# Test

This page is for posters to test comments prior to submitting them to WUWT. Your tests will be deleted in a while, though especially interesting tests, examples, hints, and cool stuff will remain for quite a while longer.

Some things that don’t seem to work any more, or perhaps never did, are kept in Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT.

WordPress does not provide much documentation for the HTML formatting permitted in comments. There are only a few commands that are useful, and a few more that are pretty much useless.

A typical HTML formatting command has the general form of <name>text to be formatted</name>. A common mistake is to forget the end command. Until WordPress gets a preview function, we have to live with it.

N.B. WordPress handles some formatting very differently than web browsers do. A post of mine shows these and less useful commands in action at WUWT.

N.B. You may notice that the underline command, <u>, is missing. WordPress seems to suppress for almost all users, so I’m not including it here. Feel free to try it, don’t expect it to work.

Name Sample Result
b (bold) This is <b>bold</b> text This is bold text
Command strong also does bolding.
i (italics) This is <i>italicized</i> text This is italicized text
Command em (emphasize) also does italics.
A URL by itself (with a space on either side) is often adequate in WordPress. It will make a link to that URL and display the URL, e.g. See http://wermenh.com.

Some source on the web is presenting anchor commands with other parameters beyond href, e.g. rel=nofollow. In general, use just href=url and don’t forget the text to display to the reader.

blockquote (indent text) My text

<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>

More of my text

My text

quoted text

More of my text

Quoted text can be many paragraphs long.

WordPress italicizes quoted text (and the <i> command enters normal text).

strike This is <strike>text with strike</strike> This is text with strike
pre (“preformatted” – use for monospace display) <pre>These lines are bracketed<br>with &lt;pre> and &lt;/pre>
These lines are bracketed

with <pre> and </pre>
Preformatted text, generally done right. Use it when you have a table or something else that will look best in monospace. Each space is displayed, something that <code> (next) doesn’t do.
code (use for monospace display) <code>Wordpress handles this very differently</code> WordPress handles this very differently
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/#comment-65319 to see what this really does.

Using the URL for a YouTube video creates a link like any other URL. However, WordPress accepts the HTML for “embedded” videos. From the YouTube page after the video finishes, click on the “embed” button and it will suggest HTML like:

<iframe width="560" height="315"

frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

</iframe>



WordPress will convert this into an internal square bracket command, changing the URL and ignoring the dimension. You can use this command yourself, and use its options for dimensions. WordPress converts the above into something like:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaBNjTtCxd4&w=640&h=480]

Use this form and change the w and h options to suit your interests.

If WordPress thinks a URL refers to an image, it will display the image

instead of creating a link to it. The following rules may be a bit excessive,

but they should work:

1. The URL must end with .jpg, .gif, or .png. (Maybe others.)
2. The URL must be the only thing on the line.
3. This means you don’t use <img>, which WordPress ignores and displays nothing.
4. This means WordPress controls the image size.
5. <iframe> doesn’t work either, it just displays a link to the image.

If you have an image whose URL doesn’t end with the right kind of prefix, there may be two options if the url includes attributes, i.e. if it has a question mark followed by attribute=value pairs separated by ampersands.

Often the attributes just provide information to the server about the source of the URL. In that case, you may be able to just delete everything from the question mark to the end.

For some URLs, e.g. many from FaceBook, the attributes provide lookup information to the server and it can’t be deleted. Most servers don’t bother to check for unfamiliar attributes, so try appending “&xxx=foo.jpg”. This will give you a URL with one of the extensions WordPress will accept.

WordPress will usually scale images to fit the horizontal space available for text. One place it doesn’t is in blockquoted text, there it seems to display fullsize and large images overwrite the rightside nav bar text.

Those of us who remember acceptance of ASCII-68 (a specification released in 1968) are often not clever enough to figure out all the nuances of today’s international character sets. Besides, most keyboards lack the keys for those characters, and that’s the real problem. Even if you use a non-ASCII but useful character like ° (as in 23°C) some optical character recognition software or cut and paste operation is likely to change it to 23oC or worse, 230C.

Nevertheless, there are very useful characters that are most reliably entered as HTML character entities:

Type this To get Notes
&amp; & Ampersand
&lt; < Less than sign

Left angle bracket

&bull; Bullet
&deg; ° Degree (Use with C and F, but not K (kelvins))
&#8304;

&#185;

&#178;

&#179;

&#8308;

¹

²

³

Superscripts (use 8304, 185, 178-179, 8308-8313 for superscript digits 0-9)
&#8320;

&#8321;

&#8322;

&#8323;

Subscripts (use 8320-8329 for subscript digits 0-9)
&pound; £ British pound
&ntilde; ñ For La Niña & El Niño
&micro; µ Mu, micro
&plusmn; ± Plus or minus
&times; × Times
&divide; ÷ Divide
&ne; Not equals
&nbsp; Like a space, with no special processing (i.e. word wrapping or multiple space discarding)
&gt; > Greater than sign

Right angle bracket

Generally not needed

Various operating systems and applications have mechanisms to let you directly enter character codes. For example, on Microsoft Windows, holding down ALT and typing 248 on the numeric keypad may generate the degree symbol. I may extend the table above to include these some day, but the character entity names are easier to remember, so I recommend them.

## Latex markup

WordPress supports Latex. To use it, do something like:

$latex P = e\sigma AT^{4}$     (Stefan-Boltzmann's law)

$latex \mathscr{L}\{f(t)\}=F(s)$

to produce

$P = e\sigma AT^{4}$     (Stefan-Boltzmann’s law)

$\mathscr{L}\{f(t)\}=F(s)$

Each comment has a URL that links to the start of that comment. This is usually the best way to refer to comment a different post. The URL is “hidden” under the timestamp for that comment. While details vary with operating system and browser, the best way to copy it is to right click on the time stamp near the start of the comment, choose “Copy link location” from the pop-up menu, and paste it into the comment you’re writing. You should see something like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/15/central-park-in-ushcnv2-5-october-2012-magically-becomes-cooler-in-july-in-the-dust-bowl-years/#comment-1364445.

The “#<label>” at the end of the URL tells a browser where to start the page view. It reads the page from the Web, searches for the label and starts the page view there. As noted above, WordPress will create a link for you, you don’t need to add an <a> command around it.

## One way to avoid the moderation queue.

Several keywords doom your comment to the moderation queue. One word, “Anthony,” is caught so that people trying to send a note to Anthony will be intercepted and Anthony should see the message pretty quickly.

If you enter Anthony as An<u>th</u>ony, it appears to not be caught,

so apparently the comparison uses the name with the HTML within it and

sees a mismatch.

Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
Steven Fraser
March 3, 2020 8:43 pm

Bold Italic Off

Bryan A
December 10, 2020 10:11 pm

xx²

test
March 19, 2020 3:34 am

It is true though, that before it had ever been encountered in the wild it was first created in a lab!

https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787

And while it may not have been “engineered” as such, the odds that it didn’t come from the Wuhan lab that was experimenting with the virus on live animals are millions to one! The lab has live infected species in cages and the chance of crossover, was intentional!

Red94ViperRT10
March 21, 2020 3:02 pm

…new building materials with higher melting points so that roads won’t crack in extreme temperatures…”

Oh, good grief! *extreme eyeroll* *pound head on wall like Charlie Brown”

Randy Stubbings
December 14, 2020 6:40 am

Wind farms can provide “synthetic inertia.” As discussed in https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/can-synthetic-inertia-stabilize-power-grids,

Synthetic inertia is achieved by reprogramming power inverters attached to wind turbines so that they emulate the behavior of synchronized spinning masses.”

To emulate the inertial behavior of massive rotating equipment, a renewable generator must somehow find extra power quick. Québec’s wind turbines do so through a collaboration between the turbines’ solid-state power electronics and their moving parts. “When the wind turbines see an imbalance between load and generation that causes a frequency deviation on the system they’re able to … extract some kinetic energy that is stored in the rotating masses of the wind turbines,” explains Aubut.

