.
BizNewsTv
Veteran climate expert Dr Richard Lindzen made a name for himself before the fundamentally flawed field of climate science that we know today was invented. In an interview with the pioneering atmospheric physicist and former emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, he recounted events that occurred in the 1980s, which gave birth to the all-consuming climate change narrative that prevails today.
Having begun his research on climate change in the mid-70s motivated by a sincere interest in understanding the Earth’s climate regimes, Lindzen’s assessment of the various elements paraded as scientific evidence of an impending climate catastrophe is remarkably sensible.
What’s particularly revealing from his recollection of events is how complicit the media and politicians have been in forcing the disastrous climate change narrative upon an unsuspecting and trusting public from the very beginning.
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Dr Richard Lindzen on his career as an atmospheric physicist and what drew him to study Earth’s climate
01:21 On carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect
05:02 On politicians, the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the enabling of climate hysteria
07:21 On the politicisation of climate change and the significant human progress enabled by the fossil fuel industry
08:45 On the environmental destruction caused by renewable energy sources
09:46 On the cult-like climate activism movement and its demonisation of carbon dioxide
12:41 On the purported scientific consensus on climate change
14:46 On the Clinton-Gore administration’s funding of climate impacts between 1989 and 1996
17:35 On Professor Guy McPherson’s claim that abrupt climate change will lead to human extinction by 2026
18:22 On the motives behind the climate change/green energy movement
19:23 On his iris hypothesis on climate change proposed in 2001
21:56 On the epistemological issues relating to climate change
23:59 On climate variability vs anthropogenic climate change
27:19 On his experience with institutional bias in favour of scientists who support the official climate change narrative and the influence of institutional funding scientific research
29:50 How the situation is rigged to support the narrative and the complicity of politicians and scientists
32:10 On the climate catastrophe prediction and how this compares to reality
What is a “former emeritus professor”? Did he die, unretire, what?
Few people seem to know what “Emeritus” means in the context of academic institutions.
Even fewer deign to explain it to us idiots.
According to the web
holding after retirement an honorary title corresponding to that held last during active service.
Like retired military personnel still being called General
OK, sounds like what everyone knows.
Now what is “former emeritus”?
My guess is that whoever came up with that “former Emeritus Professor” phrase thought that an Emeritus Professor was higher up the Professorial hierarchy than a Professor.
Hence, when Professor Lindzen retired, he became a former Emeritus Professor.
He’s current in their directory.
https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=rlindzen&d=mit.edu
Ja. Ja. It is the things you know that just ain’t so.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/12/15/an-evaluation-of-the-greenhouse-effect-by-carbon-dioxide/
Always fishing for clicks.
Which is a good thing. We should celebrate the diversity of views and the effort Henry has put into his site. If you don’t agree with his analysis, argue the science and leave the adhominen attacks over at the skeptical science website.
All the religious zealots who hate humans can spew whatever stupidity they want to, just cause they tell lies with conviction does not give the lies validity. Co2 is plant food and 100% beneficial for the planet and the human race. That those facts piss you off, Henry, do not change that they are facts.
I think you have the wrong end of the pineapple. Suggest you read Henry website first.
No thanks, Henry, I reached my quota of religious fantasy when I was 7.
Articles posted here have specific topics. Henry’s was off-topic.
Enviromentalics follow the religion of Environmentalism.
1) They perform Child Sacrifice by encouraging Abortions to save the earth
2) They buy indulgences through Carbon Credits
3) They self-flagellate by eating Kale
4) They have Rituals like Filling the Recycle Bin
5) They have pilgrimages to the Whole Foods Store
6) They fast by not eating meat
7) Sanctamony defines them as they are the only ones that can save the earth
8) They have their holidays like Earth Day
9) They have a Mother Earth Diety
10) They give tithes to their Church like Sierra Club
11) They seek salvation by worshiping the recycle can
12) They fear judgment day when CO2 passes the tipping point
13) It is based upon faith not science
14) You can get excommunicated for denying the science, eating meat, or voting Republican
15) They have a sacred book like Population Bomb
Please write other analogies, I don’t think I got all of them
They fly to conferences so that you can’t fly at all.
