Via Axios: Gina McCarthy, President Biden’s top domestic climate adviser, said tech companies should do more to prevent the spread of inaccurate information about climate change and clean energy.
McCarthy: “The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation.”
McCarthy said the problem of disinformation has shifted from disputing the reality of climate change to inaccurate claims about the feasibility and benefits of moving away from fossil fuels.
McCarthy on how the definition of alleged climate “misinformation” has shifted to climate skeptics challenging whether climate “solutions” actually impact the climate. They are now “seeding, basically, doubt about the costs associated with that and whether they work or not.”
By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot June 10, 2022 8:18 AM
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/09/climate-gina-mccarthy-misinformation
By Ben Geman,
Gina McCarthy, President Biden’s top domestic climate adviser, said tech companies should do more to prevent the spread of inaccurate information about climate change and clean energy.
Driving the news: “The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation,” she told Axios’ Alexi McCammond at a virtual event that aired Thursday.
- “We need the tech companies to really jump in,” McCarthy said.
The big picture: McCarthy said that overall, the problem of disinformation has shifted from disputing the reality of climate change to inaccurate claims about the feasibility and benefits of moving away from fossil fuels.
- “Now it has moved from denial, but the dark money is still there. The fossil fuel companies are still basically trying their best to make sure that people don’t understand the challenge of climate,” she said.
- “Now, the challenge really is, how do we accelerate the solutions we have available to us, the technology improvements that we’ve seen that are most cost-effective, in fact cost-competitive with fossil fuels.”
- “And what the industry is now doing is seeding, basically, doubt about the costs associated with that and whether they work or not.”
Catch up fast: Major platforms including Facebook, Google and YouTube have unveiled new efforts in recent years to attempt to deter circulation and steer users to accurate information.
Twitter said in April that it’s toughening efforts to prevent “misleading advertisements” that “contradict the scientific consensus on climate change.”
#
Biden aide Climate czar Gina McCarthy prods tech companies to censor / deplatform opposition to her climate policy.
New definition of climate disinformation:
“inaccurate claims about the feasibility and benefits of moving away from fossil fuels”https://t.co/umn1Ql61OU
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) June 9, 2022
Gina McCarthy’s academic degrees look so much like a parody I will not give them. She may have never actually had one rigorous course, ever.
And that is what Obama and Biden consider qualified.
Lack of any qualifications makes her the ideal climate czar. Her mind is completely unaffected by facts. People who are absolutely certain about anything are ideologues. They are most dangerous of all.
And they usually have lots of qualifications. Klaus Schwab has 4. It’s experience that only matters as that is the result of that acquired knowledge acquired from books etc. being tested and put into practice in the real world.
Much like her brother, .. Charlie !!!
More like her cousin, mortimer snerd.
Sorry, we can’t leave it there. From her biographical sketch:
“Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology, 1976 from the University of Massachusetts Boston. She received a Masters of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy in 1981 from Tufts University.”
Born in Boston, she never could get out of the city to learn about the rest of the world. Soft liberal arts undergraduate degree. Word-salad interdisciplinary masters degree (a lot to cram into only a 32-hour degree program).
Married to a floral salesman and currently paid about $180,000/yr, she has “somehow” amassed a net worth of $350 million in a public sector career. Hmm. So who is getting a payoff to spout mis/dis-information?
Pflashgordon,
Wondering how Gina McCarty ” ‘somehow’ amassed a net worth of $350 million in a public sector career”?
I say look no further that her previous stint as Administrator of the EPA from 2013 to 2017 under U.S. President Barack Obama.
I understand that the money flowed quite freely back then.
Ooops . . . mea culpa . . . my accidental misspelling: should have been “McCarthy”, not “McCarty”.
To say nothing of her time as the Administrator of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
My favorite Gina story is about her subordinate, John Beale and his service with both the EPA and CIA.
I can only assume she was overpaid by Apple, during her “treading water” period there.
Big Oil monopolies, who. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil monopoly, now Exxon Mobil and Chevron. And British queen’s British Petroleum (BP) and the other “royal” Royal Dutch Shell.
Look at their massive profits and jump in stock price.
But of course bad Putin (where government actually owns majority of oil companies shares and gives parts of profits to people via very low 12% tax). Bad bad Putin and Russia, can’t have peons share oil profits.
She has the degrees, so she is an “enlightened leader”. Once that status has been achieved she may not be questioned.
More green mafia 1984 crap. Green is mean. Let’s Go Brandon.
How Was This Missed?
Hugh victory for scientific truth, and empirical proof for scientific fraud…
The revised Second Law of Thermodynamics, where ‘back radiation’ (the foundation upon which ‘climate change’ stands) is present in the Earth’s Energy Budget…
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
…and missing is the ‘back radiation’ for the incoming radiation (77.1 Wm2) that’s directly absorbed by the atmosphere. Opps!
The following NASA graph of the ‘Earth’s Energy Budget’ affirms the Second Law of Thermodynamics* before that law was updated…
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/62319main_ICS_Energy.pdf
————————
* The reason NASA couldn’t have ‘back radiation’ for that 77.1Wm2 is because any ‘back radiation’ would constitute Sunlight being emitted downwards by the atmosphere. In other words, planets would also be a source of incoming – downwards – Sunlight without the need for an exothermic event (e.g., lightening, vegetation fires, and burning a candle). Stars and other hot bodies would have to share their monopoly on creating such Sunlight!