During a December 2015 transformer failure that took more than 1,600-MW of power generation offline, synthetic inertia kicked in 126 MW of extra power to arrest the resulting frequency drop. Quebec’s AC frequency bottomed out at 59.1 hertz – well below its 60-hertz standard – but Aubut and his colleagues estimate that it would have dropped a further 0.1-0.2-hz without the synthetic inertia. And they estimate that this was roughly the same contribution that conventional power plants would have provided.

The trouble, says Aubut, is what happens after the frequency drop. In all but the strongest wind conditions providing synthetic inertia will slow a wind turbine’s rotor. Re-accelerating to optimal speed thereafter absorbs some of the wind power that the turbine can export to the grid. Data from ENERCON shows power reductions of up to 60 percent in some turbines.

May 12, 2020 6:31 am

quoted text

rickk
May 13, 2020 9:20 am
rickk
May 13, 2020 9:24 am

—————

rickk
May 31, 2020 6:38 pm

?w=768

rickk
May 31, 2020 6:49 pm

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 8:33 pm

OK I try this

“https://youtu.be/7P5RW0Tmp-U”

https://youtu.be/7P5RW0Tmp-U

rickk
May 31, 2020 6:40 pm

?w=768

rickk
May 31, 2020 6:48 pm

?w=768

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 8:38 pm

So I try to do YouTube embed in this way ….

“https://youtu.be/7P5RW0Tmp-U”

https://youtu.be/7P5RW0Tmp-U

Jack Black
June 19, 2020 3:31 am

Vimeo video test ….

 

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 8:41 pm

That didn’t work above….

So I try this instead ….

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 8:59 pm

These YouTube embeds not working anymore according to instructions in the Rick Werne text above. YouTube converting copied URLs to the short form of youtu.be/xxxxxxx type, and the ending square bracket being converted on the fly to HEX code %5D which seems to munge the code to FUBAR !

WordPress instructions to copy the embed code of the iFrame don’t work either, because YouTube has added a whole load of guff in the embed URL that WordPress didn’t expect now. This is a major FUBAR, I think….

WordPress says ….

But copied embed code looks like this ….

[blockquote]
[/blockquote]

All this accelerometer, gyroscope, encrypted-media etc guff is what confuses WordPress maybe. Did Anybody manage to embed a YouTube Video into WordPress anymore? So I will give it one last attempt and do this…

[blockquote]
[/blockquote]

Did it work ?

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 9:11 pm

OK so I got the wrong brackets to show proper formatting with my blockquote, blame spell correct for that…. I correct formatting manually in this post.

Again:

These YouTube embeds not working anymore according to instructions in the Rick Werne text above. YouTube converting copied URLs to the short form of youtu.be/xxxxxxx type, and the ending square bracket being converted on the fly to HEX code %5D which seems to munge the code to FUBAR !

WordPress instructions to copy the embed code of the iFrame don’t work either, because YouTube has added a whole load of guff in the embed URL that WordPress didn’t expect now. This is a major FUBAR, I think….

WordPress says ….

But copied embed code looks like this ….

All this accelerometer, gyroscope, encrypted-media etc guff is what confuses WordPress maybe. Did Anybody manage to embed a YouTube Video into WordPress anymore? So I will give it one last attempt and do this…

I think WordPress daemon is still converting the ending square bracket to the special HEX code of %5D though, and how to get around this?

Did it work ?

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 9:24 pm

Blast !

Even the code in the blockquote is being changed by WordPress daemon….. Let me try another way…

Again:

These YouTube embeds not working anymore according to instructions in the Rick Werne text above. YouTube converting copied URLs to the short form of youtu.be/xxxxxxx type, and the ending square bracket being converted on the fly to HEX code %5D which seems to munge the code to FUBAR !

WordPress instructions to copy the embed code of the iFrame don’t work either, because YouTube has added a whole load of guff in the embed URL that WordPress didn’t expect now. This is a major FUBAR, I think….

WordPress says ….

But copied embed code looks like this nowadays ….

 [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U&w=740&h=416] 

All this accelerometer, gyroscope, encrypted-media etc guff is what confuses WordPress maybe. Did Anybody manage to embed a YouTube Video into WordPress anymore? So I will give it one last attempt and do this… just the URL, but without the protocol specifier.

 www.youtube.com/embed/7P5RW0Tmp-U 

Did that do it?

I think WordPress daemon is still converting the generated ending square bracket “]” to the special HEX code of %5D though, and how to get around this?

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 9:38 pm

I can’t seem to demonstrate the new YouTube embed code, because WordPress daemon is stripping out all the parameters, even when I do the blockquote or with “code” brackets.

Maybe if I put it all between quotation marks?

Or you go to the video and right click and choose copy embed code and then paste to a notepad and see for yourself. Anyway the YouTube embed is no longer working because of some parameters change, or validation or something. WordPress plugin maybe needs updating? Can this be checked? I try again tomorrow perhaps.

Jack Black
June 10, 2020 9:59 pm

So the quotation marks idea was no good.

Well that didn’t show up either, hmm 🤔

How to show it ? I try to do screen capture and imgur…

?maxwidth=800&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

Now you see the embed code?

It’s nothing like the old YouTube embed code that WordPress plugin expects, and if you try to use old style iframe code then YouTube server doesn’t like that.

I give up for today, and hope you can get new WordPress updated plugin that can cope with new changes to YouTube’s coding…. 🤔

Jack Black
June 11, 2020 7:19 pm

So according to a commenter in another thread you just have to copy URL (from address bar), and paste into comment in a new paragraph. All the foregoing, about embed codes, size parameters, iFrames, youtube prefix in squared brackets, etc., is seemingly old obsolete nonsense !!! Let’s see if that’s true.

So I paste this (first line shown with “code” brackets):
 

Did it work this time at last?

Jack Black
June 11, 2020 7:46 pm

Aha ! So it worked if the address bar URL is pasted in between a set of code chevron brackets like so:

Yet not if directly pasted as simple URL, or it only then shows up as a hotlink. Curiouser and curiouser !!! Note that in the example I give I show chevrons in quotation marks, to prevent them disappearing.
For this to work Commenter must NOT include these quotation marks. Was that understood?
Seemingly for some users direct paste of address bar YouTube URL does work, depending upon their web browser, and operating system, which may automatically paste in hidden code brackets? Anyway it seems apparent that using iFrame or prefix squared bracket codes is all obsolete guff nowadays?

One more time to confirm this, I follow my own instructions (NO quotation marks on chevrons!!!!)

 

@Rick or Mods, if this worked OK then maybe amend the YouTube embed instructions accordingly?

Jack Black
June 11, 2020 8:06 pm

Final thoughts….

No matter how I tried to demonstrate the code that worked, whenever I put the word “code” in the chevrons it disappeared, so lastly for clarity, I will use extra character _ underscore spacer. Remove all extra underscore spacers when you are doing it for real. I hope that Rick or Mods can actually show this code illustrated properly, should they decide to modify the YouTube instructions in this page preamble.

I hope none of my illustration vanished this time 😎

Jack Black
June 11, 2020 8:23 pm

It’s very hard to put chevrons in these comments without them vanishing. So final, final, final, try, I will substitute square brackets for chevroned brackets in my illustrated example. Commenters MUST of course use chevroned brackets when actually doing the deed !

Do NOT use short style ‘youtu.be’ URLs
MUST be full www dot youtube dot com, with full https colon slash slash prefix
Exactly as copied from browser address bar, and no trailing ampersand parameters !

Phew ! 😅😵🤔

Jack Black
June 12, 2020 7:09 pm

To anyone who read my long saga of experiments in here; Thank you for reading thus far ! 🙂

So it does appear that these results may be web-browser and/or Operating System specific. Some people may get away with merely copy & paste of YouTube FULL URL from the address bar of the relevant web page. Others may require to use the “code” brackets option. The short URL provided by right click on actual video player (youtu.be&etc) doesn’t work anymore in here. iFrame embed codes no longer work. YouTube has changed their API !!!

What ALWAYS now (June 2020) works is this …

Do like so…
Commenters MUST of course use chevroned brackets instead of square brackets when actually doing the deed !
Square brackets are only used here, so they won’t vanish in this comment, being mistaken for an actual command.

