Tilak Doshi Contributor
I analyze energy economics and related public policy issues.
In his bestseller book on the medieval mind, “in a world lit only by fire”, historian William Manchester draws his portrait of the Dark Ages (roughly during 400 – 1400 AD after the collapse of the Western Roman empire and before the Renaissance). He describes it as “a melange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths and an almost impenetrable mindlessness.”
It is not a stretch of the imagination to see the remarkable parallels between our own “scientific age” and that of Europe’s Dark Ages. The “incessant warfare” of medieval Europe is now played out in the troubled Middle East since 9/11 (2001) and above all, in Europe itself as NATO and Russia lock horns in Ukraine. The corruption of scientific research, media and political institutions in the West is rife. Our lawlessness today is vividly exhibited in the chyron of a TV reporter in the mainstream media describing “fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting” with burning city buildings in the background which marked 120 days of riot, death, arson and looting in the summer of 2020.
Signs of The New Dark Age: What have we come to?
One does not have to look far to find the Dark Ages’ “impenetrable mindlessness” in modern times: a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court could not define what a woman is at a Senate hearing because she is “not a biologist”. The most peculiar of our “obsession with strange myths” is the believe in the “climate emergency”, aptly described by the eminent physicist Richard Lindzen as the “absurdity of the conventional global warming narrative”. Even as deaths from extreme weather events have been reduced by 98% over the past century, the West’s obsession at reducing CO2 emissions at any cost is one that might be easily compared to the medieval Church’s practice of selling indulgences. This was a writ issued by the Church for money in return for the remission of sin and a place in heaven. From issues related to energy and the environment and to race and gender, “a new theology is being formed and questioning it is tantamount to heresy with shaming and ostracism becoming the new burning at the stake”.
The modern dark age we are living in can be encapsulated by an energy-rationing top Green Party official in Germany who told constituents to use washcloths instead of taking showers as the country faced a natural gas supply crunch after imposing sanctions on Russia. Another sign of the modern dark age was provided by the head of Britain’s electricity and gas systems’ operator who told households this winter to prepare for blackouts between 4pm and 7pm on weekdays during “really, really cold” days.
Yet another indicator of our modern dark age is when Texas had a cold snap and hundreds of people died with the power blackouts in February 2021. The lack of investments in dispatchable power sector fuelled by coal, natural gas and nuclear generation over the past two decades meant that reliable power from these sources was sacrificed at the altar of the Green gods in favour of wind and solar power. Wind turbines and solar panels are our new guides to sinless power consumption. These “renewable” technologies promptly went out of commission when the sudden cold weather stopped the wind turbines and solar farms from providing their fickle power.
Since nothing sells like fear, the high church priests of Climate Alarm Central, the UN’s highly politicized “Summary Report for Policymakers” (based on work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)), warned us last month that “urgent climate action can secure a liveable future for all.” UN chief Antonio Guterres is not one to shy away from cranking up the needle on the climate alarm meter. At last year’s UN annual climate jamboree held in Egypt, he thundered that humanity is on a “highway to climate hell”, saying the fight for a liveable planet will be won or lost “this decade”. On the publication of the IPCC’s “landmark report” in August 2021, he warned that “its code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable”, a pronouncement repeated by U.S. president Joe Biden. In his latest iteration last month, Mr. Guterres said “Humanity is on thin ice — and that ice is melting fast…Our world needs climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once.”
Like the alchemy, amulets and talismans of Europe’s Dark Ages, our favourite instruments these days are the “tuned” mathematical models simulating the climate – what physicist Steve Koonin calls the “many, muddled models” — and predicting the climate 50 to 100 years out with a certainty that defies common sense. Perhaps Voltaire gets the last laugh in reminding us that “common sense is not so common”. Meanwhile, our humdrum meteorological models of the weathermen can hardly predict the weather more than 10 days out. Like Middle Ages Europe, apocalypticism or the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent requires an Al Gore in our lives today. Unlike divining the Bible, his job is simpler, writing the equation “more CO2 equals dangerous global warming” and showing a misleading documentary proving so.
Glimmers of Light…?
