princesses and robots.
This last week the PM has been speaking about his brilliant plans for Australia’s future and coal did not rate a mention. No Bradfield water scheme, nothing in there to keep our steel or aluminum production who must by now be planning to move to the US if Trump wins, China etc. otherwise. We are finished, these people are idiots. A journo by the name of Andrew Bolt asked the loony left in general to tell him how much difference Australia’s economic suicide by CO2 deprivation will change the planet’s temps? It’s known as the “Bolt Question” and no-one will answer it…and cannot, as you all know the answer is none at all, because even if you take everything they say for granted, the difference is smaller than the margin for error and so therefore immeasurable. Meanwhile we will have the worlds highest power prices going forward, Jesus wept! China adds more capacity to their power grid than Australia’s entire capacity….every two weeks and uses Australian coal to do it.
Australia is in decline and will continue to decline obviously when you look at Morrison’s “vision” for the future…well it is not my vision and I would prefer to live amongst like-minded individuals, Do you know anywhere like that? The old Soviet Bloc countries seem to value freedom and individuality, they are not allowing their countries to be bullied into an immigration disaster, they have beautiful women and real men still….any ideas for a stranger in a strange land?
Bill,
We have the same sort of madness in Canada. The people with their infinite wisdom, voted for a drama teacher with a handsome face, nice hair and a famous (infamous to some) name. Dear leader, elected to a minority government, thinks he has a mandate to remake Canada into a green socialist paradise. He believes the government coffers are bottomless and that green-think will lead us to the promised land. God help us and god help Australia.
You neglected the punchline
Yes, we are all doomed, and yes it will be caused by humans
Too stupid to live, Trudeau’s operating principle
I’m with you on this, Bill. No ideas on a better home, though. This country is getting worse. They are now telling us that we won’t be allowed out of the country until late 2021!
As soon as I get access to my super (government rules preventing me getting hold of my own money), I’m off. I’m fortunate enough to have enough to ensure a reasonable standard of living plus travel, so I’ll just keep on drifting about until I find a sensible place to live. They are fewer and farther between every year.
Did you guys see Mad Max: Road Warrior? It was filmed in 1981, but set in an elusive time (… a few years from now).
It’s like anything is possible now, including civilization slogging its way to entropy.
Did I tell any of you that I also cook?
Great film!
Bollox it was a crap film!
What kept it going was Tina Turner and the music!
It’s great because that’s the world that griff is hoping for. Without the high powered cars of course.
I so feel your pain Bill. I’ve had a few rants on this site myself about the state of government here in Australia.
I think the rot was setting in politically, globally, decades ago. The past decade particularly, in Australia has become progressively worse. We saw a chance of a reprieve when Tony Abbott was elected. He wasn’t given a real chance to sort out the mess that the left had made of the positive financial legacy of the Howard government before them.
We voted for Tony Abbott, he is a good man, he would have done a good job if he wasn’t robbed of his post by Malcolm Turnbull. Abbott’s ousting was orchestrated by the left of this current sitting government and was led by Turnbull. That came back to bite him in the bum, he didn’t want the top job to lead the people. He was arrogant, he enjoyed the power that came with the job and he was full of self importance. He himself was ousted and left kicking and screaming, as opposed to Abbott bowing out gracefully.
We were somewhat relieved to see Scott Morrison take the top job even though he was somewhat of an unknown, he at least seemed to have an interest in ‘the people’. Come election time last year the polls said that the leftist opposition Labor Party, was a shoe-in to win. They started celebrating the day before voting commenced. The major part of their platform was, wait for it, renewable energy. Well, they lost, and Morrison had a convincing win! The leftist MSM, which is almost all of them, went into mourning. Morrison himself seemed surprised.
Morrison himself expressed gratitude to his ‘quiet Australians’. Now, we all assumed that he knew that the overwhelming reason we voted him in was that we wanted absolutely nothing to do with renewables of any kind. We knew that if the entire 25 million population of Australia ceased to exist tomorrow, and even if CO2 really was a problem, our removal from the equation would have no impact on weather or climate anywhere on the globe!
It turns out that it hasn’t clicked with him that the majority of Australians are wise to the fraud of AGW or whatever it’s called these days. Given that this is one of the most important issues of our time, given the immense damage being done economically and environmentally, decision makers at every level of government should be educating themselves thoughouly about the ramifications of their decisions. None of this has been thought through, not here, not anywhere.