The one that really gives it away as a religion is the villification of unbelievers…
Many many millions of religious folk do NOT vilify “unbelievers”
One of their visionaries informs us that the oceans are boiling! (in the Climatista Book of Revelation)
Two men I never argue with: friends Richard Lindzen at MIT and Will Happer at Princeton.
The two great scams of our time are Climate and Covid-19:
– the same scoundrels pushed these two big scams and the same imbeciles believed them;.
– the same fear-based propaganda tactics were used to sell the two scams;
– the same Lenin/Goebbels/Alinsky shout-down tactics were used against opponents;
– the same billions of dollars of paid propaganda were used to program the sheep.
That “SAME BIG SCAM” observation was one of my inputs that allowed me to call the Covid-19 fraud in Feb2020 and publish here on wattsup on 21Mar2020 – NO harmful lockdowns!
I’d seen all this before, in the 50-year-old Climate scam. My co-authors and I called the Climate-and-Green-Energy fraud in 2002. SSDD.
My two free books on the Covid and Climate scams are at CorrectPredictions.ca
Protect those you love. No toxic vaxxes. Treat the vaxxed now to save millions of lives.
Regards, Allan
Treat the vaxxed?
Treat how? Treat what?
The objective is to get the toxic Covid-19 vaxx out of your system and reduce vaxx-injury and death..
See FLCCC and The Wellness Company for their treatments.. Good people, but I have no experience with their stuff.
I have had great success treating chronic bleeding vaxx-injuries with Ivermectin at 12mg/day for an adult weighing approx. 150-200 lb. but IVM is hard to get.
Great analysis, CO2isLife, but number 6 should be expanded! The latest research not only shows that meat, especially natural grass-fed beef is highly nutritious and beneficial; but that there NEVER was ANY basis for recommending a low fat, high carb diet!
Highly processed sugar and flour, as well as most seed oils, are not just poor nutrition; but are down right destructive to our mental and physical health! Look at the change in diabetes per capita in the US for the last 100-150 years if you have any questions!
Dr. Mercola notes that 80% of chronic illnesses come from damage to the gut/digestive systems and seed oil (Omega 6 & Linoleic acid) is the number one culprit in destroying your gut – all fats foods are cooked with seed oils and should be avoided
think you can add – they don’t marry & have children either
Excellent, except a quibble with 6.
I fast on occasion, ( and so don’t eat anything, meat included) It is incredibly healthy. It is called autophagy.
Occasional, or intermittent, fasting has been a part of the human experience for hundreds of thousands of years! Only in modern times have humans started eating too many poor nutrition foods, too often to achieve optimum health and longevity!
Somewhere, many years ago, I read a claim that long periods of fasting can produce minute amounts of chemicals in the brain that are similar to psychedelics. Of course it isn’t the Official Approved Dosage that the CIA promoted in their long term mental health experiments (known colloquially as the Psychedelic Movement,) but it’s enough to provide visions, and eating a meal returns you quickly to reality.
Fun story. I asked Lindzen to review the climate chapter of my The Arts of Truth about 6 months before it was published late in 2012. Because I had already assembled the electronic book draft from its many parts, I just sent him the whole thing electronically. Not only did he read and then critique the whole thing—he added value to the whole thing by asking probing questions on stuff I had not thought about having nothing to do with climate.
An example I still vividly remember 11 years later. In the Recognition chapter, first major section example of three on Continental drift, I used Alfred Wegener’s Svalbard (Spitzbergen in his original 1912 paper) as an example. Lindzen asked, how do you know Wegener was correct rather than cherry pick lucky? Led to a page and a half footnote on Svalbard geology and paleontology showing that with a century of additional knowledge, Wegener was correct way back then even if all geologists hotly disputed him (a mere meteorologist) up thru his death and beyond.
My only thank you possible was buying him lunch at the MIT faculty lounge. Unforgettable day that he kindly gave me just before he retired. His final encouragement to do the rewrite he instigated was that the only other book of this sort he was aware of was ‘How do you know’ by a Harvard professor. The professor had done it straight scientific method, my book did it mostly thru categorically sarcastic examples. Same endpoint.