Some recent news headlines give hope. Like the early shoots of the Renaissance spring that began to emerge in 15th century Europe, the modern Western barbarism of an enforced energy starvation diet is being exposed and increasingly challenged.
The Daily Telegraph (Ross Clark): “The EU’s Net Zero plan is in tatters – and not a moment too soon” (29 March 2023)
Reuters (Riham Alkousaa): “Berliners vote down referendum on tighter climate goals” (26 March 2023)
Politico (Nicolas Camut): “Dutch pro-farmers party wins big in provincial elections” (16 March 2023)
Express (Natalie Crookham): “Staggering poll shows 93 percent oppose 2030 petrol and diesel car ban [UK]” (30 March 2023)
The editors of one leading paper put it like this: “The implausibility of a net-zero carbon energy future is becoming so obvious that even Europeans are starting to notice.” The shock news of Germany’s decision to block the EU-wide agreement on the combustion engine ban by 2035 is “threatening to unravel Germany’s three-party governing alliance, after the Green party accused its liberal coalition partners of gambling away the country’s [green] reputation…” The German government wants to replace this ban and permit combustion engine cars running on synthetic “e-fuels”. E-fuels are yet another unproven technology but, if somehow viable in the future, would at least preserve the country’s vaunted position in automobile combustion engines. That Western Europe’s reigning green ideologues could be blocked by the German car manufacturers’ lobby – one of the country’s industrial pillars and a major employer – seems to signal the victory of economic rationality over climate ideology in this instance at least.
The country’s green advocates received further bad news as voters in the Berlin referendum for a climate-neutral city by 2030 failed resoundingly as “yes” votes failed to achieve the 25% quorum of all eligible voters needed to make the referendum valid. According to critics interviewed by Bild, the radical climate project pushed in the referendum is “factually impossible” and “out of the question”, noting that “even the original 2045 target timetable [is] almost impossible to meet.” Even Berlin’s uber-green elites could not swing the vote against the average city-dweller sick of hot water rationing, dimmed street lights at night and shuttered swimming pools.
At the same time, in a parallel development, Italy’s new conservative government demanded that the EU water down a directive aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings, re-write plans to phase out combustion engine cars and questioned a drive to slash industrial emissions. In a bid to save Italian industry from the ravages of the EU’s “energy transition” plans, the country’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told those attending a Brussels summit that “The problem is that we cannot help the environment by destroying our industries.”
An equally seismic event occurred in the Netherlands where a political party BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB) achieved a major victory in provincial elections on 15 March. It finished ahead of Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy in the Senate. The Dutch government has plans to reduce nitrogen emissions by massively cutting livestock farming and buying up thousands of farms. The country is the world’s second largest food exporter with an industry worth over $100 billion last year. Green activists have targeted food production on the basis that nitrogen fertilizers emit nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. The BBB victory calls into question the government’s ability to continue its extremist climate policies at the expense of its farmers.
Whether these glimmers of light in the West’s dark age today are real indicators of an emerging rationality or merely the dying throes of those who are fighting an invincible “green” juggernaut that will crush industry and people’s livelihoods, only time will tell. Most of the world’s population outside the “collective West” — accounting for 7 out of the 8 billion people living today — can only hope that they will continue to climb out of energy poverty with affordable power and fossil fuels to achieve their dreams of a better, more prosperous life.
Follow me on Twitter.
I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years. I focus on global energy developments from the perspective of Asian countries that remain large markets for oil, gas and coal. I have written extensively on the areas of economic development, environment and energy economics. My publications include “Singapore in a Post-Kyoto World: Energy, Environment and the Economy” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2015). I won the 1984 Robert S. McNamara Research Fellow award of the World Bank and received my Ph.D. in Economics in 1992.
Climastrology is as mad as eugenics, or the more recent recovered memory/Satanic Panic of the 1980’s. There are very likely a good number of politicians who, in a few years, will deny they ever had any involvement in that cause.
The more things change…
Eugenics denialism is rampant on this website.
It must be cancelled immediately!
(if I really need to – \sarc)
So many who support it, also seem to be preoccupied will malthus. Always a giveaway.