Let’s Explain…
The 77.1 Wm2 absorbed by the atmosphere is UV radiation. When the electrons that absorb that radiation return to their normal energy levels by emitting the absorbed radiation, a portion of the energy is lost in the process, whereby the energy emitted is now less than that absorbed. In this particular scenario, the energy emitted would be Sunlight, because Sunlight is the next lower energy level on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Who is Hugh Victory?
“Who is Hugh Victory?”
Unlike you, he’s not a self-identified Marxist on the thread whose non-shocked response to NASA’s blunder confirms that only Marxists navigate Watts Up With That, regurgitating their prepared scripts.
Hugh Victory is the most obvious symptom of illiteracy. The rest of your posts are really just reinforcing the obvious.
“Hugh Victory is the most obvious symptom of illiteracy. The rest of your posts are really just reinforcing the obvious.”
Another Marxist on the thread self-identifies by non-shocked response to the ‘back radiation’ gaffe illustrated with the Earth’s Energy Budget!
I’m getting the impression that Dean is just another sock puppet for Joe.
“I’m getting the impression that Dean is just another sock puppet for Joe.”
Another non-shocked reply from a self-identified Marxist on the thread!
Wow! You’re like one of those TV psychics! You can just make shit up and think that people will believe you! Bravo!
“Wow! You’re like one of those TV psychics! You can just make shit up and think that people will believe you! Bravo!”
Watts up with Watts Up With That? Why are only Marxist sociopaths on the thread?
It would seem this researcher made two discoveries, the second being that Watts Up With That is a Marxist ‘false opposition’ medium.
“the second being that Watts Up With That is a Marxist ‘false opposition’ medium.”
You apparently do not know the definition of a Marxist.
People at WUWT get accused of a lot of things by trolls but marxism is not usually one of them.
Your record is skipping.
He has a friend Hugh Janus.
James Bull
Dean,
Regarding your sixth paragraph in your post, please tell me when the Second Law of Thermodynamics was last “updated”? I certainly missed that.
And, BTW, it is a known fact that Earth receives sunlight (as in reflected sunlight), and its associated radiation energy, directly from the Moon . . . such is known as moonlight.
(ref: https://www.livescience.com/45979-why-does-the-moon-shine.html )
This is an example of a planetary-like body radiating energy downward on Earth.
So, bottom line, you asked “How Was This Missed?” Answer: It wasn’t missed, your claim of “empirical proof for scientific fraud” was ignored.
“Regarding your sixth paragraph in your post, please tell me when the Second Law of Thermodynamics was last “updated”? I certainly missed that.”
We all missed that, is the point. When I went to high school, there was no such thing as ‘back radiation’, of course, where this graph was presented showing Earth’s Energy Budget…
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/62319main_ICS_Energy.pdf
As George Orwell warned us, the Ministry of Truth is erasing our past in order to promote the Party’s ‘science’, the objective being the destruction of the West’s economies.
“And, BTW, it is a known fact that Earth receives sunlight (as in reflected sunlight), and its associated radiation energy, directly from the Moon . . . such is known as moonlight.”
You didn’t read my post carefully. I already covered examples where a planet will emit light…
“In other words, planets would also be a source of incoming – downwards – Sunlight without the need for an exothermic event (e.g., lightening, vegetation fires, and burning a candle).”
That being clarified, Moonlight is a reflection of Sunlight, it doesn’t create Sunlight. Only a star, or other such hot body can create Sunlight, unless an exothermic reaction takes place on the planet.
“So, bottom line, you asked “How Was This Missed?” Answer: It wasn’t missed, your claim of “empirical proof for scientific fraud” was ignored.”
The fact that you too conspired to mention not one word regarding the absence of ‘back radiation’ on the updated Earth’s Energy Budget graph’s magnitude of 77.1 Wm2, identifies another Marxist on the thread.
“Back radiation” is a relative term . . . one man’s back radiation is another man’s “forward radiation”.
In physical reality, there is just radiation from a given body at a temperature above absolute zero, without any reference to a secondary body. Radiation can be exchanged between two bodies even if they are at the same temperature.
With respect to atmospheric greenhouse gases radiating photons of energy after having absorbed LWIR photons emitted by Earth’s surface, this is an extremely rare event relatively. Any greenhouse gas molecule has a 10^6 to 10^9 greater probability of losing that absorbed energy via collisional energy exchange with nitrogen or oxygen molecule than it does via emitting a photon.
BTW, please tell me with whom I “conspired” to not mention blah-blah-blah. I would like to know. I would especially like to know how Marxist philosophy factors into discussing radiation physics . . . is there an ongoing class struggle between bourgeoisie capitalistic physicists and proletariat working-class physicists?
Yes. The moon shines. This has been well known by the Russians…
McCarthy: “The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation.”
**************
Orwellian Big Brother tolerates no dissent. Only one party line is permitted.
Projecting what she herself is doing.
Given that she and the rest of the D.C. establishment are the biggest purveyors of “disinformation”, they should all be censored!
Exactly,
There are no “technology improvements that are … cost-competitive with fossil fuels.”
None.
By definition, if it’s already cost competitive, it doesn’t have to be pushed by anyone. Companies will switch on their own.
Nor are there any “solutions,” because (1) there isn’t an actual “problem;” and (2) because if the “problem” they allude to actually existed, their proposed “solutions” wouldn’t do a damn thing about it.
Why would Tech Companies “allow” anyone anything? I don’t recall that for profit businesses can decide who can and cannot use their services or products based on their opinions.
The mere fact that anyone appointed to serve in a government regulatory capacity would make such a suggestion is sufficient grounds for resignation.