YouTube URL MUST be style : https colon slash slash www dot youtube dot com slash watch?v=xxxxxxxx

Exactly as copied from browser address bar, and must delete any other trailing ampersand parameters !

Thanks for all your patience, in reading this far, and I hope that Rick, Charles, and Mods/Editors would put that example in the site Help Tips, and remove all the old anachronistic stuff about copying iFrame embed codes and “[youtube ” prefixes etc. Mods/Editors may be able to illustrate the use of chevroned “code” brackets properly?

Thanks everybody who troubled to read my long saga 😎

Ron
June 26, 2020 3:30 am
Ron
June 26, 2020 3:34 am

Let’s try image:

Or this way:

Jack Black
August 25, 2020 2:08 am

@Ron
Do it with the chevroned “code” brackets same as with a YouTube video….. See end of my long saga above.

😎

Jack Black
August 25, 2020 2:10 am

Why this no work anymore ?

Oh, WordPress – ye naughty, naughty codebase ye really are

😸

June 28, 2020 3:14 pm

Testing —

Hello, world Hides text until hovered over or clicked on

Rotor
July 2, 2020 8:10 am

quoted text

Scissor
July 4, 2020 12:34 pm

████████╗██████╗░██╗░░░██╗███╗░░░███╗██████╗░
╚══██╔══╝██╔══██╗██║░░░██║████╗░████║██╔══██╗
░░░██║░░░██████╔╝██║░░░██║██╔████╔██║██████╔╝
░░░██║░░░██╔══██╗██║░░░██║██║╚██╔╝██║██╔═══╝░
░░░██║░░░██║░░██║╚██████╔╝██║░╚═╝░██║██║░░░░░
░░░╚═╝░░░╚═╝░░╚═╝░╚═════╝░╚═╝░░░░░╚═╝╚═╝░░░░░

██████╗░░█████╗░██████╗░░█████╗░
╚════██╗██╔══██╗╚════██╗██╔══██╗
░░███╔═╝██║░░██║░░███╔═╝██║░░██║
██╔══╝░░██║░░██║██╔══╝░░██║░░██║
███████╗╚█████╔╝███████╗╚█████╔╝
╚══════╝░╚════╝░╚══════╝░╚════╝░

Jack Black
August 25, 2020 2:22 am

ASCII text image compositor? Which on lie daemon did you use for that? Give URL so as others may try it?

Jay Willis
July 17, 2020 5:07 am

 

fraizer
July 24, 2020 10:06 am

This is notis a test

Sasha
July 26, 2020 12:40 am

The Virus/Lockdown Scam

If masks work, then why are we anti-social distancing?
If anti-social distancing works, then why are we wearing masks?
If masks and anti-social distancing work, then why are our businesses closed?
If we can stand in line in a grocery store, then why can’t we stand in line to vote?

Because it’s not about the virus. It never was.

For those who always point at the medical profession who “mask up”…
Surgeons and nurses wear masks to protect against bacterial infections. The evidence for that protection is minimal. Viruses are so small that 100,000,000 (100 Million) of them will fit (if only one layer thick) on the period at the end of this sentence. If you’re donning a medical mask or worse yet: a diaper mask, do you think 4 periods might get in, out, around or through the mask?

The British Government has confirmed that Covid- 19 is harmless to the vast majority of people:

In this clip from the Downing Street Corona Briefing on May 11th, Chris Whitty – Britain’s Chief Medical Officer – says that, to most people, the coronavirus is entirely harmless:
Most people will never get it;
Most of the people who get it won’t ever experience symptoms;
Most of the people who experience symptoms won’t need medical care;
Most of the people who need medical care won’t be need emergency or critical care. And even the tiny percentage of people who need who DO need critical care will survive, regardless of risk factors or medical history.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub3/full

Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery
Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets containing microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound, e.g. by incorrect wear or by leaking air from the side of the mask due to poor string tension.

Objectives
To determine whether the wearing of disposable surgical face masks by the surgical team during clean surgery reduces postoperative surgical wound infection.

Key results
Overall, we found very few studies and identified no new trials for this latest update. We analyzed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies we found. All three studies showed that wearing a face mask during surgery neither increases nor decreases the number of wound infections occurring after surgery. We conclude that there is no clear evidence that wearing disposable face masks affects the likelihood of wound infections developing after surgery. (and they certainly won’t stop viruses.)

In May 2020, The CDC said the exact same thing:
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35…”

As a last thought, consider this:
Sweden never had a lockdown and never forced people to wear masks or anything else, they never forced anti-social distancing on the entire population (other than moving restaurant tables a bit further apart) and they never gave up the idea that sane adults can work out their own level of risk and behave appropriately. Consequently, the Swedes have maintained all the measures of civilized life and have not wrecked their economy in the name of “keeping you safe.” For the record, a tiny minority of Swedes wear masks but they are mainly foreigners or tourists and most Swedes think wearing masks in public outside of medical necessity is idiotic. Sweden now has one of the lowest rates of deaths for the virus which is now in single figures. In the last 24 hours, Sweden recorded just 9 deaths from the virus out of a population of well over 10 million.

Don’t take my word for any of this…

What’s REALLY Going On in Sweden (No Lockdown)

SWEDEN DURING CORONAVIRUS – REAL FOOTAGE

Nicholas McGinley
August 20, 2020 1:06 am

“If masks work, then why are we anti-social distancing?
If anti-social distancing works, then why are we wearing masks?”

That sounds as logical to me as asking why, if overcoats work, do people use umbrellas?
Or if boots work, why step over puddles?

Compu Gator
August 2, 2020 2:00 pm

(Preface for “Watts Up With That”: I’m testing character-sets, esp. those for the ancient languages that I used in this draft, um, rant. I haven’t yet seen any push-back in WUWT to the globally decreed pronunciation of the former Hurricane Isaias. I also need to test my unconventional reference-marks, which I use instead of numbers to enable me to move referring text around with a programming-text editor, without manually renumbering or dependence on word-processors like MS Word (how many WUWT readers have looked at the wretchedly verbose and cluelessly redundant translations of MS-Word features to HTML for Web sites?  Oh!  And using Unicode to greatly expand the variety in reference-marks can provide light distractions during my writings on serious or unpleasant topics.)

I say “[bleep!]” on the condescending direction from the “mainstream media” on how we deplorables should pronounce the approaching storm’s name:

Phonetically, it’s pronounced ees-ah-EE-ahs. There are different ways to pronounce Isaias but for the sake of a named storm, the National Hurricane Center has informed meteorologists this pronunciation will be the standard. [×]

Sooo, the language-majority in the Continental U.S.A., i.e., native speakers of English, many of whom opened an Old Testament for their first time decades ago, and have continued to do so countless times since then, are expected to change their pronunciation of the name of perhaps the greatest prophet in the O.T., all because some faceless globalist weathercrats say we must?  “It’s standard!“  Really, now?  That’s not how we pronounce its written name around here–the state off whose coast the one-time hurricane is whirling right now!

Isaias is the Spanish and Portuguese version of the name Isaiah, more commonly used in Latin American countries like Argentina that tend to have a more European and Latin influence. [….] The name is not common in Mexico, the Caribbean or Central America, according to mynamestats.com. You likely won’t meet too many people with that name unless you travel to South America and parts of Europe.

So we in the U.S.A. near the path of this hurricane must pander to the pride of distant foreigners who inhabit other hemispheres, and are nowhere near the track of this hurricane?  Because it’s mostly Argentinans who happen to name their infants after major prophets in the Old-Testament, and that somehow gives them world-widedibs’ on the pronunciation?  To Hey-ell with that!

In point of fact, “Isaias” is exactly the spelling that’s attested in St. Jerome‘s Biblia Vulgata [✞]. It’s not merely “Latin American“; it’s honest-to-God Latin, yall!  Roman Empire, roads, legions, gladiators, &c. Jerome would’ve gotten it from his original translation of Hebrew documents, completed in A.D. 405 [#]. His Latin spelling is consistent with the Greek spelling «῾Ησαΐας» (or less meticulously as «Ησαιας»), then pronounced something like English “Hā-să-yē’-ăs” (or “Ā-sī-ăs”) in the preChristian Septuagint Old Testament (a.k.a. LXX) [#]. [#]. The name in the Vulgate has come to be pronounced by English-speakers more-or-less as “Ē-sī’-yăs“.  English-speaking Protestants follow a translation into Early-Modern English that established the spelling “Isaiah ” [❀], and pronounce it as “Eye-say’-yah”.

