Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen —21 January 2024 — 1750 words/10 minutes
When one is engaged in a politicized science controversy like the Climate Change Debate – and there are many others today – it is often difficult to tell if “my side” is making any impact in the overall battle for the hearts and minds of the general public.
Let’s look at two idealized groups engaged in a public communications battle over their differences in opinion about some politically important scientific issue. Say, Group A which is large and has powerful allies in important places and its opposition, Group B which is smaller but tenacious and is just as adamant that its views are correct. One might call Group B “anti-A” but that would be a over-simplification – Group B isn’t “anti” Group A, it just thinks the ideas and policies promoted by Group A are not correct and not what society should be doing and sees thing differently.
If you really want to know which of Group B’s public communications are best forwarding their efforts ask Group B’s opponents. Yes, ask Group A. One’s social/political/ideological/scientific opponents will gladly tell you. How? Group A will tell you by whom they most viciously and consistently publicly attack – they attack the most effective elements of Group B’s public outreach.
How does this apply in the Climate Change battle? Over the last twenty years or so, the UN’s IPCC has gathered around itself massive amounts of power which it uses to influence governments. It has used this power, directly and through proxies, to enforce its political views and preferred policies on governments, the press and media, and even scientific journals. Its proxies and operatives actively work to silence any public statement that does not exactly mirror its climate alarm message or even just calls into doubt any of the work of any of its supporters. It was not that long ago that a certain female candidate for the U.S. presidency is said to have engaged a political operative to destroy the life and career of a minor but vocal climate scientist. And it got a lot of help in doing this.
The reaction of the Climate Crisis Team to Roger Pielke Jr. tells us how successful Dr. Pielke was — and is – in countering the more hysterical claims of the IPCC politicians. He does so primarily by using the science sections of the IPCC’s own reports. It must be embarrassing and humiliating for the IPCC and its supporters.
There has been a long-running effort to force social media outlets to censor messages that those in power don’t like. Operating under the false flag of countering hate, the misnamed not-for-profit (in the UK and US) Center for Countering Digital Hate has run many successful operations to de-platform political and social opponents of its founder: Imran Ahmed. Apparently not wanting to get left out, it has joined into the Climate Crisis battle siding with the IPCC-ists under the guise of fighting what they term as climate misinformation: “Climate change misinformation sows skepticism creating the sense that there is a more extensive debate than there really is. Climate deniers spread baseless, unscientific climate denial harnessing the power of social media platforms.” [ source ]
The whole shooting match is contained in a report titled: “The New Climate Denial — How social media platforms and content producers profit by spreading new forms of climate denial” [ .pdf ].
The viewpoints in the report are reflected, at the onset, by the overly emotional and informationally questionable opening statement of Imran Ahmed:
“2023 was the hottest year on record. Once unprecedented wildfires, floods, unbearable heat, and droughts are becoming normal to billions of people worldwide. It is difficult to deny the simple fact that our climate is changing in predictable and yet, still, even now, shocking ways. The awe we feel when Mother Nature bellows with rage can only be matched by our fear that her final judgment will be catastrophic for our species.”
Digging in to this report reveals that it is not Mother Nature that bellows, but rather the ubiquitous Australian former cartoonist and web developer, John Cook. It seems that Cook and friends (Travis Coan, Constantine Boussalis and Mirjam Nanko – all three UK academic political scientists) created an AI tool, cutely named “CARDS, short for Computer-Assisted Recognition of climate change Denial and Skepticism” [ paper here ].
The CCDH report details how they ran the CARDS program to identify climate denial statements in the “text transcripts for climate related-videos posted by 96 YouTube channels run by individuals or organizations known to have promoted climate denial, all dating from the period from 1 January 2018 to 30 September 2023.”