BTW, even my book’s title was sarcastic, drawing on the Harvard Yard John Harvard statue created by the same sculptor that did Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial. For those who have not read the preface, Harvard’s motto is Veritas (truth in Latin). And Harvard’s statue is known to Harvard graduates as the statue of three lies.
Sounds like the Harvard campus is in need of many more statues.
MIT might as well install those statues as windmills or daft activists holding up large solar arrays. Make them senior engineering projects to eliminate all use of fossil fuels. .
Only they are going to run out of land long before they figure out commercially effective ways to make phones and computers from DC electricity.
I have followed this false global warming story since the early eighties.
How many remember the global cooling scare in the 1970s.
It then changed to CO2 and our emissions, which nearly every political party in the world are to scared to come out and tell the voters it is hogwash .
They are all using climate change as a lever to bring about social change ,
The incessant propaganda that WE have to change our ways has convinced most of the school leavers that there is a problem .
I am certain that climate change is being used to justify insane policies that will ultimately impoverish the western world countries .
Just take a minute to look at what is going on in Asia which is rapidly increasing their use of fossil fuels in contrast to Europe and North America that are destroying their manufacturing industries .
Here are the facts .
From 1999 untill 2008 world coal production was stable at 4.7 billion tonnes.
World coal production has reached 8 billion tonnes twice since 2010.
Incidentally methane levels were also stable over those 10 years .
No problem with enteric methane from farmed animals and no problem with methane released during coal mining and combustion .
Since then China has increased its coal use and is now burning 5.3 billion tonnes .
The question is how does restricting our emissions actually reduce world wide emissions ?
The same emission leakage will happen if New Zealand farmers are forced to restrict our output of food cutting back our emissions .
This is because our emissions are already lower than all other exporting countries so food will still be imported from other countries but with a higher emission profile .
Who says it will. All the evidence shows the opposite as Lizden pointed out. The only way a transition can happen in those countries aiming for it is for China to massively up its coal consumption. Wind turbines and solar panels do not grow on trees. They require more coal to produce than they can possibly save in their short life. The are energy sinks.
Acid rain was a big issue in the 70s too. SO2 scrubbers installed..huge cost.
Did acid rain go away?
…or is it still mostly oak tree and other spring run-offs and red spruce needle fading in New Hampshire?
I recall Bush 1 ignored the $500M science study and allowed scrubbers, etc.
Look what happens when we politicize science…1000’s of $Billions spent to ruin (mostly Western) economies.
California governor Newsome: get used to permanent drought in California. Today, Tulare Basin, California, 60,000 acres flooding and going to get worse.
negative, political, not related to post
I don’t understand the ‘negative’ concern … 🙂 I don’t see a ‘negative’ (but I sense such in your thought processes.)
05:02 On politicians, the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the enabling of climate hysteria
32:10 On the climate catastrophe prediction and how this compares to reality
Thank You.
I agree with Kevin. The post is about Dr. Lindzen.
I think Dr Lindzen made the very point that the climate alarm industry is political not scientific, did he not?
And the politicization of the climate lie.
Not the “politicization” of the climate lie, but that the climate lie is a political plan to seize unelected power.
Are you a self appointed moderator Kevin? Or are you just embarrassed by the ineptitude of ignorant left wing politicians.
NB There are many inept right wing politicians too.
negative, political, not related to
postreality….. Perfect description of the IPCC, climate “science”, and CAGW..Yes, you are negative, political and not related to reality, we get it, you don’t have to keep proving it.
At some points in time, dry lake beds aren’t.
Owens Lake is filling too. First time in over 100 years since LA stole all the water.
LA Power and Water: “We’re gonna need a bigger pipe!”
For those who prefer reading I provide a transcript with exhibits and a link to Lindzen’s tell-all paper on the corruption of climate science.
https://rclutz.com/2023/04/23/climate-sense-and-nonsense-lindzen-2023-04-20/
Thanks.
Your work needs to be required study in public schools, very
well done.
