Political donations are not tax exempt, why do NGOs, which are political by definition, deserve tax exempt status. Strip the Rockefeller Fondation and all others of there tax exempt status and make all their supporters pay their fair share.
Miliband has just given the green light to the biggest solar farm in the U.K. He claims that building the Sunnica solar farm in East Anglia will “cut bills for families”. It would be appropriate if he could be given a medieval treatment for lying through his teeth as he clearly must know the truth is that this scheme is going to cost much, much more to families everywhere than it will ever will save in electricity bills for anyone. There is no such thing as free or cheap energy, solar, wind or otherwise.
What we need are some class actions against these totally untrustworthy government ministers with serious repercussions for the likes of Miliband etc. when they lie. In time maybe they’ll find some other profession to do their serious harm to others or get very serious financial harm done to them.
You could counter it with a civil case in the same way the judge ruled in Holland but then the reverse, that green tech threatens security…and human rights.
England on average gets 1403 hours of sunshine per year. Only about 75% of that occurs during mid-day hours when solar panels produce reasonably good output. That equates to less than 3 hours a day of productivity. By way of comparison, Arizona averages nearly 8 hours per day of useful sunshine. England is not a suitable place for solar energy.
The opening remarks by the introducer are in German, but thereafter the presenter speaks in pretty good English. He seems to be a native Dutch speaker. There may be some German in the Q&A period, I haven’t got that far yet.
It is hard to fight a religious zeal if a judge decides to trust the ‘experts’ and goes to a kind of blasphemy procedure.
I would put emphasis on uncertainty about the many assumptions and complexity in regards to anything climate and present a list of publications to underpin yr argument. And yes, the argument that the court has no place in climate litigation precisely because it is NOT similar to the ‘trapdoor’ argument.
Melodramatic claims of global warming/climate change based on invalid climate model results have grown into a massive, multi-trillion dollar fraud. This is no longer science. It is a legal problem, not a scientific one. The scientific evidence for the modeling fraud has already been published in the climate modeling literature. It needs to be presented in court as legal argument. In US legal terms, the climate model results are ‘hearsay evidence’ that should not be presented in court.
Climate ‘science’ has degenerated past dogma into a very unpleasant, quasi-religious ‘Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse’. Starting in the nineteenth century, physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. The time dependent energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature of the earth were replaced by average values. When the CO2 concentration is increased in this oversimplified steady state or ‘equilibrium’ model, warming is created as a mathematical artifact in the calculation.
This approach was copied by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) in their early climate models. Their 1967 model created a warming artifact of 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions [M&W, 1967]. This became such a lucrative source of research funds that the climate modelers soon became trapped in a web of lies of their own making. The errors in the M&W 1967 paper were incorporated into the unit cells of their ‘highly simplified’ 1975 global circulation model [M&W, 1975]. Later, in 1979/80 the Manabe group added a ‘slab’ ocean to their model [Manabe and Stouffer, 1979; M&S, 1980]. This was a ‘flat’ ocean model without wind or waves that ignored the surface evaporation or latent heat flux.
When funding was reduced for NASA as the Apollo (moon landing) program ended in 1972, the planetary atmospheres group was told to switch to ‘earth studies’. In 1976, they blindly copied the 1967 M&W paper and created warming artifacts for 10 ‘minor’ species including methane and nitrous oxide [Wang et al, 1976]. In 1981 they added a ‘slab’ ocean model and claimed that they could simulate a ‘global temperature record’ with this model by using changes in CO2 concentration, volcanic aerosols and changes in solar flux. This established the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and a climate sensitivity to CO2 that is still used in the climate models today [Hansen et al, 1981].
As funding was reduced for nuclear programs, the US National Labs, incorporated into the Department of Energy in 1977, also jumped on the climate bandwagon. This gradually evolved into the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) that has become a major source of fraudulent climate model results for the IPCC climate assessment reports.
Later as computer technology improved, the original 1-D steady state models were replaced by atmospheric GCMs and then by coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs. Starting with the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, the radiative forcings were split into ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ contributions. A dubious statistical argument was used to claim that the anthropogenic forcing could cause an increase in ‘extreme weather’. This provided the argument for Net Zero. Little has changed since 2001.
These modeling errors are discussed in detail in the recent paper ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’ published in the open access on-line journal Science of Climate Change4(1) pp. 1-73 (2024) https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
This paper provides a summary the scientific evidence for the climate modeling fraud that should help build the legal case against the climate modeling fraud.
A point that was made quite early on in the video in these cases is that the defendants essentially agree with the plaintiffs with regard to ‘climate change’ so how can they expect to win?
The plaintiffs case that climate change breaches human rights or will cause severe damage and hardship should be strongly rebutted by the defendants and that the plaintiffs arguments are vastly overstated.
If the courts are presented with scientific evidence to show that exageration it would make the judge’s job so much harder as they will not be able to judge due to a lack of knowledge? Does the criminal law that to be judged guilty can only be if it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt apply to civil cases?
Ex-KaliforniaKook
July 20, 2024 9:38 am
The speaker is asking people to sign a petition to show judges that there are a significant number of people that need to be heard and considered. Did anyone figure out where one needs to go to sign?
Sorry, it’s double Dutch to me.