The leftist MSM, which as we have established is almost totally leftist has alot to answer for. They are a major marketing machine. They have powerful marketing tools such as Antifa, Extinction Rebellion, Getup, Greta, BLM, Various members of the Royal Family, David Attenborough, and a large number of actors who think that what have to say is important, just because they are famous. We just know it as propaganda. The MSM will not allow the general population to be even given the chance of making a balanced choice.
The climategate emails have outed the fraud, long ago. The MSM should be shouting to the world, that at this point in time they cannot trust current ‘climate science’, it’s little more than buddy science. That we have been lied to, that facts and figures have been altered. That the modeling is only as good as the imput of information and the way it’s applied.
How do you get politicians to even bother to read some of the thousands of articles available that would make it clear that, no you cannot trust ‘consensus ‘science’. They are only giving you what you pay them for, the point of view you’ve been convinced to push.
The renewables plus EV’s route will never save the planet. The planet does not need saving. Even attempting to go down this route 100% will seriously ruin the planet. Waste of resources, waste of human life, destruction of the environment, destroyed economies.
Wake up MSM!!! You more than anyone are responsible for the track you have set the world apon. You are the ‘deniers’ by way of denying the truth. The destruction that will be caused by going down the renewables/EV path will not be pretty. For the sake of your own future generations, as much as ours, bring some balance back to journalism, before it’s too late.
So this means their are still rationale people in Germany? Huh. I thought the rationale ones had all emigrated.
Kind of like the occasional rational person who speaks up in California. You just forget they are there.
A few months ago, Saudi Arabia announced that they had found another large oil field. More recently, a huge oil field off the cost of Africa was revealed….Exxon is on on this one. There are still unexplored sites for oil and gas. Venezuela is currently mostly off line at this time. Nuclear power is not standing still…the future looks bright with many different types of reactors being worked on.
“we have in fact three generations time” So, he does not reject socialism, he just wants to change the time scale for implementing it. Got it.
Vielleicht Herr Professor Vahrenholt ist, oops! Perhaps Professor Vahrenholt is thinking that we have three generations, or sixty years, before the globe drops into an extended cooling cycle and we will need all the traditional energy sources to be maximized to prevent massive hunger and starvation!
Regardless, the best policy is to develop our US nuclear industry and help poor and moderate income nations build low cost, clean coal and natural gas power plants as they create infrastructure and transition up the ladder of prosperity! The racist and colonialist thinking of GangGreen needs to be roundly criticized and rejected for the preservation of human rights and liberty!
Sadly, none of this will be possible without the re-election of President Trump! If the DemoKKKrats are given another chance to “fundamentally change” America, the world may not recover for millennia! Their plan to turn the US into a one party, socialist state would allow the global elites free rein to impose a new feudalism on the Western world, with China allowed to rule over Australia, New Zealand and the rest of Eastern Asia!
Typically, authoritarian regimes bring about their own demise; like the Russians lasting almost four generations from Revolution to the Wall falling! But if the big tech tyrants are able win the US vote by suppressing the populist movement that swept Trump into the White House, they will then be able to finish building the Matrix they are constructing with social media, fake news and the state run indoctrination system that is our “modern” school system!
Big tech has already shown they are more willing to work with the ChiComs than the US military; I just wonder how they will feel when, sometime during the Kamala Harris presidency, North Korea starts lobbing missiles into Commifornia!
Very proud to have Dr. Vahrenholt in our film “GLOBAL WARNING” http://www.globalwarningfilm.com
Here’s a short clip from the film with Dr. Vahrenholt to complement the article for those interested
https://youtu.be/bmlPhL7qukA
All the points Vahrenholt makes are irrefutable facts that will eventually disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis.
Unfortunately, “Truth is the daughter of time”, so during this age of Leftists’ insane anti-science and CAGW propaganda hype, billions of people will have to greatly suffer the economic and social devastation from their’ failed and irrational policies to address a mythical crisis.
My hope is that once the imminent global cooling occurs when the PDO and AMO ocean cycles enter their respective 30-year cool cycles, the CAGW hoax will eventually be tossed in the trash heap of failed ideas.
Another scenario is that Western nations will be forced to switch to cheap and safe LFTR power when China adopts this technology in about 10 years and starts producing grid-level power at $0.03/kWh as opposed to the West’s wind/solar grid @ur momisugly $0.30/kWh…
Either scenario is fine with me.