Thanks Tom… love it!
We would be better off if many of the Davos bandwagon politicians were encapsulated by aliens or driven mad by the teachings of Don Juan and the Yaqui way of life. LOL
I agree and go further, the dark center of the current madness is eugenics. I believe this is the sword of truth that must be used against the radical environmentalists, the Davos people and their program.
I wish I could be as hopeful as you are.
Hopefully they do this while comfortably ensconced in the private sector. ie: retirement. Other positions also available.
One does not have to look far to find the Dark Ages’ “impenetrable mindlessness” in modern times:
‘Mindless group-thinking barbarity’: Melbourne University holds Marxism conference (msn.com)
What came to my mind was Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.
Mindless groupthink you say, i say
“Sequacity” my new word of the year.
Look guys, these monsters need to be booted out of office. They have no facts, no science, no economics on their side. All they have is power, lies and scare tactics. They are hurting people bad, this has to stop.
“All they have is power, lies and scare tactics” and The Cause.
Except the enforcers of the Dark Ages didn’t have climate alarm with climate policy attack on all fronts using overreach AI tools.
What a women is ?
Theres more than 30 intersex variations
such as :
you may have: a typical sexual appearance of a female on the outside, but mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside
been born without a womb
or with a micropenis
‘in between’ genitals
Klinefelter syndrome XXY
Turner syndrome all or part of one of the XX is missing
too many variations to mention for someone who isnt an expert in this area
Tilak is not one of those and should stick to his area of expertise
You are mistaken.
Intersex conditions in clinical practice only make up about 0.018% of births.
And most clinicians don’t include Klinefelter’s or Turner’s syndromes since their sex (male & female, respectively) at birth are not in question.
I’ve heard it’s more like 2%
And most people have “heard” that 97% of scientists agree that CO2 is the primary driver of weather. That also was a “fact” invented to suit a narrative.
like 10k steps a day and 2litres of water…
pick a number any number…
No, it’s much, much lower. And this has nothing to do whatsoever with the current transgender trend.
No psychologist who wants to remain employed these days would ever ask a patient suffering from gender dysphoria to have a genetic test of any kind. The drug companies wouldn’t allow it even if the media stopped pushing this.
The money’s in these chemical castrations, and ultimately, six figures worth of surgical expenses and a lifetime of expensive drugs. All paid for by higher insurance rates.
“I’ve heard”, is a factual statement.
What I’ve heard, probably isn’t factual.
If you count autogynephiles as “women” you will massively increase the fraction, but even then I struggle to believe you’d get to 2%.
heard that same number on ABC radio in aus this afternoon
I call total Bullsh*t on that
even with plastics n soy and whatever that amount of dud sexual genetics reaching that percentage?
things i have pondered over the yrs
women who are unfit to give birth surviving and passing possibly similar issues to the kids they have by caesarean..
and the ones who for whatever reason cant get pregnant then using AI, be interesting to follow up what the kids fertility and other issues are for them and their progeny , if any.
I take it, this is a tongue in cheek post? If not, you have a problem, much of what you posted as variations are the result of genetic corruptions. As such, they don’t count as a gender.
Bottom line, something went wrong with them.
Rather than accept that and live with it, they would force the rest of us pretend they’re normal.
Should they be persecuted? NO!
Yet they would persecute any and all who don’t go along with their delusions.
All of these characteristics are for the most part independent. Most people on this site can work out the number of permutations possible. Of course none of these permutations justify the creation of a new name for a person’s “sex” nor a change to the pronouns in the English language.
So are people born without an arm or with any other defective condition a new specie?
Is this our area of expertise?
Their goal is complete governmental control over our lives. Where we live, what we eat, what we say, even who we date.
Even if 90% of the people come to their senses, the way this will be done is through lawsuits. Then the judges, appointed by these control freaks, will hold sway over everyone. And in a courtroom, all it takes is one pseudoscientist with a “climate model” to convince one of these judges. They’re morons. Faithful morons. That’s how you evade checks and balances.
Pitchforks and torches at the houses of MP’s is going to be a lot quicker and much cheaper.