Please, but only if you have a strong stomach, read the report…it is a fascinating study, not of so-called climate denialism, but as a self-reinforcing-perverse-viewpoint exercise. Most of the statements identified as “climate denial” are simply factually true (there are exceptions) . One example “One recent post on the platform denies that climate change caused “Maui’s wildfires, or ANY wildfires”, despite multiple studies showing otherwise.” This was a statement made once by Glenn Beck. This complaint is endnoted to this EPA page which lists the many factors that can contribute to wildfire extent, frequency, and severity – wildfire season in the US West and Northern Hemisphere evergreen forests are always associated with hot dry summers — which are the norm. But fires are not caused by heat and drought, these only contribute to fires caused by electrical line failures, lightning, or human ignition. But, as for the Maui fires, the Congressional Research Service report, “August 2023 Wildfires in Hawaii” [ source .pdf ] clearly finds no climate change connection and certainly not as a cause of the Maui fires.
In fact, the CCDH report admits that their AI tool has a more than 20% failure rate [false positives] when identifying “climate denial”.
Here’s one graphic example:
Will Happer at Heartland’s 14th ICCC.
What the small text says (you can click here for a full sized image in a new tab) is: “It features William Happer claiming that renewable energy will come “at the expense of decent ordinary citizens, who are forced to accept unreliable, expensive electrical power from environmentally devastating wind and solar power sources.” What Dr. Happer really says is truncated…they leave off the first phrase: “Green rent-seekers will get rich at the expense of decent ordinary citizens, who are forced to accept unreliable, expensive electrical power from environmentally devastating wind and solar power sources.”
The most visible climate realists, skeptics and contrarians? Using the “Ask your enemies” system, CCDH (as informed and influenced by John Cook) identifies:
Heartland Institute (which CCDH incorrectly labels “a climate denialist think tank”)
Jordan Peterson “influential, with a total of 7.5 million subscribers”
Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)
John Stossell (for hosting some of the above)
Oppenheimer Ranch Project (and here)
What is the GOAL of the CCDH’s attack on alternative climate views expressed on YouTube videos?
I quote from the CCDH report:
Google must update its policy:
Current policy: “We do not allow content that contradicts authoritative scientific consensus on climate change.”
Recommended policy: “We do not allow content that contradicts the authoritative scientific consensus on the causes, impacts, and solutions to climate change.”
In plain English, CCDH demands Google (the owner of YouTube) not allow any YouTubes that:
1. Contradict — offer different perspectives – the IPCC’s current narratives of Climate Crisis.
2. Contradict — offer different perspectives – on the causes of climate change. This means that only the CO2 Hypothesis can be discussed and only agreement can be expressed.
3. Contradict — offer different perspectives – on the future impacts of Climate Change. Only the IPCC’s “the era of global boiling has arrived” viewpoint may be discussed – anything else could be removed as “disinformation”.
4. Contradict — offer different perspectives – on “solutions to climate change”. Only the IPCC’s “stop using fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions” solution may be discussed, and only agreement with this solution would be allowed.
This recommendation is made in pursuit of the goal of the CCDH:
Our mission is to protect human rights and civil liberties online. We are fighting for better online spaces that promote truth, democracy, and are safe for all.
CCDH will do this by ensuring that no one who disagrees with consensus viewpoints (on a wide range of topics) – the CCDH’s version of what counts as “truth” — is allowed to exercise their most basic human right – that of Freedom of Expression, to freedom to have and express publicly one’s opinion, one’s understanding and one’s viewpoints on topics which CCDH (and their political masters) declare sacred to the politico-secular quasi-religious beliefs of its funders* and political allies.
Those who draw CCDH’s ire and attacks are those who are being most effective in presenting views that oppose their authoritarian anti-democratic viewpoints.
Those listed as CCDH’s worst enemies deserve your support.
# # # # #
*CCDH’s U.S. IRS Form 990 for 2021 shows the entirety of it’s funders list as “restricted”. (Schedule B (Form 990) (2021) Page 2)
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
I have never listened or watched anything by Glenn Beck or John Stossell. I had never even heard of the Oppenheimer Ranch Project.