The name means “God is my salvation” [×]

Nooo, the name does not mean a day-amn thing in LXX Greek, nor in its corresponding Latin. So certainly not anything in its barbarized descendant languages Spanish or Portuguese. It has the claimed meaning only in Hebrew: “ ישׁעיהוּ   ” (i.e., yod shin-with-shin-dot ayin yod he shuruk). I’m no expert, but daring to guess pronunciation something like 4-or-5-syllables for the Hebrew: “Yə-shæ-(ə)-yɑ-hū” [✡]. Which for what it’s worth, more-or-less agrees with Wikipedia‘s “Yəshạʻyā́hû” [✡✡].

But “ees-ah-EE-ahs“?  Not no way, not no how!

——–
Note × : “Tropical Storm Isaias forms–here’s how to pronounce it”.
By Gabriella Nuñez, Multimedia Producer. Published: July 29, 2020, 2:25 pm. Updated: July 30, 2020, 7:09 am.
https://www.clickorlando.com/features/2020/07/29/system-in-tropics-likely-to-become-isaias-heres-how-to-pronounce-it/. This silly “ClickOrlando.com” site-name is the Internet home of the long-established local-t.v. channel 6 (1954), owned by the (Katharine Meyer) Graham Media Group, whose flagship property was once the Washington Post.

Note ✞: It’s awfully tempting, nowadays, to translate Latin Biblia Vulgata as “Bible of the Deplorables“. More literally, the title’s easily misunderstood word, a participle of the verb vulg·o, -are, simply means “common”, e.g., in knowledge or usage (altho’ it can indicate “the common people” among the empire’s class-structure). The New World, the “Deplorables”, and their Walmarts would be a millennium and more in the future. Despite his scholarly talents, in translating from the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts available to him (A.D. 390–405), Jerome kept his Latin simple, to assist readers with only elementary literacy. “St. Jerome”. By Louis Saltet (1910). The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8.

Note # : “Versions of the Bible”. By Anthony Maas. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm. Not even modern Jewish archivists have Hebrew manuscripts that are older than those which would’ve been available for Jerome to study. The Massoretes didn’t begin their efforts until the A>D. 6th Century.

Note ❀ : William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, or the “Authorized Version” (1611), whatevah!  I’ll leave it to Protestants herein to sort it out.

Note ✡ : I used a version of the hardcopy bilingual dictionary (focused on Biblical or ancient Hebrew) by Gesenius (its English is a later translation from the German of Gesenius).

Note ✡✡ : Most readers herein will probably want on-line sources, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah; the pronunciation is isolated in(to) its “note a”. The “š” in Wikip. is simply the Romanized-Slavic spelling of E.-Europe for “sh”, into which I transliterated it above. The ‘ ʻ ’ that’s shown 2 characters later is typewriter-era technology for transliterating the Semitic consonant ayin (‘ ע ’); conventional wisdom describes it as originally a sort of strangled gasp, but later a ‘glottal stop’; or it can be transcribed as the short vowel ‘e’.  Inexplicably, the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906, as hosted on line, fails to show the spelling in Hebrew: “ISAIAH”. By Emil G. Hirsch, Thomas Kelly Cheyne, Isidore Singer, Isaac Broydé. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8235-isaiah.

david g
August 16, 2020 7:08 am

test with vpn active

david g
August 16, 2020 7:09 am

test without vpn

Bellman
August 19, 2020 10:17 am

Just testing

Bellman
August 19, 2020 12:57 pm

And here is the table of records for Death Valley

So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

Bellman
August 19, 2020 1:39 pm

So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

Bellman
August 19, 2020 1:41 pm

And here is the table of records for D… Valley

So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

Bellman
August 19, 2020 1:42 pm

And here is the table of records for Death Valley:

So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

Bellman
August 19, 2020 1:43 pm

And here is the table…

So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

J Mac
August 19, 2020 6:28 pm
Jack Black
August 25, 2020 2:16 am

@J Mac
Do it with the chevroned “code” brackets ….. See end of my long saga above, and no use any trailing parameters.

 

😎

Antero Ollila
August 23, 2020 11:10 am

Image:
“https://static.wixstatic.com/media/c266e2_34cd873fa95e482197dc9095ec15f660~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_338,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/Dia2_JPG.webp”

Antero Ollila
August 23, 2020 11:11 am

Image:
“https://static.wixstatic.com/media/c266e2_34cd873fa95e482197dc9095ec15f660~mv2.jpg”

Antero Ollila
August 23, 2020 11:12 am

Image:
^”

Antero Ollila
August 23, 2020 11:17 am

Image:

Antero Ollila
August 27, 2020 12:26 pm

Image:

Antero Ollila
August 27, 2020 12:28 pm

Trial and error:

August 31, 2020 7:04 am

Charles,
Thanks for picking up the Nebulazon joke 😉

August 31, 2020 7:23 am

Nebulazon

September 5, 2020 2:27 pm

I think it is working

niceguy
September 10, 2020 3:46 pm

🙂
😉
😀
:O

Sasha
September 13, 2020 12:58 am

Every statistic about Covid-19 in the British media is a lie

Up to 90% of people who test positive for Covid barely carry any virus and are not contagious.

It has been revealed that the standard tests being used in the US to diagnose Covid-19 cases are far too sensitive, with the vast majority of people marked down as being positive are turning out to be negative. Top US virologists have been stunned by revelations about the laxity of the US Covid testing regimen. Tests that deliver a simple binary “positive or negative” result are not fit for purpose, as they tell us nothing about the contagiousness of each person.

Data from New York, Nevada and Massachusetts shows that when the amount of the virus found in a person is taken into account, up to 90% of people who have tested positive should have been negative, as they are carrying only tiny amounts of the virus, are not contagious, pose no risk to others, and have no need to isolate. This means that only a fraction of the daily “cases” being reported so hysterically in the mainstream media are actual, bona fide Covid-19 sufferers, and need treatment and to separate themselves from others.

So how could this have happened? The answer has to do with the sensitivity of PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) tests for Covid, which it turns out can be ramped up according to the taste of the testing companies. Most testing companies have chosen the outrageously high sensitivity limit of 40 PCR cycles – meaning that the DNA in a sample is exponentially increased 40 times in order to amplify its signal. By using such a ridiculously sensitive test means that the faintest traces of a dead virus, or even leftovers from previous infections (such as the common cold), can result in a positive. Professor Juliet Morrison, a University of California virologist, said that even a limit of 35 PCR cycles is too high, let alone 40. She said she was “shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive.” But apparently, pretty much everyone in the US Covid brain trust took exactly that on faith.

So the scale of the pandemic ‘problem’ is actually much smaller than we’ve been led to believe – about a tenth of what all the politicians and media have been using to justify the lockdowns, the quarantines, the mass testing. Some may be shocked that the scale of the problem is so much smaller than assumed. But for a seasoned ignorer of any and all statistics that contain Covid so-called ‘cases,’ there are no surprises here. The truth is, there was never any reason to be confident in such figures. The FDA has only now been forced to concede that they have no idea how different testing companies determine which the positive and negative tests are: they just accept whatever data they are given.

What these findings bring is absolute assurance that the testing to this point has been an utter waste of time, and that not one statistic concerning this pandemic – from cases to deaths to infection rates – can be believed. But it should not have taken some journalist to ask the right question to discover this: a bit of common sense would have been enough. What is it going to take for these professional virologists to drop their assumptions and models, and just start acting based on the facts at hand?

Scrap test and trace

It’s a virus so deadly, you need a test to tell whether you have it or not. So goes the refrain of many lockdown skeptics, “Covidiots” (so beloved by the Daily Mail) and anti-maskers. Something has gone not just wrong, but totally haywire when the might of the world’s scientific establishment is trained with the zeal of a Witchfinder General on one particular microscopic particle. Not even a particularly dangerous particle; the latest data show it is the eighth most common cause of death in England, and it doesn’t even make the top ten in Wales.