Please be more specific.
All one has to do is view five minutes of video of a copper, cobalt, or metalurgical coal mining operation to realize that “net zero, renewable” energy from wind, solar, and batteries is fundamentally impossible. The cost of these vital materials is essentially the cost of the diesel fuel used in their extraction. The energy used exceeds the lifetime production capability of an integrated wind, solar, battery, and transmission system.
Where can I read a good breakdown of the “cost of these vital materials is essentially the cost of the diesel fuel used in their extraction”? I understand the concept, but as an engineer constrained to build with not-new tools I wonder whether the calculation that shows cost exceeding benefit really includes the full life of the systems. Metal stuff usually doesn’t break
Throughout history, all civilizations have been based upon a control of the masses by the elites. People have to abide by rules for civilizations to function, and the use of religions, of various types, have always been a major factor in the control of the population.
These fundamental principles still apply today, although I think it’s a significant exaggeration to describe our current situation as comparable with the Dark Ages.
Consider the following quote from the article:
“Another sign of the modern dark age was provided by the head of Britain’s electricity and gas systems’ operator who told households this winter to prepare for blackouts between 4pm and 7pm on weekdays during “really, really cold” days.”
C’mon, now! They’ve been warned in advance of a 3-hour blackout, and were advised to prepare for it. How does that compare with the much colder Dark Ages, when people didn’t even have any electricity and gas supplies that could be blacked out? Conditions were much, much worse for most people during the Dark Ages.
However, I do understand the purpose of an exaggeration in order to get the point across.This reminds me of the exaggerated claims about human-caused climate change. (wink)
“People have to abide by rules for civilizations to function”
Some rules, sure- but there must be a limit to the rules.
It’s very odd that the period between 400 and 1400 AD should be considered in such a negative manner when it was a social system that was more than adequate for its time. The reciprocal relationships between the clergy, nobility and peasantry in a manor were, in fact, so successful that the society endured for almost a thousand years. The lowliest varlet in a manor probably had personally seen and maybe even spoken with his lord. By fulfilling his responsibilities he and his family were able to survive in the standard of living common for that era, protected by the lord and the nobles, who ate pretty much the same foods and lived in a similar manner to their subjects. There wasn’t much real difference between the rich and the poor. An illiterate population, their minds were unaffected by any ideas and philosophies other than those disseminated by the Church and the remnants of their pagan beliefs. Widespread literacy changed that.
Can you provide any links to reliable, historical sudies that confirm your very rosy picture of this period in history. My impression is that life was horrible for most people. For example, around 50% of all children died within the first year after their birth, and about 20% of women died during, or soon after, childbirth.
Here’s an article which provides more details on just how bad life was for the majority of people.
And as stated, “literacy changed that”. When one does not know any different, one has nothing with which to compare. Guttenberg’s invention meant the masses could become educated.
And here we are stuck in each of our respective society’s with people that have not advanced much from their ancestors from the dark ages. So be it the high priests of global warming or heeding senseless draconian plague policy; we seem to be de evolving:
You know the data and evidence from the Government run COVID dark age like response is in too. Turns out not a single thing the government and the MSM advocated or coerced people to do ,helped or was effective in any way: not the stupid face diapers, not the lock downs and not the terrible “ vaccines”. Not only did our overseers not help us , but they actually hurt us and hurt some people real bad.
So why would anyone still believe anything the government or MSM says. Now people really do need to “ wake up” before they take us all down with their mindless dark age mentality.
“Turns out not a single thing the government and the MSM advocated or coerced people to do ,helped or was effective in any way:”
A bit strong?
a simple list of all the things the govt did that was helpful (outside of correcting the problems that they created) would show how strong (or not) the statement is.
Yes, but very feint glimmers. I make a point of rebutting all nonsensical statements from the “believers”, in the hope that a few will see the truth eventually. I wish everyone would do that – even though you may lose a few friends, at least you know that you did your best!
The shame of it is that it is obvious that none of these “believers’ have even tried to understand the science – especially the politicians!
“The shame of it is that it is obvious that none of these “believers’ have even tried to understand the science”
Yeah, if they did understand the science, they wouldn’t be believers.