This bit of biased-to-the-ultimate research is valuable for those who want to know how to counter the foolishness being spread by the Climate Crisis propaganda crowd: Produce short punchy YouTube-type videos that tell the truth of Climate Realism – and do it over and over and over. The video’s that expose the Climate Crisis’s Top Ten Talking Points as false seem to be the most effective.
Missing from the list are the marvelous Jim Steele and ever-persistent Roger Pielke Jr. (for lack of presence on YouTube, I think).
And particular kudos to Anthony Watts, our host, and Heartland, for the great work they do. The CO2 Coalition, is also well represented by Will Happer and Patrick Moore. [Full Disclosure: I am a member of the CO2 Coalition as a Science Research Journalist.] I have read the work of all the others and/or seen them in live presentations.
The examples in the CCDH report (again, John Cook under the covers) show that CCDH uses misinformation, disinformation and outright falsehoods to smear those who it accuses of spreading mis- and dis-information (when we just tell it the way we see it….).
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
The “Twitter Files” and Missouri v Biden, AKA Missouri v Murthy reveal who one should really be worried about. Outsourced censorship by the government.
Tom ==> Yes, Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger. Full over two hours of testimony here.
This is how I know we are making great progress. You would think that if the CAGW crowd really did have a handle on this issue they would bombard the public with their studies, their science, their proof in other words with everything they have. I think they have given it their best shot and still can’t make their case even with most governments, the mainstream media, academia, non governmental NGOs and environmental groups of every stripe and color. The people we hear from now are psychologists, social workers, anti capitalists, radical environmentalists, one world order proponents and any number of power grabbers. Almost all of the noise being made is from outside the science community. We are making progress but we need to push harder.
I monitor the Climate-related comments on YouTube and other sites, and it is clear to me that fewer and fewer people are are buying the CAGW Kool-aid.
More good news.
The more draconian their policies become the more likely the people will revolt and throw the commies out.
A number of EU states are in the beginnings of that revolting development
I think they have given it their best shot and still can’t make their case even with most governments, the mainstream media, academia, non governmental NGOs and environmental groups of every stripe and color.
Au contraire, academia is the recipients of millions of dollars to continue research into climate change and will until the funding dries up. The media publishes or digitalizes scare narratives on a daily basis, governments provide subsidies and license renewable projects of enormous size and the legal industry considers the controversy a cash cow. Even if the man on the cul de sac ignores impending climate doom in favor of the NFL or Seinfeld re-runs, those with a financial interest in the matter aren’t going to throw in the towel. The actual science involved is understood by few and must be accepted as a matter of faith by those with an interest.
Keep in mind the precedents of chloroflourocarbon refrigerants and the ozone layer and radon infiltration. Portraying these as threats to human life were very successful and governments specified the action needed, which was taken. Defending the domestic refrigerator and questioning the actual presence and effects of an invisible gas didn’t and haven’t occurred.
That is the real way to end this folly.
Provide academia with another reason to be funded.
They used to have WW2. Then they had the Cold war. Now it’s the War in CO2.
Academia cannot stop promoting that war until they are given another reason to be funded.
Remember, there are a lot more academic institutions now than in 1945. They need a raison d’etre.
It now extends to departments outside of the scientific realm.
The other day, on YT, there was a link asking, the question “Do you believe in climate crisis”. I clicked on it, and of course click the NO button. It then showed the results.
87% didn’t believe it. Let’s hope that number increases. 🙏
Bob ==> If you browser history will give you the link, I’d love to see it.
Alas, Kip, I clear out my history, when closing down. I realized that the browser was taking too long to load.
John Cook and the other CAGW minions are really starting to sound desperate. These actions are not those of people who are winning the argument.
Their problem is, that they don’t really have any argument with any actual substance. !!
You don’t need to win arguments if you can just shut the other guy up.
Empirical data is labelled as misinformation while their preposterous lies are presented as unquestionable fact.
The brainwashed are a lost cause but are increasingly being marginalized due to their lack of common sense, logic and evidence.
My local paper has stopped censoring my factual comments that destroy the climate crisis narrative so I believe the tide is turning.