Meanwhile, in Wuhan, the original source of this disease, the pool parties are in full swing. They don’t seem to be too worried about PCR tests or contact tracing, or even the virus itself. The Chinese government says that their supreme lockdown was so awesome that they now have zero Covid: a biological impossibility. Maybe they just stopped testing, and decided to get on with their lives. Everyone else should take a leaf out of their book.

Beta Blocker
September 16, 2020 7:54 am

TEST OF SPELLING, FORMATTING, AND LENGTH:

Sooner or later, a climate activist Democrat president will occupy the Oval Office. When this happens, everything Donald Trump ever did while he was president will be quickly and completely erased.

Suppose, for purposes of argument, Joe Biden becomes that climate activist Democrat president. If Biden wants to achieve an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 — President Obama’s original goal — then massive spending on Green New Deal projects combined with a carbon pricing scheme cannot and will not get the job done.

Fossil fuels are just too convenient as an energy resource and too demand-inelastic for America to reach the 80% reduction target within thirty years using the plan the Democrats are now proposing.

If Biden is serious about an 80% reduction by 2050 — a.k.a. ‘Net Zero’ because it is really the same thing — then he must impose a government-managed system of carbon fuel rationing which directly limits the quantities of fossil fuels that Americans can import, produce, refine, distribute, and consume.

The only possible means of reducing America’s carbon emissions as quickly as climate activists say is necessary is to use the power of government in ways that make all carbon fuels as scarce and expensive today as they will be in a hundred years time.

How could this be done?

Here is an alternative plan for reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. The plan is entitled the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP).

The plan uses a series of Executive Orders which combine existing provisions of the Clean Air Act with existing provisions of national security legislation to create an integrated regulatory approach for increasing the cost of all carbon fuels and for systematically restricting their future availability.

In short, the SSCECP uses the power of the federal government to create and enforce an artificial shortage of carbon fuels while directly raising their prices and directly reducing their import, production, distribution, and consumption.

The SSCECP employs EPA-administered carbon pollution fines as the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. The plan supplies a powerful incentive for the state governments to participate in directly regulating America’s carbon emissions by assigning them the great bulk of the revenues produced from the EPA’s carbon pollution fines.

A joint interagency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) is established to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.

In addition, the plan keeps the import, production, and distribution of carbon fuels in private hands. Rather than nationalizing the oil and gas industry, the plan enlists private corporations as contracted agents in managing the government’s energy rationing programs. The government also guarantees a steady and healthy rate return from the sale of all carbon fuels produced by those private corporations which choose to participate.

Here are the major phases of the plan. The start and end dates listed for each major phase assume a climate activist Democrat is elected president in 2020.

SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — Major Phases:

Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.)
Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021)
Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022)
Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049)
Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.)

Here are the details of the plan:</

SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — Detailed Description:.

Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.)

— File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (2007)
— Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s. (2009)
— Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. (2010-2012)
— Establish a recent precedent, the COVID-19 pandemic, for taking strong government action in response to a declared national emergency. (2020)

Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021)

II.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase II

II.A.1 — Issue an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency.
II.A.2 — Assign a joint task force of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA), the US Department of Homeland Security (US-DHS), and the US Department of Energy (US-DOE) to manage the declared emergency.
II.A.3 — Create a joint interagency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
II.A.4 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to define and implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
II.A.5 — Establish a public relations outreach program to explain and defend the actions being taken.

II.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase II

II.B.1 — Publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
II.B.2 — Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112.
II.B.3 — Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
II.B.4 — Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
II.B.5 — Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts.

II.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase II

II.C.1 — Research and publish a provisional system for government-enforced carbon fuel rationing.
II.C.2 — Defend the provisional system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.

Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022)

III.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase III

III.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
III.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency.
III.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels.
III.A.4 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program needed to explain and defend the anti-carbon actions being taken.

III.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase III

III.B.1 — Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
III.B.2 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
III.B.3 — Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
III.B.4 — Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states.
III.B.5 — Defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.

III.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase III

III.C.1 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
III.C.2 — Establish a time-phased, hard-target schedule for reducing the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
III.C.3 — Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
III.C.4 — Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
III.C.5 — Defend the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.

Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049)

IV.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase IV

IV.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
IV.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency.
IV.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in enforcing carbon emission regulations.
IV.A.4 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels.
IV.A.5 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program as needed to further explain and further defend the anti-carbon actions being taken.

IV.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase IV

IV.B.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
IV.B.2 — Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states.
IV.B.3 — Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulatory framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
IV.B.4 — Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
IV.B.5 — Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
IV.B.6 — Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
IV.B.7 — Defend the EPA’s system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.

IV.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase IV

IV.C.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
IV.C.2 — Commence operation of production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
IV.C.3 — Monitor the compliance of fossil fuel producers and distributors with their CFCB production control agreements.
IV.C.4 — Monitor the profit levels of fossil fuel producers and distributors for conformance with the CFCB’s guaranteed profit schedule.
IV.C.5 — Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts.

Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.)

— The President issues a proclamation that the target of an 80% reduction has been achieved.
— The President, the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE assess the need for continuing the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations and the US Government’s mandatory fuel rationing program as necessary to maintain the 80% goal.
— If a determination is reached that the government’s system of carbon control measures must continue beyond 2050, existing agreements with the states and with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors are extended with appropriate modifications.
— Defend the government’s anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures must continue beyond 2050.

Remarks:

Once again, a key point here is that not another word of new legislation is needed to enable this plan. The entire plan is implemented through a series of Executive Orders covered under existing environmental and national security legislation and under constitutionally legal Executive Branch authorities.

However, the elephant in the room is this …. Would the voting public accept the personal and economic sacrifices which go with imposing government-mandated, strictly-enforced anti-carbon measures?

If the Democrats are truly serious about greatly reducing America’s carbon emissions by 2050, they must acknowledge that it can’t be done without using the full power of the federal government in coercively forcing those emission reductions.

niceguy
September 18, 2020 8:35 pm
Editor
September 26, 2020 11:40 am

Testing an embed

Kip

niceguy
October 3, 2020 8:17 pm

I read the French twittosphère A LOT. I mean like thousands of tweets. That’s the virtue of TT, you can read tons of sh*t in a short time, unlike most other social websites and blogs where you waste a lot of time reading tiny amounts of sh*t. (The Web is mostly sh*t, but that’s instructive. The TV series “Scrubs” had a song about sh*t and how you can learn essentially anything from it.)

In the French TT, a lot of criticism of Dr Didier Raoult (a man that I strongly dislike BTW, he embodies what’s wrong in academia and science publishing) gets criticized A LOT for his white coat in interviews and videos done in his IHU (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire). Apparently Raoult’s white coat hit a nerve, notably among French scientists.

Well, duh. I guess when you have a white coat you must wear in some rooms, you get used to it and wear it whenever you are in the IHU. It could be used to impress morons though.

But we have never seen him in a white coat elsewhere.

Unlike these “scientists”!

Mark Pawelek
October 20, 2020 8:44 pm

The calculation of ECS depends on the atmospheric model of the greenhouse gas effect. They’ve always used the same core model; derived from Manabe and Wetherald 1967 amended by Held and Soden 2000. This is the so-called ‘simple physics’ behind man-made climate change.

The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse gas effect, is simple. An increase in gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelenghts. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from highter, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planeteary energy balance is restored.
Hansen et al.; 2011; Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011

more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to be more opaque to infrared. That’s a falsifiable test. The data says:

No. The optical thickness of the atmosphere to CO2 greenhouse gas is unchanged since 1950 for over 70 years since CO2 increased in the atmosphere from 315ppm to 415ppm today.

So the core assumption of the greenhouse gas effect is wrong. What of the predictions? The first prediction is that man-made global warming happens because a change in CO2 is “reducing emission of heat energy to space“. We can measure that too, and have been; at least since 1985.

Far from reducing: the heat energy emitted to space increased since 1985 by a whole 1.5 W/m². The first falsifiable prediction of the core model shows the greenhouse gas effect failing.

In fact, it increases as a reflection of climate warming (notice the fall 1991-1994 due to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo cooling earth’s climate).