To be human-caused climate change believers means you have not dived too deeply into the climate science.
Where is your scale, how do you benchmark, quantify & diagnose Dementia?
When Almost Everybody Has It.
To the point that folks who remain well-adjusted and aren’t affected become regarded as The Abnormal Ones.
e.g. As someone, at a weekend/birthday/holiday party who has ‘had a drink or two’ and where everyone else is drunk, how do you gauge the state of yourself and everyone else?
What would you and the assembled throng say to and treat a stone-cold-sober visitor?
e.g. Maybe one who has come to ask that you ‘Keep the noise down’
Now consider: that the only thing there is now, for anybody and everybody to eat as ‘food’ on this Earth, does to the human mind/brain and body exactly what alcohol does.
Nowhere near such a potent chemical but is consumed in simply epic amount.
‘climate hysteria’ is just one of myriad contemporary hysterias; brought on by the consumption of Sugar
we are all starving. it was predicted. it is happening. now.
There are folks out there who know.
And what are they told when they speak up, when they ask: ‘Will you please keep the noise down’?
Aw shut up you BoringOldFart PartyPooper, this party has never been better and is getting better all the time. Look how rich and clever we are.
What you say will never work.
Here: Have a drink. Eat some sugar. You’ll feel better, and even better, you’ll be richer & cleverer just like us.
While the noise drowns out the sound of their doctor hammering the door every year, carrying a Four Trillion Dollar bill for medical expenses.
It gets paid every time, somehow.
But like the true cost of the sugar, no-one wants to know so they find other things to distract from it…..
Phlogiston, Dancing Angels. What the Emperor’s wearing today. Tomorrow’s Horoscope.
How’s the weather. Oh, isn’t it awful, t’was never like that when I was a kid.
How would you know, sugar has turned you into a kid.
When I read your comments I think one of us has been imbibing too freely in sugar.
The phrase “as no man could remember” or variations of it in reference to weather events are common in chronicles from the Dark Ages. Measuring things by what old (white) men can remember is the usual way these things are done and their message is as strong as it ever was, “we’re all doomed”
I think one of us has been imbibing too freely in sugar.
Or a sugar solution that’s been sitting out for a couple weeks…
Brewing for a couple of weeks.
with a friend last week, he bought and ate an entire pack of lollies within 15minutes
I felt ill watching it, that amount of near pure sugar in a massive hit
easter was similar
I just cant imagine how people manage to imbibe so much sweet muck so fast and not throw up.
as a rural child with no shops around fruit/ dried fruit was the only sweet stuff and the odd bit of jam on toast
I am truly grateful I was raised that way
Terrible analogy from an overrated media company.
If you want to understand the phenomenon, you have to look at it more closely. Vague invocation of the Dark Ages doesn’t help much. The thing to ask is what is it, and where is it occurring.
The where is pretty simple: its the English speaking countries. Climate hysteria of the Guardian sort is not found outside them. You do not have anyplace else either a political class which is persuaded that there is a climate crisis, nor do you have mainstream media which are pushing the idea. Nor do you have governments which are pursuing net-zero by enacting and implementing the doctrinal policies.
The what can be summarized as follows. There is a climate crisis, there is a limited amount of time to lower emissions or global disaster will ensue, and the way to do this is for the West to move all its energy to electricity which can be and will be generated by wind and solar. With some unspecified measures to take care of intermittency.
Its usual to point to just about any extreme weather or environmental event anywhere in the world as proof that the disaster is already under way. Any flood, fire, snowstorm, heat wave anywhere in the world is proclaimed as a sign of ‘climate breakdown’.
Its also usual to denigrate and cancel any opposing points of view as in the BBC decision to avoid carrying any dissenting point of view. A special vocabulary has been implemented to talk about it, as in the Guardian style guide, where global ‘warming’ is to be replaced by ‘heating’, and the word ‘climate’ is almost never used without being followed by ‘crisis’ or ’emergency’. This is known as independent journalism.
And its usual to agitate for local emission reduction or energy reduction measures ‘because climate’, without every specifying what effect they will have on climate.