Doonman if you don’t recall then you probably didn’t carefully read the terms and conditions of various platforms that you signed on to. Even here posts are moderated and the website is all the better for it.
Yes, but this web site is not being pressured by a government agency to only post certain content. To me, what McCarthy is doing violates the principle of free speech.
What McCarthy is doing is totalitarian.
The Democrats, including McCarthy, want to suppress any oppostion to themselves over the climate change issue and over every other issue.
This is part of the radical Democrat attempt to take over the United States. They are not playing games, they are dead serious about taking away the power of the people and giving it to themselves in perpetuity.
The Democrats want to turn the United States into a radical Democrat Dictarship and they are well on their way to doing so.
The upcoming November elections are make or break for our individual freedoms. Democrats want to take away your freedoms. Don’t put Democrats in positions of power. Even good local Democrats because the good Democrats have to vote with the Bad Democrats so being a good Democrat doesn’t help the situation from the viewpoint of a person’s personal freedoms because Nancy Pelosi still gets her evil way.
Vote the Democrats out of power. We see what happens when they are in power: Chaos ensues. We can’t stand much more of this March to Socialism/Totalitarianism.
All justified by demonizing CO2 unfairly and inaccurately. This is the vehichle Biden is using to destroy the U.S. economy. High gasoline prices mean high prices for everything, and Biden refuses to do anything to lower the costs. Biden likes it the way it is. He wants to force people to toe the Biden line.
I heard a report the other day that Americans are currently spending $700 million more dollars per day on gasoline than they were spending a year ago. A family of four is spending $457 dollars more per month than they were a year ago because of Biden inflation, caused by high fuel prices, caused by Joe Biden’s anti-hydrocarbon agenda. Families living paycheck to paycheck are going to have a hard time making up for those extra expenses. Biden doesn’t care.
Biden has it easy. There’s no politician on either side who is willing to challenge the basic assumption that CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s climate. Except Trump and maybe a handful of others. So Biden and his minions can operate as though climate change is a real issue without challenge. And doing so with be the death of the United States as we know it.
Our only hope is that the temperatures continue to cool. This is the only thing that will break the spell and exonerate CO2 as the bad guy.
Let’s Go Brandon!
Whew. Saved me the trouble of having to say this.
“To me, what McCarthy is doing violates the principle of free speech.”
Not only is McCarthy’s proposed action a direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution (that is, the first of the listed “Bill of Rights”), it fails to define who or what group will have ultimate authority for declaring which statement(s) made by persons via any media will be judged as being “information” versus those judged as being “disinformation”.
As Julius Caesar is reported to have asked long ago:
“What is truth?”
And, of course, science is filled with examples of “information” (as of a certain time) being later established as “misinformation” based upon humanity’s increase in knowledge over time. As some of the most obvious examples of this:
1) The “Big Bang” theory of the creation of the universe replacing the former steady state theory of the universe.
2) The theories of special and general relativity replacing Newton’s theories of dynamics, light and gravity under certain conditions
3) Quantum mechanics replacing deterministic physics at relatively small scale
4) Germ theory replacing miasma theory by the mid-19th century
5) The theories of continental drift and plate tectonics replacing the scientific postulate that the continent’s current shapes and distributions had existed since primordial times.
6) The new theories of “dark matter” and “dark energy” now being necessary to explain the measured motions of galaxies and rates of expansion of the universe (i.e., both now accounting for ~95% of the “known” universe, compared to previous scientific belief that we could observe ~100% of the universe with our known collection of science instruments).
“Big Bang Theory:”
Everything came from nothing.
We have to get to work replacing that one, now.
As you are well aware, WUWT, with the exception of a few well defined subjects, does not moderate for content, only for behavior.
Izaak Walton:
The wording or text of “terms of service” can frequently be understand or interpreted in different ways from person to person. It is is subjective thing, not an objective truth. The way that the text of “terms of service” are interpreted or understood could largely depend on one’s own preconceived belief systems.
What the social media platforms consider “disinformation” in their own eyes might easily not be in the eyes of others. Again, it is all subjective based on one’s belief systems. Thus, “terms of service” can easily become a smokescreen or pretext for suppression of viewpoints which the social media platforms do not like.
Suppression of free speech by any other name is still suppression of free speech. Philosophically speaking, one might argue that there is no such thing as objective truth.
CD,
Where do you draw the line between business decisions and “suppression of free speech”? Publishers do not have to print every book that is submitted to them, newspapers do have print every letter to the editor that gets submitted and that is not considered suppression of free speech. Similarly websites or social media platforms do not have to post your comments and have the right to do so for whatever reasons they like.
“Where do you draw the line between business decisions and “suppression of free speech”? ”
That Izaak is a question which I would think you would be intelligent enough to answer yourself.
Business decisions are ones that affect the sales of a firm’s products and services and its fiscal bottom line. Suppression of speech is an action that prevents one’s voice from being heard in the debate over an issue. If and when businesses assert control over the speech of their employees, it is usually during business hours and for reasons that involve the well-being of the company. it is not usually purely political.
“Publishers do not have to print every book that is submitted to them, newspapers do have print every letter to the editor that gets submitted and that is not considered suppression of free speech.”
It is fairly common knowledge today that publishers (especially the scientific journals, news magazines and newspapers) are owned and controlled by those whose expect their own party line on the issues (usually political ones) to be the only ones making it to print or on their website. It’s called bias Izaak. It represents the abandonment of journalistic standards and principles, and you can’t tell me it does not represent an attempt at the suppression of free speech. And yes, it is happening on both sides of the political spectrum. In my view, the abandonment of journalist principles precludes these outlets from being entitled to the respect of the American people. They should consider themselves fortunate that they stay in business at all.