Thanks Mr. Ed. If you know any educators looking for basic factual tools, a commercial artist colleague has a set of excellent infographics at a website, World of CO2. Everything is free to download. Link is:
https://www.the-world-of-co2.org/
Producer is Raymond Inauen, based in Zurich.
Thanks! Added you to my climate source list.
Me, too! (rather, I signed up to “follow” Mr. Clutz via email notices)
EXCELLENT article.
WUWT should ask to re-publish it! Graphics are superb!
Brilliant interview. Interviewer slightly annoying but good questions and interesting accent.
His simple statement on heat transport poleward is so important to appreciate. No where on Earth does retained heat over any location for the last 16 years correspond with the temperature change over that same period – per attached.
It is simpler message to stick with an open ocean surface unable to sustain more than 30C rather than explaining the “iris” effect.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ocean-atmosphere-response-to-solar-emr-at-top-of-the-atmosphere/
The orbit is currently in the snow building phase. NH ocean surface warming leading to more atmospheric water by the end of summer resulting in increasing snowfall and snow extent in autumn and winter:
Heat_Ice_Stores.pdf
Reality will prevail but there are powerful, greedy forces working against humanity. The good news is that the BRICS nations know its nonsense. And the transition requires more coal and more everything so the BRICS will accumulate wealth.
Yes – the West is impoverishing itself by thinking it can exist on renewables alone; the BRICS and the rest of the world are going for fossil fuels plus renewables – hence their economies and wealth will increase.
“Brilliant interview. Interviewer slightly annoying but good questions and interesting accent.”
and she’s hot looking too!
The reporter was Nadya Swart , she had a nice presence to her.
Key Lindzen Quotes from Above Interview
00:48 “You have dozens of [climate] regimes throughout the earth. … When you speak about ‘the climate of the earth,’ what the hell are you talking about?”
1:14 “[My interest in the climate issue] had nothing to do with environmentalism. It was to understand how nature is.”
1:50 “Carbon dioxide is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. … [There are] dozens of different climate regimes. [Saying] there’s one knob that controls the whole works makes no sense. That is belief in magic.”
2:19 “’Greenhouse Effect’ is useful for one climatic index: namely, ‘Why is the earth different from Venus or Mars or Mercury.’”
2:53 “The differences in climate that we refer to [for example,] ice ages, the very warm period 50 million years ago, are really pretty tiny compared to the differences between the planets.
3:09 “Those [‘tiny’] differences … are not due to the greenhouse effect. They’re due to the transport of heat from the tropics to the high latitudes.
4:18 “What determines [the mechanisms for heat transport] is … mainly the differential heating between the tropics and the poles.
4:33 “… all of a sudden [people] obsess on the ‘greenhouse effect’ and … you end up having people say [] really stupid [things]. (mocking) ‘We’ve increased the temperature 1 degree or 1.1 in the last hundred years.’”
4:53 “[This warming] has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in the history of the earth. But, one-half degree more and it’s curtains.”
5:03 “Only a politician could come up with something quite that absurd.”
5:09 “But, when you [look at] the U.N., it’s politicians that run it.”
5:23 “Even the U.N.’s IPCC, in its one working group that deals with science [working group I] … they don’t speak about an existential threat.
5:49 “It’s an evil movement. [They are] trying to condemn people in Africa and the developing world to perpetual poverty.”
8:12 [Addressing question of what motivates the climate liars] “Because the [energy sector] is such a large sector, there are opportunities to make fortunes even if your only activity is destroying the system.”
8:28 “In the U.S., our current budget [includes] trillions of dollars for ‘climate change.’ … someone is going to get those trillions of dollars and they have a real interest [in promoting the lie about human CO2].
9:00 “[‘Renewables’ require means of production that are] not renewable. [Moreover,] they involve slave labor.”
9:11 “… you have destruction of landscapes. It’s almost as though the environmental movement has decided to commit suicide.”
9:22 “[The environmentalists] go in for things that destroy the environment … solar panels, windmills, and so on.”
9:33 “You’re killing birds… . These things have a lifetime of 10 or 20 years. You don’t know how to dispose of them… .”
9:42 “This has nothing to do with the environment. It’s a powerplay.”