This is true. They openly despise science – it’s like anti-vaxxers, anti (civil) nuclear campaigners and cryptozoologists.
Anecdote: On the Guardian some campaigner said that having so many named storms this UK winter is proof of climate change (we only started naming storms about 10 years ago, so in a way he’s right).
I rebutted him, linking to the IPCC AR6 Table12.12 with a link, showing that there was no such trend in storms.
The response was not rational. It wasn’t even risk-averse irrational. It was just pure anti-science.
This response was exemplary:
They don’t care about the truth. They won’t even defend the IPCC. Science is irrelevant to them.
They have faith.
gyan1 ==> Well Done! Keep up the good work — it will help turn the tide….
Stossel is a good guy. He was a television reporter in New york many years ago, but he began to stray off the ranch after he became a libertarian. New York will do that to you. Did it to me in the 70s and 80s. Convinced me that left wing policy nostrums had no validity, no effectiveness, and indeed made things worse.
I think Stossell is terrific. Never heard of him until about 2 years ago. Since then, watched most of his YouTube videos and bought his latest book.
I’ve been watching this fellow on YT. Dr. John Robson.
https://youtu.be/D1grlapMZjY?si=fvZsdSMu4-23841c
He’s super.
Kip, Bravo!! Back-to-back WUWT posts. During all of the years I had posts published here at WUWT, I never accomplished that.
Congrats,
Bob
Bob ==> Not as impressive as it looks, luck of the scheduling draw….I have a full life outside of this type of journalism, and it sometimes lets me write write write and sometimes it doesn’t let me write at all….
Who, pray tell, is Imran Ahmed? Not much info online…
Follow the link provided to get this, as attached
You are correct – a tedious little nobody who has confected an organisation doing the exact opposite of what it claims to be doing
He is creating and propagating hate.
Saw that, but not a lot there. International man of mystery, presumably funded by the Left…
just because somebody disagrees with you does NOT mean that they hate you – that is the significant error here
it is very basic and goes to the root of all human interactions.
For significant numbers of people to genuinely believe that is the real problem we have here in modern society.
it comes from frozen, zombified minds well down the path to serious dementia in their later lives
see where it leads...
headline:Schoolboys made fun of girl before her death
No, the babies didn’t disappear because of any surfeit of richness & intelligence – quite the opposite in fact and there is Imran Ahmed in the vanguard of lying & stupidity
Every hot air balloon runs out of hot air at some point.
Watch this video on Fox News, its not the only one they have put out showing them for what they are.. The WEF discontents are trying to beat it up, but simply continue to prove what complete idiots they are. These folks are doing a great job of showing what the top leadership of the pro warming group is like, completely out of touch drop kicks. They will extinguish their own flame, it will be buried under the piles of BS.
AI = Artificial Intelligence. The name says it all. Its artificial, no more to be said.
Have a wonderful day.
Ozone ==> Not a fan of the WEF — being rich doesn’t mean you are smarter or better than other people.
In a democracy nothing is ever settled such is the ambiguity of language and, as Thomas Reid put it, ‘there is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words’.
But it is the conversations and the arguments that lead ‘eavesdroppers’ to research solutions or to find another direction for debate to continue. The eavesdroppers who are also doers are the ones who get stuff done and move debates forward onto the stuff that really matters. In climate science the stuff that really matters is being sure of what we can do and sure of what we cannot do.
If we cannot replace fossil fuels then just how the hell did we get into the insane process of covering the planet with turbines and panels? Haven’t we had this same conversation countless times without doing stupid stuff? When and where exactly was nuclear discussed and dismissed and who did the dismissing? When and where exactly were wind and solar pushed as solutions to diminishing fossil fuel and who pushed them (benefitting hugely)?
Find answers to our questions and then maybe we can have proper conversations which actually arrive at sensible solutions because the right people might just get the same coverage as those with loud voices and big egos needing to be made to answer for their prior mistakes and their badly misguided earlier decision making. For MSM and social media there is only a problem when anyone tries to control it since that may exclude an eavesdropper from ever hearing the conversation.