Correct me if I am wrong here Izaak, but I believe social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook get most or all of their revenue from advertisers on their platforms. This is why Elon Musk has an issue with the number of accounts on Twitter that are not actually humans (I believe they are called bots). He is concerned about what Twitter’s advertisers are getting for their money.
This is why these social media platforms probably don’t give a hoot about the speech rights of the individual — it doesn’t earn them any money. They have little or no reason to care. They can consider themselves fortunate that the great masses who use these platforms are not interested enough in human rights to stand up to what is happening with them.
Just like in Orwell’s novel “1984” Izaak, it’s all about thought control — is one of the bases for political power. This is one of the reasons I do not use these platforms. If enough of us stop caring about human rights, we start down a road paved with oppression. I don’t know about you Izaak, but I for one do not care to go down that road.
CD,
There is a difference between bias and suppression of free speech that you do not want to acknowledge.Newspapers have a well established first amendment right not to print material that they disagree with. The supreme court stated in 1974 that:
“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.” (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241)
The same is true of social media platforms–they do not have to post material that they don’t want to. Forcing them to publish material violates their first amendment rights. Not only that when someone agrees to the terms and conditions of such platforms they give the companies the right to do what they like with material posted.
Izaak:
You didn’t get the gist of what I was saying, did you? I never suggested that private sector entities should be forced to post, print or publish anything.
With regard to the press, I was talking about the press VOLUNTARILY respecting the standards and principles of journalism, especially where the journalist is supposed to be a neutral, disinterested third party observer. That is the difference between being a journalist and just masquerading as one. Must of us are not ignorant enough that we can’t tell the difference.
Regarding social media, Elon Musk already gets it. He has already stated that he will lift the veil of content control on Twitter if and when he takes it over. Why? I hope it is because he respects free speech and all human rights. If he follows through with this promise, I will applaud him.
One more time Izaak: My whole argument here is about EVERYBODY respecting free speech and all human rights, regardless of whether it is in govt or the private sector. Making excuses to shrug off the lack of that respect is potentially dangerous thinking.
Izaak, spare me a repeat of what you said in your first two comments. Again, I was not talking about forcing the private sector entities to do anything. Do me a favor and read the last paragraph in my comment above again. Did you read it the first time?
CD,
I am afraid that you are putting way too much hope in Elon Musk. He has stated that Twitter will allow free speech only as far as the laws of each country allows. Which is significantly more restrictive in many countries than Twitter’s current policy. See
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-free-speech-twitter-global-censorship/
Also given his recent fuss about bots it would seem that Elon Musk is looking for a way to back out of the deal. Nobody can seriously believe that he was unaware of the problem of bots before he said he would buy Twitter or if he was then he is a bigger fool than he appears. Rather he has realised that he has bitten off more than he can chew and is looking for a way out.
And as for respecting human rights the question would be which ones? In the EU you have the right to privacy and to be forgotten which contradict the right to free speech since the courts can compel google and other search engines to take down search results. While in the US the supreme court has just ruled that border patrol agents can’t be sued if they violate your human rights.
Izaak:
Don’t tell me, let me guess. The ones who you see being silenced are the ones you don’t agree with anyway. As long as the thought-criminals (labelled disseminators of “disinformation’) are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, you don’t care. Isn’t that right?
I am referring here to human rights in the U.S. since I am American. What Europe does with universally understood human rights is its business. The sovereignty of nations should be respected. The best we can do in America is object when they are violated.
Why would any freedom-loving person tolerate the selective cherry-picking of human rights Izaak? Who picks the ones to respect and the ones to ignore Izaak? You? Biden? Gina McCarthy? Constitutions exist for a reason.
People who think like you are the ones who can end up living under dictatorships when you shrug off human rights the way you do. That is always a good way to get the “wrong” people (the thought-criminals) locked up, isn’t it?
I’m through with you Izaak. Good-bye.
Non-sequitor. Individuals are the ones posting, not the social media companies. Censorship to squash free speech is not the same as what you’re referring to.
However, when private news or media companies join with the government to decide what is and is not acceptable…
WUWT allows you to post your lies and garbage freely.
Did she ever name the specific individuals? Did she specify the allegedly false and misleading information they are supposedly purveying?
Nah, best to leave it vague. That way we can always be at war with east asia even when that wasn’t the case last week – that is what the memory hole is for!
I am surprised she didn’t mention Anthony !
I am sure this site is on the list.
It appears to be an unwritten rule that when you engage in disinformation and propagandizing, you never disclose those to whom you are referring as sources, if any.
The climate propaganda that the U.N. and its secretary-general are putting out is widely believed, and they are the at least part of the basis for attempting to legitimize the climate scare. There is really nothing to stop the U.N. from being corrupt.
I always thought the U.N. was created to prevent war, but that no longer appears to be the case.
The United Nations exists today to gain as much power as possible. That’s what bureaucrats do. Everything else is secondary.
At first glance, it would seem that the “Tech Companies” Gina is referring to usually have key assets who are good at systems analysis and concept critical evaluation. So, unless the pressure is purely political, and not based on valid modeling, the “Tech Companies” will have to ignore their modeling gurus and staff-mathematicians and “go with the politics” on this one. If I were a “Tech Company” this would make my (collective) head hurt.