10:40 “Let’s say someone came up with a good device [to] get rid of 60, 70% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What would be the result? The result would be: we would all be dead.”
11:09 “The geologists know that through most of the earth’s history we’ve had FAR greater amounts of CO2. Never any evidence of a ‘tipping point.’”
11:33 “When [the issue] got started in the early 1980’s, it [was clear that] it was already a governmental aim. … Global cooling wasn’t panning out … .”
12:08 “From the beginning of ‘Earth Day,’ I think it was obvious [they] wanted to control the energy sector. … .”
12:35 “There’s no evidence whatever that this is well meant.”
13:05 [Addressing the bogus ‘97% of climate scientists agree’] “In 1988, when Jim Hansen first testified before the U.S. Senate, “Newsweek” ran a cover issue on it showing the earth on fire with the claim beneath it: ‘All scientists agree.’ No scientists were asked. This is the way you convince the public. The public is pretty illiterate when it comes to science.
14:02 “[97%] is a fake number. It’s just designed to tell people, ‘[you] don’t have to understand the science, just go along.’”
16:14 [Re: why more scientists don’t speak out against the lies about CO2] “If you didn’t go along with this issue, you lost your funding. … My funding ended as soon as I went public.
18:02 [Re: Guy McPherson’s assertion that ‘climate change’ will end life as we know it by 2026] “He’s entitled to any science fiction he wishes to produce, but, there’s no scientific evidence [establishing his claims]. These are scare stories.”
18:43 [Re: what’s behind the Net Zero, end fossil fuel industry, etc. programs] “Pure malice. Plus profits, for a few.”
19:10 “I suppose for [those like Al Gore, ignoring their own mandates and making millions off pushing the CO2 scam] it’s a return to feudalism. Where us peasants should know our place and they should have their privilege.”
19:34 – Re: Lindzen’s 2001 climate homeostasis “Iris Hypothesis” – addresses the erroneous assumed feedbacks of CO2, i.e., “why doesn’t CO2 actually do much?” – ‘greenhouse effect’ negating effects of upper level clouds in the tropics – Early Faint sun paradox implications.
22:27 “When [funding for climate research] increased by a factor of 15, [there weren’t nearly enough qualified climate scientists to use it, so, researchers] introduced … ‘climate impacts.’ [‘Climate impacts’] had nothing to do with understanding the physics of climate. If you were working on cockroaches and you said, ‘my research is about the impact of climate on cockroaches,’ you got funded.” … climate and this, [climate and that,] and they all became, ‘climate scientists.’ In my department at MIT in 1990, no one called themselves ‘climate scientists.’ [There were meteorologists, oceanographers, etc..] None of us pretended to comprehensive knowledge of everything about climate.
All of a sudden, you have people who know nothing about the physics who are ‘climate scientists.’”
24:30 “Climate, long before there were people, was changing pronouncedly. … [and pre-Industrial Age] documents saying[, for instance, re: villages in the alps,] ‘the ice is taking over our village.’ … [All] this had nothing to do with people[‘s activity].
26:27 “It turns out, for instance, CO2 follows temperature in the ice ages. …
28:02 [Re: impact of funding extortion on Lindzen personally] “First of all, I’m older, so, I had a senior position. I was doing research in a lot of areas … The Department of Energy, at first, tried to fund people on all sides objectively; that continued through the ‘90’s. But, by the ‘90’s, they were told to quit that. … With publication, again, I was well-known in the field … . So, I published some papers in the American Meteorological Society’s monthly bulletin and they got through. They were reviewed. But, the editors were all fired – immediately after publication. … When the criticisms were published, we were not permitted to answer for 6 months — which was very unusual. … Yeah, the situation was rigged.
29:28 “It was very much a march through the institutions [A.P.S. (American Physical Society), A.M.S. (American Meterological Society), etc.]. The people pushing [the CO2 scam] realized that all you had to do was [capture] an official, the executive manager of something, and he ends up speaking for the whole group.
31:07 “That you could have some naïve hypothesis that something as complex as climate is controlled by a single control knob of a minor gas … . You can only do this if you have a public, including political officials, who are totally illiterate or innumerate [vis a vis] science.