Lass ==> this web site is a history of how we got here, how we got in this mess. If you could start with the first post and read chronologically through it all, you then know who did what and when, and why it is a MESS.
This is worse than what you think.
Cook et al’s ‘work’ dovetails nicely with draconian miss-information laws being considered by Australia’s socialist Labor government, which they intend bringing forward later this year. Those laws are capable of undermining free speech in the US. Pity I don’t have my my full submission posted on http://www.bomwatch.com.au, but here is the summary:
Re: New ACMA powers to combat misinformation and disinformation
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (the Bill).
Executive summary
I have perused the various documents, including the Factsheets available from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). While, although the Bill appears benign at first sight, it is extremely concerning that the ACMA’s proposed new powers represent de facto, a coercive attack on free speech, including speech of political nature. Reserve Powers under the proposed Bill also allow the ACMA considerable scope to ‘turn-the-screws’, to gradually intrude into and force compliance (viz, content moderation) across all forms of digital discourse, largely at ACMA’s discretion.
Australians do not need an overarching digital-nanny determining what is misinformation, disinformation and ‘hurt’. Weaponisation of such terms and reasoning that they threaten “the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as our democracy, society and economy” implies that only one Soviet-style viewpoint is valid. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the source of much “online content that is false, misleading or deceptive” including social commentary and propaganda directed at specific groups such non-indigenous Australians and schoolchildren, is directly marketed by, or sponsored by government, which the proposed reforms specifically exclude.
Manipulating public opinion via misinformation and disinformation is an industry. We have seen across the world and in Australia many instances of overreach by over-zealous politicians, compliant media, and corporate ‘enforces’ pushing vested interests across the political spectrum onto their largely captive populace. Standards and activities that enable citizens to be cancelled, silenced or punished for having contrary views, or that prevent alternative views being aired because of some feeling of subjective ‘harm’ is Orwellian in the extreme. Like Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, as the thin edge of a long wedge, the proposed Bill is an abomination. In order for our democracy to flourish it must be withdrawn.
Recommendation
As the proposed Bill is ultimately an affront to Australia’s democratic processes and our way of life, it is recommended that it not proceed.
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Bill ==> And we hope that the lovers of freedom block that insanity…keep up your good work downunder. [I was once ‘forced’ to spend six months living in Sydney to help build the web site for the Olympics there … quite an eye-opener.]
“Climate Change Debate”
What debate?
Climate Alarmists don’t want a debate because they have no evidence to prove their claims. They just want the Skeptics to shut up and stop telling others that Climate Alarmists don’t have the answers.
Alex Epstein debated Bill McKibben several years ago and mopped the floor with him. It’s on YouTube. Alex said he’d debate any climate scientist anywhere or anybody else who wants to debate the climate and energy. I think he’s had a few other debates but few will dare debate him. I know a few skeptics have debated alarmists- but not many. There needs to be a big national debate- bring it out in the open.
Joseph ==> These YouTubes are very helpful in getting our viewpoints out — that’s why CCDH, the Climate crisis Team and John Cook are specifically attacking Google/YouTube to get them suppressed and censored.
YouTube allows these Climate Realism viewpoints to get heard.
I’m a YouTube addict so I agree- if people watch them. But whenever I look at a YouTube video put on by climate skeptics- there’s very few “hits” including the ones put on by Anthony Watts- maybe a few hundred or so. Popular YouTube sites often get many tens of thousands and often millions. Not easy. I’ve put up quite a few too- about forestry, mostly- and lucky if I get a few dozen hits- mostly since I’m infamous in Wokeachusetts for opposing the forestry establishment when the rest of the forestry community sings the party line made by the state. Everyone does that out of fear, mostly, and ignorance.
Joseph ==> The CCDH “report” says “Videos that the AI model identified as containing denialist claims received 325,227,148 views in total.” That 325 MILLION views. Thanks why John Cook is upset. Each viewer then goes to the office or factory and tells his friends and co-workers that the Climate Crisis is hogwash. One person tells three, that’s 1 BILLION informed minds.