Big Tech = Google (owns ScrewTube), Fakebook, Twitter, …- the titans of political censoring.
Fakebook is Meta, but may as well be Google politically.
Climate “Czar”? I thought foreign titles weren’t allowed in the US?
Obama had a whole gang of “czars” surrounding him. It’s more comforting for Biden to have czars than “advisors”.
But… czars… that’s Russian… and that means “muhh Russia! Russia! Russia!”
Brandon is a Putin stooge! When will the Dims catch on?
This is a clear example of Biden’s Imperial pretensions.
A Czar is Russian royalty, period.
“Czar” is also an appropriated term used by the MSM for those in the US government who don’t require confirmation hearings. That should tell you all you need to know.
Cronies is actually a much better descriptive term to use as that is what they are. That’s why there are so many of them these days.
So they don’t want anyone putting up realistic estimates that would undercut their overly simplistic “guesstimates” or palms sold to the public. Don’t you dare post your information more than once!
Suggestion for mccarthy. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Didn’t she announce that she was leaving?
More “if you disagree with me then you’re not only wrong, but cancelled as well”. People are getting wise to this attempt at framing the narrative
Reagan got around a lot of the MSM bias by by going directly to the viewers via Presidential Addresses.
Trump did it via social media before they started to censor opposing opinions.
Now Gina wants Big Tech to step up the censorship.
Ok. I’m always up for a challenge. Solar panels don’t produce electricity at night. Wind turbines don’t produce electricity on calm days.
Ban that McCarthy, you and your fake truth makers.
It is worse than that. They have a range of wind speeds that they can operate with. Too slow and they can’t produce, too high and they have to be shut down to prevent damage. They are Goldilocks machines.
At the Wild Horse Wind Facility east of Ellensburg WA, the wind turbines
produce energy in winds ranging from 9 to 56 mph.
And what is the yearly, by the hour, distribution for that range? Also, what is the output versus wind speed? Is it 100% at all times?
East of Ellensburg lies the Columbia River and the 31 hydroelectric dams of the Bonneville Power Admin which produce massive amounts of electricity 24-7-365. In comparison the unreliable windmills are an expensive and useless joke.
And furthermore, the stupid windmills have no effect on “climate change”. None, zero, nada. And that glaring truth is exactly what Traitor Joe and his cabal wish to censor, like this country was some sort of fascist 3rd world dictatorship with Thought Police.
Blow it out your czarina Gina. You’re channeling Adolf again.
Turbines do affect climate change! They slow down the wind causing the area to warm, adding to the climate catastrophe!!😮 We’ll have to add more wind turbines! Oh no the wind slowed down more – more wind turbines…
That’s actually how the climate unengineers think, hey, if the wind does blow enough or its dark just build MORE.
They don’t get 0 + 0 = 0
Yes that’s an exaggeration, but you can’t build a reliable, efficient, cost effective, sustainable, resource-use responsible grid using sources that vary so much, as much as wind and solar do.
If you love solar so much, then it’s only going to be realistic as a space based solar power satellite, or lighting up your garden.
If you love wind, then it’s only going to make sense in some remote area where the cost of hauling fuel there every month is worth more than the fuel, and even then one still has to keep the diesel engines fueled and maintained for the days or weeks of low wind.
But for the vast majority of cases modern clean burning fossil fuel plants will be the way to go (and I’m trained as a nuclear engineer and love the tech).
Wow, even a wind that’s twice as fast as walking is not enough for a turbine. And they have to apply the brakes at less than highway speeds, to make sure the gearbox doesn’t catch fire, or the props don’t break off and kill someone.
Nice, PCman.
John H. just reported the ‘Goldilocks’ numbers for one location without comment. He lives up there**. He knows the specs for those turbines. I certainly don’t.
You provided very good analogues for the operating limits that pretty much everyone can visualize. 👍
–
I was surprised at the 56 mph. I am recalling turbine models from a few years back that have lower cutoff wind speeds. Someone may be familiar with those and have the numbers off the top of their head; 40 mph maybe?
–
–
**John H. is a long timer here. If I can remember where he has mentioned he lives, I’m sure that there are many others who recall that, too. I couldn’t figure why the downvotes for a report from “our man on the scene” when no one else was providing any actual ‘Goldilocks’ numbers.
HR
Believe I have seen 45 mph talked about – most likely here [tho possibly elsewhere].
I have no knowledge of my own, please note, on that subject; but a tolerable memory – for a few more months or years, I trust!
Auto
Thanks, Auto. I was surprised when John posted 56mph for the units in his area.
That’s two of us that remember 40-something as a shutoff speed.
In my area of the Midwest U.S, we might get winds of 56+ mph maybe, just maybe a half-dozen times per year.
But the low cutoff speed would be hit easily 1/3 of the days of the year, perhaps more if you get to add up the half-days of low wind that doesn’t pick up any speed until the afternoon.
The various sources I’ve accessed indicate max windspeeds in the mid-50s mph range. Its related to the maximum amount of automatic feathering the blades can flex before they exceed the gearbox limits keeping electric production at 60 Hz.
Thanks, Dave. 👍
Breezy in the UK over the last couple of days so turbines are about at their Maximum capacity, around 36% of total electricity needs, so all good.
The only problem is for the last two weeks they have been around 6% of capacity because the wind wasn’t blowing.
How does a society operate with variables like that?
Is hibernation a climate change policy?
With no technology and far fewer people of course.
That sounds about right, if slightly optimistic. So how often are wind speeds above or below these velocities?