As soon as you start to look at the basis of the claims you see the story is full of the most obvious holes, which can be summarized as: there’s no sign of any crisis, the measures being advocated are impossible of implementation, and even if possible would have no effect on the level of global emissions which are the supposed cause of the supposed problem.
Its a curious additional thing that in the countries in question at the same time as they pick irrational and ineffective policies ‘because climate’, they don’t even consider measures which are both possible and which would be effective in reducing emissions. There is no real thought or planning being given to reducing emissions, either globally or locally. Bits of proposals are getting seized on and advocated in an essentially hysterical way. As for instance with Extinction Rebellion and its offshoots, Just Stop Oil and so on.
This is hysteria in the classic sense of Charcot: its emotion totally out of proportion to its object.
All this suggests that what we are looking at is mass hysteria resulting from social contagion. The vector is a common language and the internet, and a key enabling condition is the social and geographical isolation of the media and political class from the bulk of the population. You could see the phenomenon in the UK after the killing of George Floyd. The whole mythology of BLM was transported and applied to the UK, a country with a completely different social and political structure. See also the satanic child abuse mania in the UK in the last century. See also (its not just in English speaking countries that this stuff happens!) the Salman Rushdie hysteria in the Islamic world in the last century.
The question is, what to do about it? My suggestion is to focus exclusively on policies. There is no point arguing about ‘global heating’, any more than there is in arguing about transubstantiation or the historical accuracy of sacred writ. Instead, focus on the costs and benefit and practicality of the net-zero programs. Focus on what they deliver, at what cost, and with what risks.
Also keep pointing out that the mania is confined to English speaking countries. At every opportunity, remind people that the rest of the world doesn’t buy. That China, India, Indonesia etc, the biggest and/or fastest growing emitters don’t and won’t join in the attempt on Net Zero. In fact, they are all increasing emissions as fast as max economic growth requires.
You will still have people like Nick on this forum arguing that its possible and desirable to run whole countries on wind and solar, but that is something that can be debated in numbers and shown to be mistaken. And you can organize refusals to participate, electoral opposition to the more insane policies.
And I am afraid that with mass hysterias that, and waiting for them to burn out, is about all there is to be done.
You are right but I am quite sure that ( climate change ) is used by many governments and the UN to control the worlds population with the constant propaganda about cutting emissions and Net Zero.
As you say China and India are taking no notice of carbon zero and are burning vast quantities of coal .
Coal use has now exceeded 8 billion tonnes per year with China alone using 5.3 billion tonnes which is more than the whole world used in 2008.
Our younger generations are bombarded with propaganda that fossil fuel is going to cause runaway warming .
The problem is that the truth is suppressed ,that there is no proof to back up these lies .
When food starts to become scarce maybe people may realize that they are being duped .
There seems to be a move by governments, greenpeace and green political parties around the world to attack farming .
How else are 8 billion people going to be fed without farms?
How will 8 billion people be fed without using nitrogen fertilizer ?
How will 8 billion people be fed without livestock farming ?
These idiots pushing these stupid ideas must believe that the world is over populated and the great cull is about to begin.
There is no other explanation .
They don’t think about any of these things as a whole or as a system. That is the nature of mass hysteria. They become attached to some particular idea, for no real reason other than that people around them are repeating it. Without ever feeling the need to construct an overall plan. Without even wondering what effect the idea will have if implemented or how it relates to the other ideas.
The mistake everyone makes is in assuming there must be some kind of rationale for the crazed set of inconsistent and impossible measures that make up Net Zero. In fact there is none. A real Net Zero plan would look completely different from the grab bag of ideas you see being put out by, for instance, the UK Climate Change Committee.
A classic case: lets move everyone to heat pumps and at the same time convert the gas grid to hydrogen. As if you could convert the gas grid to hydrogen. And as if, once you have converted everyone to heat pumps, there would still be customers for your hydrogen. Which, of course, you have obtained by cracking natural gas. And which, even could you do it, would have almost no effect on UK emissions.
There is no plan. There are just a series of wild ideas which spread among a relatively isolated group without any proper rationale or study, and which don’t together make up a plan.