It injected more particulate into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C in the years 1991–93
Wikipedia

So OLR emitted to space is not a cause of warming. It simply reflects warming which already happened. The climate consensus at the IPCC are clear that humanity causes 90% of modern climate change. For humanity to have – caused 90% of modern climate change – OLR to space must’ve fallen in line with the mechanics of the greenhouse gas simulation.

A core assumption and a core prediction by the climate consensus greenhouse gas model is wrong. The model is falsified. Those claiming it is settled science promote pseudoscience.

November 7, 2020 7:42 pm

test

November 9, 2020 5:03 pm

Anthony …

I use a Mac and for several weeks the WUWT platform has become almost unusable.

Using the Mac’s native Safari browser, when I click into a post all is well for a minute or so as I read the text.

Then the spinning orb appears and almost all the post above and below where I’ve got to disappears and only the grey background is visible.

I can reload to continue but the problem reappears after a minute or so.

I instead try using Firefox and Chrome. With both I can see the post’s text but no messages at all, and instead a spinning orb as the browsers try to load content.

At least with Safari I can keep reloading and creep my way through the messages if I think they’re sufficiently interesting to keep making the effort.

One thing I notice is that in Firefox and Chrome, a locked strip ad appears at the bottom of the screen, covering the in-house cookie message. Locked messages/ads shouldn’t appear in the same position in a browser.

In Safari, this ad never appears at all.

All my browsers are working fine with every other website in the world, and I click into a hundred or so every day.

My suspicion is one of the refreshed ad sources on the site, probably the static position one at the bottom of the page, is using corrupt code that’s stalling the browsers.

Mac Safari users are an abundant audience. I’ve seen no other messages regarding the problem but even sending this message is difficult as it’s impossible in Firefox or Chrome and Safari often stalls (only on WUWT while sites on a dozen or so simultaneous browser tabs are working fine) so maybe none of the affected readers have been able to send a message.

November 11, 2020 5:04 pm

I’ve no idea if my message above prompted it but this morning I load WUWT and everything is working perfectly on all browsers. Fantastic and well done.

I also note that a lot of advertising has disappeared including at the bottom of pages, and I hope this won’t reduce the meagre income that WUWT generates to compensate for all your hard work.

I also note that when using Firefox or Chrome an ad appears at the top of the page above the WUWT masthead. The ad doesn’t appear in Safari. Regardless, all three browsers are loading all content rapidly and nothing is stalling.

Anyways, this is a bit of feedback to let you know that the problem is solved and I can again enjoy the pleasure of browsing up and down through posts and messages without worrying how long it will last.

November 10, 2020 5:48 pm
Scott W Bennett
November 13, 2020 11:50 pm
Climate believer
November 14, 2020 5:08 am

Climate believer
November 14, 2020 5:10 am

[url[/img][/url]

Sasha
November 17, 2020 3:38 am

Tesla’s Supercharger Network In Australia Costs Nearly Double Than Filling Your Car With Gas

Using the Tesla Supercharger network, it is now costlier to recharge your vehicle than it is to gas up at a traditional gas station, according to a new report from Australia-based WhichCar. The news came as a result of a “recent price increase” to use the Superchargers and “incorrect fuel figures on the Tesla website.”

This puts an end to Tesla’s claims that recharging its vehicles offered savings versus traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.

“According to Tesla the cost of charging a Tesla Model 3 is $7 per 100km compared with$12 for a rival petrol car,” WhichCar notes, before revealing the estimate uses “at least three incorrect figures.” The report disputes “how much electricity a Tesla Model 3 uses, the cost of electricity at a Tesla Supercharger and the price of petrol.”