Misinformation and Disinformation can be extremely difficult to detect. Most “fact-checkers” seem to start by asking themselves if they like a particular piece of information. If yes, it gets a free pass. If no, it is examined in ever increasing detail until some flaw can be found and exaggerated to make it sound like a fatal flaw. If they can’t find a flaw, then instead they find an ‘expert’ who will state that it is flawed. Failing that, they can simply state that it goes against accepted facts, or that not every part of it can be proved to be correct. Snopes are past masters at the latter, often finding flawless information only “partially correct”, in a way that makes it sound incorrect.
Where is the hard evidence for that claim?
Schift’s underwear drawer along with all the other evidence he claims to have.
Sounds like a re-hashing of the “Exxon Knew” lie.
Shorter McCarthy: The BS I’m shoveling can’t stand up under a single moment’s critical examination, therefore those who dispute the obvious lies I tell every day need to be censored. We used to call those who want to censor their political opponents (or jail them, right Brandon?) un-American. I think that still applies.
Eventually there will be a National Hall of Shame for the most egregious members of the Climate Cult. Climate Czar Mccarthy is full of disinformation, elitist schist, and dictatorial attitude. She will have a prominent place in that Hall.
It better be a very large Hall.
It should have no electricity or heat – so people can appreciate what those loons wanted to shove down the world’s throat.
IMO if you feel you have to censor or ban opposing view points to your position, then you have already lost the argument. This is a position of weakness.
And there’s the old “blame the oil companies” trope….do these wanna be despots ever think to ask the average person on the street if they would be OK with sitting in the dark and cold and going hungry?!?
For the zealots, immiserating “the masses” is a bigger draw than a place at the trough.
McCarthy is a bad person.
The new McCarthyism…
At least the original McCarthy was right about what he was campaigning about.
Gina’s climate is just one of several areas in FJB’s total censorship program.
She’ll be helped by a former WEF fellow (Klaus Schwab’s gang).
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05/27/biden-climate-officer-is-wef-alum/
Sens Grassley & Hawley have a lot of questions for Mayorkas concerning the
“Ministry of Truth’s” censorship over vaccines, masks, immigration,
domestic terrorists & the 2020 election.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/09/whistleblower-docs-dhss-disinfo-board-was-poised-to-crack-down-on-information-questioning-vaccines-masks-and-validity-of-2020-election/
FBI whistleblower- Brandon’s Chief Persecutor Garland used FJB’s “Stasi” to target
school children’s parents.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2022/05/12/smoking-gun-new-whistleblower-information-shows-fbi-used-terrorism-tools-to-target-concerned-parents-n2607114
FBI whistleblower- firing EE’s participating in legal First Amendment
protected activities on Jan 6.
https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1522594775957913606
FBI whistleblower- targeting James O’Keefe & Project Veritas.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/11/fbi-whistleblower-the-direction-of-the-bureau-troubles-a-vast-majority-of-the-agents/
November mid -terms can’t come soon enough.
Don’t mention unreliables or storage as these are impure thoughts and foster doubt and division. The new buzzword is fortification-
New tools to fortify the future power system | AEMC
Commonly known as circling the wagons when the climate settlers are surrounded by trouble.
Gina McCarthy thinks wind, solar and batteries are the ‘answers and solutions’ to what she calls an ‘existential threat’.
There is no developed country in the world where wind, solar and batteries supply more than ~10% of the total primary energy consumption because it is impossible.
Along with her fellow Massachusetts-dweller John Kerry Gina McCarthy is very stupid, there must be something in the water up there.
I don’t doubt your sentiment but your third word is likely very generous.
“Gina McCarthy, President Biden’s top domestic climate adviser, said tech companies should do more to prevent the spread of inaccurate information about climate change and clean energy.”
Totally agree. No leftists should be allowed to spread any of their climate disinformation, which is pretty much all they have.
The problem is who determines a claim is inaccurate or disinformation?
Will false claims by the fact checker have serious consequences? If not, this is worthless.
Am I no longer allowed to state the obvious
• Solar – no sun, no electricity; heavy cloud, reductiion of down to 10%; night, no electricty
• Wind – no wind, no electricity; gale force – shut down to prevent damage – no electricity
• Intermittent sources like sun and wind require duplication of electricity generation – meaning fossil fuels to produce the equivalent to the shortfall plus all the equipment that also needs constant maintenance.
• Should a cost benefit analysis of each renewable compared to each fossil fuel not be the final determiner of what we use?
“The problem is who determines a claim is inaccurate or disinformation?”
Well, that’s what science was supposed to be for…
Jeff Alberts
June 11, 2022 8:55 am
“The problem is who determines a claim is inaccurate or disinformation?”
Well, that’s what science was supposed to be for…
I guess, in this Brave New World, it IS what Political Science is for.
Auto.
Increasing concerned at the apparent descent into a new Dark Age.
Possibly made ‘more prolonged by the perverted lights of new science’
– with apologies to the shade of Winston Churchill.
Correction please to the following:
Catch up fast: Major platforms including Facebook, Google and YouTube have unveiled new efforts in recent years to attempt to deter circulation and steer users to accurate information.
Twitter said in April that it’s toughening efforts to prevent “misleading advertisements” that “contradict the scientific consensus on climate change.”
This should read:
Catch up fast: Major platforms including Facebook, Google and YouTube have unveiled new efforts in recent years to attempt to deter circulation and steer users to “accurate” information.
Twitter said in April that it’s toughening efforts to prevent “misleading advertisements” that “contradict the “scientific” consensus on climate change.”