That is how mass hysteria works. Go over any historical episodes, and you will find the same mechanism and symptoms.
Take the article in the Grauniad today by the CEO of Astra Zeneca titled –
“The reality is that the climate crisis is the biggest health crisis of our time – bigger even than Covid-19”
“Investing in greenhouse gas reduction is now proved beyond doubt, and equalled or outweighed by the economic benefits of a healhier population, the IPCC says”
“Health care firms will do all they can to treat patients from climate related disease but prevention will have the biggest impact”
“Only by taking radical action on greenhouse gas emissions will we be able to say we are doing everything we can for the health of humanity”
………think I’m going to be sick…
I agree that green hydrogen is just another scam.
Far more energy is used to split the green hydrogen from the sea water than the energy obtained from combusting the hydrogen.
That is only half of the story as very strong containers have to be manufactured to transport the hydrogen which makes steel very brittle.
Pumped hydro and green hydrogen are only considered because there is often a surplus of electricity with wind and solar.
A far better solution for using this surplus electricity would be to offer very cheap power by way of texts to people and companies who own electric vehicles on a special power point on ripple control and offering very cheep power for any thing from their vehicle batteries to washing and drying their clothes
Every one would far better off .
The current cost of a kilogram of hydrogen is around $16 US which is is made using natural gas . A kilogram of hydrogen is equivalent to a gallon of petrol .
Why would any one go hydrogen ?
You will still have people like Nick on this forum arguing that its possible and desirable to run whole countries on wind and solar
Rooftop solar eats everyone’s lunch and sends grid demand to record lows | RenewEconomy
Brook no critique or negativity-
CSIRO report veers off course: Storage is a solved problem | RenewEconomy
So much for charging all those proposed EVs at night ready for the morning toil-
Queensland’s Home EV Charger Gotcha (solarquotes.com.au)
Come the daylight sorry we’re half full full-
Old car parks across Australia could collapse under weight of electric vehicles, experts warn (msn.com)
The vibe conquers all.
You counting Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium as “English speaking countries?” Because they certainly have the “disease.”
Their leaders have the Marxist disease.
Don’t think so. Certainly not France or Belgium. Holland yes, somewhat. Germany is environmentally focused with a strong Green party, but its not the same global warming hysteria as in the English speaking countries, and the proof is how rapidly they are backing off now.
I am trilingual, English, French, Dutch/Flemish, and read the German press from time to time. Don’t see the same thing at all as in the Guardian and BBC and Washington Post and NYT.
The EU institutions are to quite a degree infected. Yes, that is true. But I still think the real ground zero is anglophone.
“All this suggests that what we are looking at is mass hysteria resulting from social contagion. The vector is a common language and the internet, and a key enabling condition is the social and geographical isolation of the media and political class from the bulk of the population.”
I think that’s right. I think that is what we are dealing with. A made-to-order propaganda machine having its effects on those in the West.
I think all your other comments in this post were excellent. A very good description of the situation.
“It can be said that mankind goes mad in herds…but only recovers slowly one by one.”
We therefore have to focus on those one by one opportunities; logic does not work “en masse”.
Wildly off-topic but the sort of thing that tickles me
(it does have ‘some’ climate in it)
The Spoiler: They control the climate but can’t even organise a wild flower-garden on their own doorstep.
The all action quote:“But to the dismay of officials, the poppies have not blossomed in the state park poppy reserve
More like the history of mankind- not just the Dark Ages.
Fixed it. FDR had something to say about fear.
Antonio Guterres, the Climate Change Con Artist.
History will not be kind to him.
The incessant warfare has “played out in the troubled Middle East since” about 1911, with the first attack against a Jewish kibbutz.
Maybe the Covid years may have a silver lining, in that millions of people are waking up to the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked, and are having to backtrack. The whole philosophy of follow the science has been shown to be subject to political machinations,and that’s got to make them think.
Censorship Run Amok: Covid, The Lab Leak, Masks & The Twitter Files
A John Stossel video.
There is a silent majority totally rejecting net zero. But there is a reason why they are silent.