It is a cumulative effect. You probably saw the UK news: 1/3 of 13-17 year olds in the UK believe the climate crisis is
intentionally
exaggerated.
I turn seventy this year Kip and the first time I ever posted anything to anyone online was on the WUWT platform in 2018. I was absolutely terrified! I have never been a part of social media platforms and thanks to this platform and others since as well as my own research, I have learned a great deal about the negative aspects of wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries and EV’s.
I had all this knowledge, at least for a layman, and nowhere to go with it. We started fighting local renewables projects and eventually were sending off submissions against projects further afield. We formed a group called SOS (Save Our Surroundings) and a grass roots movement has evolved including many such groups all pushing the same ideals. We now have groups across the entire eastern part of Australia. We assist each other in the fight against the renewables scourge and boy do they fight dirty. SOS has been requested as witnesses at two parliamentary hearings now and our original paper was published online. We have earned at least some credibility. To this day we have not been able to pin down a politician for discussion and the hearings don’t really give you free reign.
During this time I discovered YouTube and I became somewhat of a key board warrior. I have enjoyed spreading the word so to speak over the years and the interaction with others. The number of ‘likes’ has never really been a driver for me, I guess that’s because I was never on social media. But in the past year or so it is not uncommon for me to get no likes at all and people very rarely respond to me either which has led me to believe I have been cancelled. I can see my comments but I don’t believe that others can. The comments from me that they do allow and that are responded to don’t turn up in notifications.
This fight has come at a cost. We moved to the country almost five years ago and have been fighting against renewables for most of that time. I was so appalled at the cradle to grave story of renewables I felt compelled to share my newly discovered knowledge with my lefty artist friends in Sydney. They cancelled me. That was five years ago and I haven’t heard from any of them since, some of whom I had shared a close friendship with for more than twenty years. I developed heart problems the following year which necessitated a pacemaker.
I do feel that the tide is turning now and it seems that the message is finally getting through to the general public. I don’t regret the time that we’ve put into any of this. We have been a part of a concerted global effort to wake people up. We are holding a rally in Canberra on the 6th Feb. I doubt that it will be quite like the farmers in Europe due to our relatively small population across such a vast continent, but there will be plenty of passion. Some people will need to travel more than a thousand kilometres and stay in accommodation so it isn’t cheap to be involved either. Hopefully we get some media attention at least!
Disinformation is easiest to manage if you are the source of the disinformation. CCDH has apparently discovered this, as our government has. George Orwell would be soooo proud 😉
Actually, Orwell would be mortified; his “1984” was intended as a warning, not an instruction manual.
AGW ==> Good one!
Ed ==> Very good point: “Disinformation is easiest to manage if you are the source of the disinformation”.
But it is very dirty pool.
From the article: “statement of Imran Ahmed:
“2023 was the hottest year on record. Once unprecedented wildfires, floods, unbearable heat, and droughts are becoming normal to billions of people worldwide. It is difficult to deny the simple fact that our climate is changing in predictable and yet, still, even now, shocking ways. The awe we feel when Mother Nature bellows with rage can only be matched by our fear that her final judgment will be catastrophic for our species.”
The IPCC’s own data shows that Mr. Ahmed doesn’t know what he is talking about, or, he is lying his rearend off. Thank you Roger Pielke Jr.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about
The IPCC has concluded that a signal of [Human-caused] climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:
River floods
Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
Landslides
Drought (all types)
Severe wind storms
Tropical cyclones
Sand and dust storms
Heavy snowfall and ice storms
Hail
Snow avalanche
Coastal flooding
Marine heat waves”
end excerpt
Tom ==> If Pielke Jr. made YouTubes, he would have made the list.
From the article: “This recommendation is made in pursuit of the goal of the CCDH:
Our mission is to protect human rights and civil liberties online. We are fighting for better online spaces that promote truth, democracy, and are safe for all.”
It appears the CCDH is doing just the opposite of what they claim to be doing. This is how propagandists operate. They say one thing and do another.