31:50 [Re: scientists-for-hire supporting the CO2 scam] “Scientists only have to say something like, ‘[I] think CO2 increasing will give some warming.’ They leave it to the politicians to say, ‘This means the end of the world is coming.’ And their back-up position is: ‘I never said that.’”
32:32 “Driving your SUV [is not going to have dangerous climate consequences]. … That appeals, I guess, to certain people’s vanity; [] they are all-powerful.”
33:12 [Re: How do we defeat the human CO2 scammers?] “… [with captured institutions, e.g., the E.U., full of] bureaucrats who are just infatuated with the power they might have, it’s going to be very difficult … there are political parties that are opposed to this. One hopes maybe they’ll gain power and just trash this. Time will, of course, play a role. But, I hope we don’t have to wait till the destruction of modern society and realize that it had nothing to do with climate. I’d like to think that we can get out of this before then.
35:06 “You know, we’ve spent trillions of dollars trying to reduce [atmospheric CO2] and to get to ‘net zero.’ And you look at CO2 versus time and it continues without any change to increase.
35:42 “[CO2 activist environmentalists] hate humanity. They want power. And they don’t give a damn about the environment. And they certainly give no attention to feeding starving people.
Great summarisation, thanks Janice.
My pleasure, Rod. Thanks for taking the time to tell me. 🙂
“13:05 [Addressing the bogus ‘97% of climate scientists agree’] “In 1988, when Jim Hansen first testified before the U.S. Senate, “Newsweek” ran a cover issue on it showing the earth on fire with the claim beneath it: ‘All scientists agree.’ No scientists were asked. This is the way you convince the public. The public is pretty illiterate when it comes to science.”
This is still the case today.
Thanks for all the quotes, Janice. That took a lot of work. Much appreciated.
You are so very welcome, Tom. Thank you for the kind acknowledgment of my effort (yes, it did take over 2 hours!). Glad you found it helpful.🙂
This is great stuff, thanks. This interview with Dr. Lindzen plus his earlier one with Jordan Peterson should be required viewing for any aspiring “climate scientist” and for all politicians making decisions about CO2 mitigation.
What Dr Lindzen touches on around 30 min viz. the capture of scientific societies by an unelected managerial class is true of universities (e.g. Peter Ridd) companies even governments, it is the seeming inexorable growth of what James Burnham predicted in the 1940s: ‘I believe it meaningless to say that “socialism is inevitable” and false that socialism is “the only alternative to capitalism”; I consider that on the basis of the evidence now available to us a new form of exploitive society (which I call “managerial society”) is not only possible but is a more probable outcome of the present than socialism’ (Wiki).
Janice Moore:
At 1.50 Lindzen says “that one knob that controls the whole works makes no sense. That is belief in magic”
Here, he is WRONG.
Earth’s climate is controlled the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, of either volcanic or industrial origin.
I have 11 articles on Research Gate, where I have closely examined various incidences where temperatures have increased or decreased, and all have been due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
You might try reading them and see whether you agree with me, especially “Net-Zero Catastrophe Beginning?”
https://doi.org/10.03574/wjarr.2022.16.1.1035.
?? The link doesn’t work
Here it is again https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.1035
I have been typing it wrong.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.1.1035
Abstract says
Historically, warm eras such as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period were all eras where there was very little volcanic activity, with the result that their atmospheres were normally free of dimming volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions, This allowed world-wide temperatures to rise 2 to 4 degrees above current temperatures, causing droughts, famines, and the demise of earlier cultures around the world.
Now everything I’ve read about those warm periods, until today, said the exact opposite. It was the subsequent cooling that caused the problems
Ben Vorlich:
Unfortunately, what you have read is not true. Higher temperatures lead to the problems that I listed, and more.
A good reference is Cesar Caviedes’ El Nino in history (2001), subtitled
“Storming through the Ages”.
The following LIA had a different set of problems
The devil is always in the detail Burl, isn’t it? Get that wrong and the whole thing is nonsense or even inannacessible.
Fascists manage (rule).