Interestingly there are instances where they are no more silent. Right now there is a discussion on reducing speed limits to reduce CO2 emissions, both in Germany and Austria. All of a sudden, on this minor issue, there is plenty of ressistance. What happened?
In this instance people are told to restrict their freedoms for the sake of climate. People remain silent as long as they think it will not affect them. As soon as climate policies would, in a way they can understand and relate to, the answer is no.
Not sure about the glimmerings of light. The dark ages only ended properly when the Inquisition had been chased out of town. I will believe that has happened when FransTimmermans of EU notoriety has been canceled.
“The Dutch government has plans to reduce nitrogen emissions”
The phrase nitrogen emissions was new to me.
Like a fish accused of water emissions.
Nitrogen emissions are just another way Greenpeace and the green political movement are campaigning to restrict food production .
A lot of the members of these ( sects) are useful idiots who believe the nonsense that their leaders preach to them .
When 4 billion people right around the world are fed with the extra food grown using nitrogenous fertilizer how can a sect advance the crazy idea that this fertilizer should be banned.
These people have been brain washed as they have NO solution of how to grow half of the worlds food once they ban nitrogen based fertilizer .
They obviously believe that food will just appear on the supermarket shelves and are oblivious to how many people on this earth will starve when widespread famines occur from the banning of nitrogen fertilizer .
I was walking back from attending my grand daughters agriculture degree Graduation in Christchurch NZ ,
There was a woman from greenpeace attempting to gather signatures to put a petition to our government to BAN NITROGENOUS FERTILIZER.
I asked her did she not know that 4 billion people are fed with the food grown using nitrogen .
I remonstrated with her ,asking where the food would come from once nitrogen was banned .
All she could say was that nitrous oxide would warm the world because it is a greenhouse gas .
She and her handlers are have no idea of how 8 billion people are fed .
Example of how this is a problem of Modernity not the Dark Ages
Conservationist Jane Goodall said: “We can solve all the world’s problems if we reduce the world population to where it was 500 years ago,” at a World Economic Forum conference in 2021 or 2022.
Within two weeks over 30 media outlets ran a fact check story that her quote was taken out of context by conspiracy theorists or people who were alarmed by her words.
Her quote is a propositional statement, That is: If depopulation, then all the world’s problems are solved. It needs no context.!
The point here, is the extensive fact checking narrative management they was launched after Jane’s comments triggered a stir.
In 2019 in an address to WEF Goodell was quoted as saying
“It’s absurd really, to think that there can be unlimited economic development on a planet with finite natural resources, and the fact that human populations are still growing on this precious population of ours is something that everyone should be aware of,” she said in her message, adding: “It’s been shown all around the world that as women’s education improves family size tends to drop.”
It’s clear that Russia and China do not agree and want to develop Russia and the undeveloped world.
The dialectics of Goodall and the WEF are not medieval. It is rooted in idealistic rationalism of the 19 c…..with Hegel front and center whose philosophy intellectually fueled modern, Marxism, Fascism, and Eugenics the fruit of which was at least 100 million deaths in the 20th c.
The focus today is births not deaths. This is an insidious form of eugenics, I believe it is a very vulnerable point for the WEF program.
Eugenics does not take into account a creator God, the role of faith, hope, love, and the grace and providence of God. Thus making it mechanical and nihilistic to the core.
Dialectical Parallels of Eugenics
2023 Theme Dystopia, hopeless people
Conflict: Climate crisis caused by people and their consumption.
Synthesis One- exit people by attrition via implicit intervention, (re-education)
Synthesis Two-: Alter human populations gnomically via bio-tech
Synthesis three:- Enhance elites technologically.
Synthesis Four:- replace declining populations with AI and robotic (the new master race)
1936 Theme: Utopia: A better people.
Conflict: Human society has too many social problems…disparity and suffering. people are not desirable, moral, efficient and productive enough
Synthesis: What the fascists and Nazi’s did in Europe.
E-Fuels are the same thing as trying to take the ashes from a wood fire and turning them back into wood. CO2 cannot be burned, as it has already been burned. Wow, so much posturing from Pols to the scientifically ignorant….