Nazi propagandists of the past would be in awe of this age of propaganda, if they could see it.
Tom ==> Their positions and actions are truly Orwellian….Censorship is Free Speech.
Yes, it is scary. We are seeing the early stages of “1984” here and now.
Another false narrative is how UK wind farms are providing so much electricity. They eagerly report how wind has provided c 40% of national demand, and the likes.
What they never mention is how much electricity was being demanded at the time.
Over the last week or so, we’ve had two big storms, with very high winds. During that time, UK demand was down to around 30GW, when it can typically reach c45GW. When demand is close to maximum, wind & solar go AWOL, and leave it to gas and nuclear.
From that excellent article ‘Germany – UK – France Weather-Dependent “Renewables” 2022 : 2023’, August 9th.
We can see that UK installed capacity for wind farms is, c27GW (43% of total UK capacity).
Yet during these two storms, the most they’ve delivered was around 13GW (max). Just 50% of installed capacity.
So, the inference is, that to get the electricity we need from wind, we’ll have to suffer continuous storms like Isha & Jocelyn.
Bob ==> I don’t follow the UK and EU climate craziness very closely — but I know that the North Sea is stormy and windy (and has a lot of oil and gas under the ocean floor). And that solar is not a great source at the UK latitude of 55°N.
It is well established that wind and solar (combined) cannot supply the necessary baseload 24/7 anywhere. And frequently cannot supply enough to meet relative sudden demands (cold snaps — cold nights) . For that dispatchable — rapid spin up — power is needed.
The UK has shot itself in the foot (possibly suicidally) with its attempts to transition to renewables (without nuclear) far to rapidly.
A proper plan, would have been to keep coal and gas, and transition to nuclear. After all, coal is a valuable commodity for other products, not just burning.
As a 20-year-old, I contemplated the issue, some 50 years ago, bringing in nuclear, and when possible, start to phase out coal, with a period of gas & nuclear. But then phasing out gas. The gas to then be used for heating the UK.
The problem was, we had another earlier set of looneys, who objected to nuclear. So nuclear was scrapped.
Yes, burning gas to make electricity is very inefficient. Much better to burn it in the home for cooking and heating.
People as members of social groups are immensely fickle. They will believe, disbelieve, fear, or hope in herds and they will change the direction of thought almost as one after a threshold is reached. I am certain that threshold will come for the climate crisis narrative and it may be soon as large groups of the non-elite bask in the cold and dark the narrative brings them in abundance. With that in mind it is well worth keeping score in this social battle of wits and the witless.
When the tide goes out on climate catastrophists we should know in detail the names of every individual and organization that participated knowingly in the fraud and reward them justly and promptly. As in the above example this would include Google and every media outlet with similar policies that bar the expression of opinions and truths that don’t support the propaganda of the single-minded climate crazy elite. May they be defunded into the grave of failed ideas. I look forward to the time when “googling something” is a term for lying and cheating to steal wealth from the powerless.
Story TIP: I just saw a story on Bloomberg about a Climate Study that drought in South America was 30 times more likely as a result of climate change.
The Oppenheimer Ranch project seems to be a gaggle of conspiracy theorists, anti-government crazies, anarchists, survivalists, and purveyors of unscientific assertions, and for a dollar you can get more info. Not sure why they are on the list – but maybe if I coughed up a dollar I’d know.
Sounds like the guy who put an advert in the newspaper “Send me $5 and I’ll send you the secret of making lots of money.” If you sent off the $5, you got a letter back which started, “Put an advert in the newspaper…” (need I go on?).
Greg ==> They made the list because of what the list is made out of….those sites that produce effective non-consensus climate content on YouTube. I had never heard of them,and as for the rest of their content,I lean your way.
For free you can download the CCDH report and see their example from Oppenheimer.
One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that the term “Hate” is far to often applied to those who disagree with ones “opinion”.
Nowadays it seems to be rampant on the “Left”. (Who knew there were so many unidentified “phobias” in the world!)