We have had some extra warming in Leeds…
Leeds riots live: Harehills left to burn for hours as riot police driven out by thugs
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1925168/Leeds-riots-live-police-car-attack-updates
It only took a couple of weeks
Political donations are not tax exempt, why do NGOs, which are political by definition, deserve tax exempt status. Strip the Rockefeller Fondation and all others of there tax exempt status and make all their supporters pay their fair share.
Amen, brother. Amen.
Miliband has just given the green light to the biggest solar farm in the U.K. He claims that building the Sunnica solar farm in East Anglia will “cut bills for families”. It would be appropriate if he could be given a medieval treatment for lying through his teeth as he clearly must know the truth is that this scheme is going to cost much, much more to families everywhere than it will ever will save in electricity bills for anyone. There is no such thing as free or cheap energy, solar, wind or otherwise.
What we need are some class actions against these totally untrustworthy government ministers with serious repercussions for the likes of Miliband etc. when they lie. In time maybe they’ll find some other profession to do their serious harm to others or get very serious financial harm done to them.
And now comes food insecurity….
And price rises
Yep. Wasn’t East Anglia known as the market garden of the UK? Seems to be almost all solar farms these days. Who eats solar?
You could counter it with a civil case in the same way the judge ruled in Holland but then the reverse, that green tech threatens security…and human rights.
England on average gets 1403 hours of sunshine per year. Only about 75% of that occurs during mid-day hours when solar panels produce reasonably good output. That equates to less than 3 hours a day of productivity. By way of comparison, Arizona averages nearly 8 hours per day of useful sunshine. England is not a suitable place for solar energy.
“England is not a suitable place for solar energy.”
Indeed.
All of Great Britain is North of Winnipeg, Canada.
Auto
The opening remarks by the introducer are in German, but thereafter the presenter speaks in pretty good English. He seems to be a native Dutch speaker. There may be some German in the Q&A period, I haven’t got that far yet.
It is hard to fight a religious zeal if a judge decides to trust the ‘experts’ and goes to a kind of blasphemy procedure.
I would put emphasis on uncertainty about the many assumptions and complexity in regards to anything climate and present a list of publications to underpin yr argument. And yes, the argument that the court has no place in climate litigation precisely because it is NOT similar to the ‘trapdoor’ argument.
Melodramatic claims of global warming/climate change based on invalid climate model results have grown into a massive, multi-trillion dollar fraud. This is no longer science. It is a legal problem, not a scientific one. The scientific evidence for the modeling fraud has already been published in the climate modeling literature. It needs to be presented in court as legal argument. In US legal terms, the climate model results are ‘hearsay evidence’ that should not be presented in court.
Climate ‘science’ has degenerated past dogma into a very unpleasant, quasi-religious ‘Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse’. Starting in the nineteenth century, physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. The time dependent energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature of the earth were replaced by average values. When the CO2 concentration is increased in this oversimplified steady state or ‘equilibrium’ model, warming is created as a mathematical artifact in the calculation.
This approach was copied by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) in their early climate models. Their 1967 model created a warming artifact of 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions [M&W, 1967]. This became such a lucrative source of research funds that the climate modelers soon became trapped in a web of lies of their own making. The errors in the M&W 1967 paper were incorporated into the unit cells of their ‘highly simplified’ 1975 global circulation model [M&W, 1975]. Later, in 1979/80 the Manabe group added a ‘slab’ ocean to their model [Manabe and Stouffer, 1979; M&S, 1980]. This was a ‘flat’ ocean model without wind or waves that ignored the surface evaporation or latent heat flux.
When funding was reduced for NASA as the Apollo (moon landing) program ended in 1972, the planetary atmospheres group was told to switch to ‘earth studies’. In 1976, they blindly copied the 1967 M&W paper and created warming artifacts for 10 ‘minor’ species including methane and nitrous oxide [Wang et al, 1976]. In 1981 they added a ‘slab’ ocean model and claimed that they could simulate a ‘global temperature record’ with this model by using changes in CO2 concentration, volcanic aerosols and changes in solar flux. This established the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and a climate sensitivity to CO2 that is still used in the climate models today [Hansen et al, 1981].
As funding was reduced for nuclear programs, the US National Labs, incorporated into the Department of Energy in 1977, also jumped on the climate bandwagon. This gradually evolved into the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) that has become a major source of fraudulent climate model results for the IPCC climate assessment reports.
Later as computer technology improved, the original 1-D steady state models were replaced by atmospheric GCMs and then by coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs. Starting with the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, the radiative forcings were split into ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ contributions. A dubious statistical argument was used to claim that the anthropogenic forcing could cause an increase in ‘extreme weather’. This provided the argument for Net Zero. Little has changed since 2001.
These modeling errors are discussed in detail in the recent paper ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’ published in the open access on-line journal Science of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73 (2024) https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
This paper provides a summary the scientific evidence for the climate modeling fraud that should help build the legal case against the climate modeling fraud.
Thanks for the information.
A point that was made quite early on in the video in these cases is that the defendants essentially agree with the plaintiffs with regard to ‘climate change’ so how can they expect to win?
The plaintiffs case that climate change breaches human rights or will cause severe damage and hardship should be strongly rebutted by the defendants and that the plaintiffs arguments are vastly overstated.
If the courts are presented with scientific evidence to show that exageration it would make the judge’s job so much harder as they will not be able to judge due to a lack of knowledge? Does the criminal law that to be judged guilty can only be if it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt apply to civil cases?
The speaker is asking people to sign a petition to show judges that there are a significant number of people that need to be heard and considered. Did anyone figure out where one needs to go to sign?