Some “cherry-picked” quotes from the latest (AR6) reports about the proposed “solutions” the IPCC has reached “consensus” on for the specific issue of “climate change”.
– – – – –
From the WG-II (“Adaptation”) report, in the “Executive Summary” for Chapter 1 (“Point of Departure and Key Concepts”).
On page 1-4 :
On page 1-6 :
Note that nowhere, in any AR6 report, is it specified who, exactly, gets to define those “intolerable” levels which will be used to justify the “forced transformation(s)” evoked here, and those “societal goals” are fuzzy at best.
In section 1.4.2.1 (“Adaptation Process and Expanding the Solution Space”), straddling pages 1-53 and 1-54 :
A statement I can actually agree with.
The IPCC does not “fully engage” with those particular questions about the “solutions” being put forward to enact the “policy goals” of their “decision-makers”.
They just get “Climate Czars” to classify them as “disinformation” instead, and prevent them from being asked in the first place.
– – – – –
From the Technical Summary of the WG-III (“Mitigation”) report, on page TS-67 :
A statement to warm the cockles of the “heart” (presence TBC …) of the typical “Davos man” … excuse me, I mean to type “Davos person”.
NB : Any “Davos (swamp) creature” references will be instantly, and ruthlessly, suppressed on Twitter (+ Facebook + Instagram + …) as “mis- / dis-information”.
I have a little green energy question, maybe one of our enthusiastic supporters of the ‘Green energy’ revolution can answer it for me.
If as an increasing number of big political spokespersons keep telling us, Green energy is now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. Why do we still subsidise Green energy and why do we spend and send an increasing amount of tax payer’s money to the green energy suppliers every year?
If the energy being supplied is so competitive where is all of our tax money going?
You will never get an answer to that question. Never.
I hear charging up an electric vehicle is about as expensive as buying gasoline. Does that sound right, at current electricity rates? Do the public charging stations charge a higher rate?
How can you take the climate activists seriously when they continue to promote the myth that windmills, solar panels, etc are energy intensive enough to provide the necessary energy to maintain modern civilization as it stands, let alone enough to meet the needs of an expanding world economy and third world population growth ? Then there is the seldom mentioned fact that much of the “green” renewable infrastructure is currently produced in China, a country that continues to increase its use of fossil fuels, thus reducing so called climate “progress” to an obvious shell game, and a boon to the Chinese economy, at the rest of the world’s expense.
When I hear an advocacy for more research into safer and more efficient nuclear energy with its ability to provide the density of energy production the world will need, then and only then will I take the the climate change ideology as anything more than a Quixotic crusade.
And then ONLY as respects electricity generation. Nuclear won’t heat homes or power transport unless they can deliver miniaturized reactors for homes and autos.
Homes can be heated by electricity and are today all across the country.
Why not prosecute all unamerican activties, Mc Carthy, all unwanted opinions and burn some books in the proces? And as we know woke is the new democratic Amercan dream.
No need to burn books anymore.
Just “edit” what people can see online!
(TheWayBackMachine is a problem for them. But I’m sure they’re working on it.)
A set of quotes from a group of people who had the following entry in their dictionaries
and decided to make “these United States” a republic (“for as long as you can keep it” …) instead.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” — George Washington
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech.” — Benjamin Franklin
“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed in the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty.” — Patrick Henry
– – – – –
The Slashdot website has a “Thought for the day” quote (or quip) at the bottom of each webpage it serves up.
A couple of recent examples …
– – – – –
From a recent article on the Reason website titled “You’re Wrong About Disinformation” :
– – – – –
Zero Hedge’s “Tyler Durden” tends to go a bit far at times, but the following recent extract seems perfectly reasonable to me …
– – – – –
To close, here are a few more quotes about “tolerance” and “human nature” …
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” — Voltaire
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” — George Orwell
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” — Robert A. Heinlein
“My freedom doesn’t end where your fear begins.” — Candace Owens
“A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.” — Booker T. Washington
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities.” — Frank Herbert
“Moral indignation is one of the most harmful forces in the modern world, the more so as it can always be diverted to sinister uses by those who control propaganda.” — Bertrand Russell
“When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime you are being ruled by criminals.” — Source unknown
“different brands of tires have different rates of particle pollution, and because we can’t just tell people to stop using their personal vehicles, the next best step would be to ban the worst-offending tire brands.”- Nick Molden, the CEO and founder of Emissions Analytics
Think Car Exhaust Is Bad? Wait ‘Til You Hear About Tire Pollution (gizmodo.com.au)
and the next best step after that would be….?
TyreSafe explains what is different about tyres for EVs
““All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities.” — Frank Herbert”
I like that one best.
42X42^42, Mark. All of those quotes (and more) should be chiseled on the walls of every public building and mandated for instruction at every level of education.
And if they do what she says then they now become Federal Agents, and subject to the First Amendment? It could yet become a big mistake on her part.
It’s 1984 all over again.
Yes, we are seeing the early stages of “1984” being implemented in the United States.
This is truly third-world government behavior worthy of any tin-pot dictatorial thug you can imagine. Thug governments tend to not understand engineering and physics, and suppress those who do understand the complexities.
I wonder if here in the USA we’ll have our own “Great Leap Forward”, where people will be asked to make solar panels in their back yards using sand from the kid’s sandbox and a blowtorch.
“This is truly third-world government behavior worthy of any tin-pot dictatorial thug you can imagine.”
That sounds like Joe Biden to me.