Chris,
Seems like another way of saying that societies and cultures are destroyed by unchecked growth in bureaucracy. Look at the dynasties of China, or the Roman and British Empires, and you see expansion until the criminally insane are able to control the state and hire all their henchmen to secure their power base. Much like what appears to be occurring in the US currently!
Today we mourn the passing of over 50 years and 430,000 GWhrs of electricity when we actually wanted them at the requisite voltage and frequency-
Liddell power station shuts down after over five decades and 430,000 GWh of electricity (msn.com)
It’s some consolation that no dooming has eventuated over the period despite the copious repetitive warnings by so many doomsters that it will.
There have been 10 lack off reserve notices in NSW today – that includes some cancellation. But it is hotting up for next week. Calm cloudy days in May will be a nightmare for the increasingly weather dependent generation.
At 1750hrs Friday, the wholesale price in NSW had climbed to $316/MWh.
The next three to four months will be an interesting period in the NEM. If Tomago has to reduce load to prevent complete blackouts it will be a bad look for the system operator who has reassured Federal and State governments that the system would cope with the demand post Liddell.
FF power plant has shut down. The mad greens have popped the champagne and released that CO2 in celebration no doubt! We can expect an immediate and observable reduction in “catastrophic” weather events then…effective from now..SARC/-
Michigan is thinking of bringing a nuclear power plant back on line.
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/company-seeks-first-time-restart-of-shuttered-michigan-nuclear-plant/
Whitmer will put a stop to that.
Outstanding piece. This in depth, first hand narrative is a historical
masterpiece.
Linking this to a whole bunch of people.
Not sure if this happened to anyone else, I tried to follow youtube link on this and it refuses to connect. Went into my youtube account and can access it. Not sure what is up with that.
ChatGPT just wrote this:
Environmentalism, as a social movement, has been gaining momentum in recent years. It is a cause that seeks to address environmental concerns, such as climate change, pollution, and deforestation. However, some have argued that environmentalism has all the classic characteristics of a religion. This essay will explore this claim and examine how environmentalism exhibits the characteristics of a religion.
One of the main characteristics of a religion is the existence of sacred texts. In environmentalism, a similar phenomenon can be observed with the publication of books like Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which is often considered the founding text of the modern environmental movement. This book has been compared to a sacred text, as it is revered by many environmentalists and serves as a source of inspiration and guidance.
Another feature of religion is the idea of indulgences. In environmentalism, this is manifested in the form of carbon credits, which allow individuals and organizations to offset their carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy or other green projects. This is similar to the practice of purchasing indulgences in Catholicism, where individuals can purchase forgiveness for their sins.
Fasting, or the act of refraining from certain foods, is also a common practice in some religions. In environmentalism, this is manifested in the form of not eating meat, which is seen as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change.
Earth Day, which is celebrated annually on April 22nd, is another example of a holiday that is reminiscent of religious observances. It is a day dedicated to raising awareness about environmental issues and promoting environmentalism.
The vilification of those who challenge the science of environmentalism is another characteristic that is common in religions. Those who dispute the scientific consensus on climate change, for example, are often labeled as heretics and treated with disdain and scorn.
Blind allegiance to a cause or ideology is also a characteristic of religion that can be observed in environmentalism. Many environmentalists have a strong sense of commitment and loyalty to their cause, and are willing to defend it at all costs.
Human sacrifice, or the idea of sacrificing something valuable in order to appease a higher power, is another characteristic of religion that can be seen in environmentalism. Some environmentalists argue that aborting children to reduce the human population is necessary to save the earth from the negative impacts of overpopulation.
Finally, self-flagellation, or the practice of inflicting pain on oneself as a form of punishment or penance, can also be observed in environmentalism. For example, some individuals choose to eat kale or adopt other strict diets in order to reduce their carbon footprint and live a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle.
In conclusion, it is clear that environmentalism exhibits many of the classic characteristics of a religion. From the existence of sacred texts and holidays to the practice of indulgences and self-flagellation, there are many parallels between environmentalism and religion. While this may be seen as problematic by some, it is important to acknowledge that environmentalism is a powerful force for change and has the potential to inspire individuals and communities to take action to protect our planet.