Clamping down on free speech and the truth. Disgraceful.
Wait a minute! I thought it was John Kerry that was, and currently still is, Biden’s official Special Presidential Envoy for Climate (reserving the title of “climate czar”). AFAIK, he has not (yet) been replaced in this position.
Now I find the term “climate czar” is being bestowed on Gina McCarthy as well, who has the official title of White House National Climate Advisor (the first to hold this position that was created by the President Biden, taking office on January 20, 2021).
Lurch is not going to be happy about this.
Will the real climate czar please stand up?
Let’s not miss her sleight of hand here, either from too many years with her head in the nether places or because it is the new script/talking points from her handlers.
There has been NO shift in criticism. From the beginning and up to the present, critics have challenged BOTH the “climate crisis” narrative AND the “renewable energy ‘solution.’”
On neither subject has so-called “big oil” or the “fossil fuel industry” played a big role in countering the power grab by green, sewer-dwelling power mongers. In fact, most energy companies have paid lip service or even succumbed to lunatic fringe ideologues.
“There has been NO shift in criticism. From the beginning and up to the present, critics have challenged BOTH the “climate crisis” narrative AND the “renewable energy ‘solution”
True. She wants people to believe the lie that “the science is settled” and even skeptics accept that lie.
The debate (that never happened) is over.
Now it’s only money-grubbing company CEO’s like those at Solyndra … er … Big Oil that want to cash in on the “solutions” to a nonexistent problem.
(But she’s a politician. Besides money, what do some politicians crave?)
“On neither subject has so-called “big oil” or the “fossil fuel industry” played a big role in countering the power grab by green, sewer-dwelling power mongers. In fact, most energy companies have paid lip service or even succumbed to lunatic fringe ideologues.”
That’s the truth of the matter. McCarthy blaming oil companies is like Biden blaming Putin for the crashing U.S. economy. Both claims are ridiculous falsehoods meant to distract people from reality.
Is it inaccurate or disinformation to state that it is humanly impossible to engineer the ideal climate for each of the 30 climate and sub climate zones?
If they cannot both qualify (quantify) the ideal climate of a single zone and show it possible to engineer this, why would I have any confidence in their deluded and misguided attempts to do this in all 30?
I guess Westinghouse is spreading disinformation as well when their website on Small-Modular-Reactors (https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/new-plants/small-modular-reactor) states that in order to provide 225 MWe their design with require approximately 15 acres of land where the average solar installation would require 2400 acres and the average wind power installation would require 60,000 acres. Written another way, that’s
Boris Johnson is seemingly keen to deflect attention from his economic and party policies with a part-reversion to Imperial, so I guess he’ll appreciate them.
For others, I offer an entirely off the cuff [no envelope was harmed in this calculation] equivalent:
SMR – about 6 hectares.
Solar – very roughly 960 hectares
Eolian – 24,000 hectares ISH.
Auto
Highlights the madness a bit, no?
Gina McCarthy would have you believe that the Medieval Inquisition (mid-1200’s to mid-1500’s) should have called for “stopping individuals” that “over and over again” were spreading “misinformation” that the Earth was round when everybody could plainly see that it was flat.
She obviously thinks that our current information state on climate change™ is perfect and complete, and thus should never be challenged by what she defines, in her infinite wisdom (hah!), to be as “misinformation”.
And President-“follow the science!”-Biden selects such a person as an advisor?
Good grief!
In Gina’s defense, I’d have to say that she might be more qualified to speak regarding CliSciFi than whoever he’s listening to regarding the science of biology.
(But that’s not saying much.)
In Resident Biden’s defence, I am unsure if he selected his advisors –
or if his puppet-masters [a gender neutral term, naturally] selected him as their puppet.
Auto
Gina gets things completely backwards, so I’ve fixed it for her: Overall, the problem of disinformation has shifted from claiming the reality of “climate change” to inaccurate claims about the feasibility and benefits of so-called “renewable energy”.
Big tech needs to ban McCarthy from posting anything until she learns the truth about climate change.
What was the old saying about first up against the wall after the revolution?
That’s one of the side deals with big tech when attacking them in anti-trust investigations.
If green energy is cost-effective it will succeed in the marketplace without government subsidies. Opinions expressed on social media will not impede a cost-effective energy product.
Say, where can I get some of that “dark money” McCarthy spoke about?
How dare anyone have a differing opinion, it is anathema to truth, their truth!
Is that a Government official trying to get people censored?
Shouldn’t she be accused of spreading disinformation about disinformation? “the technology improvements that we’ve seen that are most cost-effective, in fact cost-competitive with fossil fuels.” Surely if that were true then the switch to “renewables” would not need to be mandated?
“Shouldn’t she be accused of spreading disinformation about disinformation?”
She should.
Juvenal: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Or better: “Who the hell will bring these lying Leftists bastards to justice?”
Repeal section 230. Allow participating companies to fail.
Another deluded EXXON knew junkie.
who is allowed to question then?
Only those having no questions.
McCarthy: “The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation.”
This is advocating “textbook fascism”
She graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston in 1976 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Anthropology. She later attended Tufts University, where she received a Master of Science combining Environmental Health Engineering with Planning and Policy in 1981.
Shutting up those that are questioning your narrative doesn’t make what you are saying true.
It doesn’t change facts and data it doesn’t change physics, chemistry or biology despite their best efforts they know that they are loosing that is why they want and need censorship of any and all information. If they knew history they would know how well that worked for the Soviet Union.
But still they are loosing and boy does that piss them off.
James Bull