It also notes Tesla’s increase for its Supercharger to 52 cents per kilowatt-hour. The article calculates this recharging “even the most efficient” Model 3 Standard Range would cost $9.78 per 100km using a Supercharger. It then notes that BMW’s 330i costs$8 per 100km to fuel, assuming the country’s average cost of premium unleaded at $1.38 – a figure sourced from the country’s government. The BMW consumes 5.8 litres per 100km, which is below Tesla’s estimates of 7.0 litres per 100km. This means the BMW is actually 18% cheaper to fuel than a Tesla is to recharge at a Supercharger. If you run the same calculations with the hybrid-powered Lexus IS300h, the results are even more profound. The Lexus cost winds up about 31% lower than the Tesla charged using a Supercharger. Tesla first used its Supercharger network, promising “free” electricity and charging, to lure customers into the idea of an all electric future when the company first surfaced. Gradually, the allure of the idea wore off for the company and they began charging for use of the network. Like many other promises made by Tesla (solar roof tiles, 1 million robotaxis, full self driving), the concept of the Supercharger network looks like it has just run face first into a much needed reality check. https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/teslas-now-more-expensive-to-charge-than-petrol-cars jarves November 17, 2020 6:38 am jarves November 17, 2020 6:42 am jarves November 17, 2020 6:44 am jarves November 17, 2020 6:49 am jarves November 17, 2020 6:53 am niceguy November 18, 2020 1:25 pm 100 C niceguy November 18, 2020 1:30 pm income declared as “LMNP” = “loueur meublé non professionnel” in the 2042 C PRO tax paper Beta Blocker November 24, 2020 1:18 pm TEST OF COMMENT FORMATTING AND LENGTH Commenting on another article on WUWT, David Wojick said earlier this month that: “The American system is specifically designed so that the President has far less power than in the parliamentary system, where he would be head of Congress as well. No kings. Checks and balances. Biden can do very little without full Congressional support, which he will not have.” The last paragraph from Wojick’s article Biden’s False Climate Promises says this: “People running for President should only promise to do what Presidents can actually do. They cannot speak for Congress so should not pretend to. Biden’s climate promises are so false they are absurd. You can’t get there from here.” The reality here is this: Congressional buy-in isn’t needed if the goal is simply to achieve a quick reduction in America’s GHG emissions by any means necessary and without regard to the political consequences. Drawing upon existing legislation in the areas of environmental protection and national security, the president and the Executive Branch already have all the authority needed to enforce a steep reduction in America’s carbon emissions on a fast track schedule. What would constitute a ‘fast track schedule’? It would be President Obama’s original goal, as he stated it in 2012, of an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2050, using 2005 as the baseline. Climate activist politicians can spend all the money they want to on low carbon energy technology and on Green New Deal projects. Energy conservation is the only way to close the gap between what low-carbon technology can accomplish and what the 80% GHG reduction target demands. In making the transition to the 80% target, strictly enforced energy conservation measures can and must be the most important resource management tool being applied. The bottom line is that if the 80% GHG reduction target is to be met, Americans must be using half as much energy on a per-capita basis in 2050 as we do today in 2020. If climate change is to be managed in the way the incoming Biden administration will be managing the COVID-19 pandemic, then what amounts to a fossil energy lockdown must be imposed, a.k.a. fuel rationing. Why rely on the EPA and the Executive Branch? Fifty years of environmental legislation places responsibility for controlling and reducing emissions of substances identified as dangerous pollutants into the hands of the president and the Environmental Protection Agency. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the process Obama’s EPA followed in identifying carbon emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act was proper and so let stand the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding for carbon. Other legislation places responsibility for management of critical national security issues into the hands of the president. If the world is indeed burning up because of human-generated carbon emissions, then it is easy enough for the president to argue that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a national security threat as well as a global security threat and so falls under the scope of existing national security law. What will Joe Biden and his climate envoy John Kerry actually do after Biden assumes office? If human-driven climate change is in fact the urgent crisis climate activists say that it is, a newly inaugurated President Biden has no other choice morally or ethically but to immediately impose a program of carbon fuel rationing on the American people. He must do so as soon as he enters the White House. How could Joe Biden develop and then enforce a thirty-year carbon fuel rationing program? Back in mid-September, 2020, I posted a plan on WUWT for reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. That target was former President Obama’s original goal as he stated it in 2012. My intention back then, and still is now, to demonstrate how steep reductions in America’s GHG emissions can be accomplished in the absence of any new legislation from Congress. The plan is entitled the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP). It uses a series of executive orders which combine existing provisions of the Clean Air Act with existing provisions of national security legislation to create an integrated regulatory approach for increasing the cost of all carbon fuels and for systematically restricting their future production and commercial availability. The SSCECP uses the power of the federal government to create and enforce an artificial shortage of fossil fuels. It directly raises the price of all carbon fuels while directly reducing their future supply and availability, doing so through a process of imposing increasingly severe restrictions on their extraction, import, production, and distribution. In COVID-19 terms, the SSCECP can accurately be described as a phased fossil energy lockdown lasting as long as thirty years. The plan employs EPA-administered carbon pollution fines as the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. This approach supplies a powerful incentive for the state governments to participate in directly regulating America’s carbon emissions by assigning them the great bulk of the revenues produced from the EPA’s carbon pollution fines. As a further measure, a joint inter-agency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) is established to manage and enforce a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuel products. This board would report directly to the president’s Climate Envoy, John Kerry. As a practical expediency, the SSCECP keeps the import, production, and distribution of carbon fuels in private hands. Rather than nationalizing the oil and gas industry, the plan enlists private corporations as contracted agents in managing the government’s energy rationing programs. The federal government also guarantees a healthy profit and a steady rate return from the sale of all carbon fuels produced by those private corporations which choose to cooperate in managing the SSCECP’s phased series of GHG reductions. This approach makes the oil and gas industry an ally, not an adversary, in quickly reducing America’s GHG emissions. The SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — the Major Phases: The start and end dates listed for each major phase assume Joe Biden is inauagurated as President on January 20th, 2020. Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.) Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021) Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022) Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049) Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.) The SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — a Detailed Description:. Here are the details of the plan: Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.) — File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (2007) — Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s. (2009) — Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. (2010-2012) — Establish a recent precedent, the COVID-19 pandemic, for taking strong government action in response to a declared national emergency. (2020) Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021) II.A: – Presidential Actions (Joe Biden), Phase II II.A.1 — Issue an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency. II.A.2 — Assign a joint task force of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA), the US Department of Homeland Security (US-DHS), and the US Department of Energy (US-DOE) to manage the declared emergency. II.A.3 — Create a joint interagency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels. II.A.4 — Place the joint task force and the carbon fuels control board under the direct supervision of the president and his national security staff. II.A.5 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to define and implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework. II.A.6 — Establish a public relations outreach program to explain and defend the actions being taken. II.A.7 — Defend the president’s executive orders in the courts. II.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase II II.B.1 — Publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding. II.B.2 — Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112. II.B.3 — Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution. II.B.4 — Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements. II.B.5 — Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts. II.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase II II.C.1 — Research and publish a provisional system for government-enforced carbon fuel rationing. II.C.2 — Defend the provisional system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts. Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022) III.A: – Presidential Actions (Joe Biden), Phase III III.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework. III.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency. III.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels. III.A.4 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program needed to explain and defend the anti-carbon actions being taken. III.A.5 — Defend the president’s executive orders in the courts. III.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase III III.B.1 — Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable. III.B.2 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations. III.B.3 — Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. III.B.4 — Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states. III.B.5 — Defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts. III.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase III III.C.1 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing. III.C.2 — Establish a time-phased, hard-target schedule for reducing the production and distribution of all carbon fuels. III.C.3 — Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors. III.C.4 — Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks. III.C.5 — Defend the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts. Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049) IV.A: – Presidential Actions (Joe Biden and his successor climate activist presidents), Phase IV IV.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework. IV.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency. IV.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in enforcing carbon emission regulations. IV.A.4 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels. IV.A.5 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program as needed to further explain and further defend the anti-carbon actions being taken. IV.A.6 — Defend the president’s executive orders in the courts. IV.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase IV IV.B.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations. IV.B.2 — Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states. IV.B.3 — Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulatory framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions. IV.B.4 — Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions. IV.B.5 — Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions. IV.B.6 — Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags. IV.B.7 — Defend the EPA’s system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts. IV.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase IV IV.C.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing. IV.C.2 — Commence operation of production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors. IV.C.3 — Monitor the compliance of fossil fuel producers and distributors with their CFCB production control agreements. IV.C.4 — Monitor the profit levels of fossil fuel producers and distributors for conformance with the CFCB’s guaranteed profit schedule. IV.C.5 — Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts. Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.) — The President issues a proclamation that the target of an 80% reduction has been achieved. — The President, the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE assess the need for continuing the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations and the US Government’s mandatory fuel rationing program as necessary to maintain the 80% goal. — If a determination is reached that the government’s system of carbon control measures must continue beyond 2050, existing agreements with the states and with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors are extended with appropriate modifications. — Defend the government’s anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures must continue beyond 2050 REMARKS: The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan is completely legal and constitutional. Under current law, it can be implemented unilaterally by the Executive Branch using its existing environmental protection and national security authorities. Not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress either to enable the plan legally or to fund its operation. Nor does the plan require a separate line of funding in the federal government’s budget. The planning activities and regulation roll-out activities are easily accomplished within the existing spending authorities of the US-EPA, the US-DOE, and the US-DHS. Even if the House and the Senate were both in Republican hands at some point in the next four years, and passed legislation specifically forbidding the adoption of a plan like the SSCECP, a presidential veto can kill that legislation with the stroke of a pen. A plan like the SSCECP will generate many lawsuits. If the plan is applied with equal force against all major sources of America’s carbon emissions and with equal impact upon all affected economic sectors and demographic groups, those lawsuits will go nowhere. It is specifically designed to survive any lawsuits brought against it. SUMMARY: The fact remains that the Executive Branch now has all the authority it needs to quickly reduce America’s carbon emissions on a highly aggressive fast-track schedule. A plan like the SSCECP fits entirely within that authority. What remains to be seen is whether or not President Elect Biden will use that authority when he takes office in January, 2021. If climate change is indeed the existential threat to our existence Joe Biden claims that it is, then he is ethically and morally obligated to act in accordance with his claims and to quickly reduce America’s carbon emissions just as far and as fast as current law allows him to do. Beta Blocker November 25, 2020 10:09 am FORMATTING TEST to see if links work: ================================= The results of the election are in. Climate activist politicians who push wind and solar and the dangers of climate change are in the driver’s seat. The voters were given a clear choice between climate activism and a more measured slow-go type of approach to climate policy. The voters went with the climate activists, the most prominent example being Pennsylvania. They went for Joe Biden even though he will put an end to fracking in their state. But, more importantly as a bellweather indicator for the future of climate activism in America, the voters knowingly chose politicians who would continue and even expand the COVID-19 lockdowns which have destroyed millions of American jobs and which have devastated the economies of a number of states. Earlier this week, I posted a comment on WUWT describing what I call the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP). This plan uses the coercive power of the federal government to create and enforce an artificial shortage of fossil fuels. It directly raises the price of all carbon fuels while directly reducing their future supply and availability, doing so through a process of imposing increasingly severe restrictions on their extraction, import, production, and distribution. In COVID-19 terms, the SSCECP can be accurately described as a fossil fuel lockdown lasting as long as thirty years. The stated goal of the plan is to achieve an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2050, using 2005’s emissions as the baseline standard of comparison. It’s the same goal President Obama articulated in 2012. By the year 2050, every American would be consuming roughly half as much energy on a per-capita basis as we do today in the year 2020. The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan is completely legal and constitutional. Under current law, it can be implemented unilaterally by the Executive Branch using its existing environmental protection and national security authorities. Not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress either to enable the plan legally or to fund its operation. But the obvious question here is this. Would imposing a highly coercive fast-track carbon reduction plan on the American people — one which demands that every American accept significant personal and economic sacrifice — would such a plan produce enough political blowback to endanger the careers of the professional politicians who created and enforced it? The election of a climate activist president, and the success of those politicians who imposed and enforced the COVID-19 lockdowns, strongly suggest that the American public would in fact accept the sacrifices and the hardships which go with reaching an 80% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Janice Moore December 6, 2020 12:53 pm Will THIS let me post a video here? [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&w=640&h=480%5D George Carlin “Saving the Planet” youtube Gerry McIsaac December 6, 2020 5:32 pm Gerry McIsaac December 6, 2020 5:38 pm Gerry McIsaac December 6, 2020 5:57 pm file:///C:/Upload/CasesNY.jpg Gerry McIsaac December 6, 2020 5:58 pm Bryan A December 10, 2020 10:12 pm xx² Bryan A December 10, 2020 10:13 pm xx² Ttt D. J. Hawkins December 11, 2020 5:21 am underline ? BallBounces December 16, 2020 12:40 pm Google Chrome checked my passwords and reported — Compromised passwords Change these passwords immediately to keep your account safe: Found in data breach 1 hour ago wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com rkball@*** (my email address) •••••••••• (password) DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THIS IS ABOUT?? There were two of these — one with an older WordPress password, and one with the current one. steve in seattle December 18, 2020 1:17 am "https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/cropped-WUWT-logo.jpg"  steve in seattle December 18, 2020 1:21 am steve in seattle December 18, 2020 1:24 am steve in seattle December 18, 2020 1:25 am   steve in seattle December 18, 2020 2:08 am no test Last edited 11 months ago by steve in seattle steve in seattle December 18, 2020 3:24 am see at : Last edited 11 months ago by steve in seattle Gunga Din December 18, 2020 5:29 pm Steve Case December 19, 2020 1:15 am <b>Does any of this work anymore?</b> <blockquote><p> China has its own space programme and continues to occupy Tibet by military force yet it is exempt from Paris on the grounds that it is a “developing country” Monckton of Brenchley </p></blockquote> <i>You may not agree with me, but I will to defend to your death my right to disagree. Berynn Schwerdt </i> <img src=”https://i.postimg.cc/m2H5SNpt/image.png”> Steve Case Reply to Steve Case December 19, 2020 1:22 am Nope, don’t work no more. China has its own space programme and continues to occupy Tibet by military force yet it is exempt from Paris on the grounds that it is a “developing country” Monckton of Brenchley You may not agree with me, but I will to defend to your death my right to disagree. Berynn Schwerdt ﻿ Steve Case Reply to Steve Case December 19, 2020 1:26 am China has its own space programme and continues to occupy Tibet by military force yet it is exempt from Paris on the grounds that it is a “developing country” Monckton of Brenchley You may not agree with me, but I will to defend to your death my right to disagree. Berynn Schwerdt Steve Case December 19, 2020 1:42 am How ’bout just the url: https://postimg.cc/N5QDsTcc commieBob December 19, 2020 2:24 am testing <blockquote> testing </blockquote> testing Reply to commieBob December 19, 2020 4:09 am Reply to Krishna Gans December 19, 2020 4:10 am ??? was just an image link….. 🙁 December 19, 2020 4:17 am Put a link isn’t a mistery, but to edit the respective link text is, at last for me. Usually, an image is a link, why I’m asked to upload the image from my HD when trying to use the image tag ? December 19, 2020 4:19 am Reply to Krishna Gans December 19, 2020 4:20 am Image mistery solved, just the link in the edit box 😀 December 19, 2020 4:27 am Reply to Krishna Gans December 19, 2020 4:27 am Reply to Krishna Gans December 19, 2020 4:28 am Reply to Krishna Gans December 19, 2020 4:28 am https://youtu.be/qsARWIPkHHE Test video Just put the link is ok 😀 Last edited 11 months ago by Krishna Gans Reply to Krishna Gans December 19, 2020 4:56 am December 19, 2020 4:49 am Test Test Test Test Test Test I only still miss how to link including the respective link-text December 19, 2020 2:21 pm Projections suggest that, on land, air temperatures will rise and rainfall will decline across much of Australia in coming decades; the combination of these drivers will likely result in overall reduced runoff and therefore reduced stream flow and lake storage. However, present climate models are particularly limited with regard to coastal and freshwater systems, making them challenging to use for biological-impact and adaptation studies. Therefore, exactly how warming temperatures will interact with the complex interplay of drivers as outlined above is uncertain, but precipitation extremes and the frequency of severe weather events such as floods, storms and cyclones are expected to increase into the future … Reply to Krishna Gans December 19, 2020 2:23 pm I think, concerning blockquote, the older version was much better with its light grey background and normal letters. steve in seattle December 19, 2020 6:08 pm test ?raw=1 Last edited 11 months ago by steve in seattle steve in seattle December 19, 2020 7:05 pm test over Last edited 11 months ago by steve in seattle Kevin kilty December 24, 2020 6:48 am This is how the media behave everywhere else, so it is no surprise they do here as well. Have a look at SD on the <a href=https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/south-dakota> USAFacts website </a>. Kevin kilty Reply to Kevin kilty December 24, 2020 7:00 am This is how the media behave everywhere else, so it is no surprise they do here as well. Have a look at SD on the <a href=”https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/south-dakota”>USAFacts website</a>. Kevin kilty Reply to Kevin kilty December 24, 2020 7:02 am This is how the media behave everywhere else, so it is no surprise they do here as well. Have a look at SD on the <a href=https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/south-dakota>USAFacts website</a>. Kevin kilty Reply to Kevin kilty December 24, 2020 7:02 am I don’t see what the problem is with this anchor. Reply to Kevin kilty December 26, 2020 1:10 pm Was my problem too. Write first the text: USAFacts website Then copy the respective link, mark the text, click on the link-button, and paste the link in the box and overwrite the highlighted text USAFacts website michael hart December 24, 2020 12:07 pm <blockquote>test</blockquote> December 25, 2020 9:42 am Try # 1 Reply to Writing Observer December 25, 2020 9:42 am Reply to Writing Observer December 25, 2020 9:43 am Reply to Writing Observer December 25, 2020 9:44 am Reply to Writing Observer December 25, 2020 9:46 am Again (if I understand Jack Black’s travails below) Reply to Writing Observer December 25, 2020 9:47 am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM  Kevin A December 25, 2020 11:37 am My lump of coal provided by FedEx temporary driver <a href=”http://aaes.us/Sony/fullcase.jpg” target=”_blank”> Sony UBP X700</a> All claim images http://aaes.us/Sony It doesn't add up... December 26, 2020 5:28 am https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/iL71K/2/ [iframe https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/iL71K/2/&w=640&h=480]  Last edited 11 months ago by It doesn't add up... Jim Ross December 26, 2020 10:02 am Redge December 27, 2020 6:10 am test Steve Case December 27, 2020 10:24 pm Let’s see if I can post an image from my files: Steve Case December 27, 2020 10:26 pm Let’s see if I can post an image from a URL: Will it show up? Steve Case Reply to Steve Case December 27, 2020 10:27 pm Yay! John F Hultquist December 29, 2020 3:47 pm Song: <a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow9FV3xjkew”><strong>Mike Stinson’s ” The Late Great Golden State”</strong></a> steve in seattle December 30, 2020 2:55 am I wish posters that ARE able to post an image, would also, in their try include the URL that they used – does it end with a .jpg ??? Google photos AND seems like most other ” free ” image posting sites insist in using a URL that has as part of the path, a meta component ! Further RAW =1 or RAW=whatever doesn’t seem to be a cure. Curses ! Last edited 11 months ago by steve in seattle steve in seattle December 30, 2020 3:01 am steve in seattle December 30, 2020 3:13 am OK, take a look at what happens with : i.postimg.cc/X7gsgmcg/postimage with the usual stuff tacked onto the front and a .jpg on the end . It’s an easy sign up too ! steve in seattle December 30, 2020 3:16 am OK, OK, i do feel dumb, yes you can click on the posted image to get the URL ! It’s late, but that’s no excuse – anyway, you can see the home for i.postimg.cc at least ! Chas December 31, 2020 6:59 am Chas December 31, 2020 7:01 am test Nicholas M. James December 31, 2020 9:41 am Nicholas M. James December 31, 2020 9:42 am <script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=”https://rumble.com/embedJS/u6bo0j”+(arguments[1].video?’.’+arguments[1].video:”)+”/?url=”+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+”&args=”+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, “script”, “Rumble”);</script> <div id=”rumble_v9l73h”></div> <script> Rumble(“play”, {“video”:”v9l73h”,”div”:”rumble_v9l73h”});</script> Nicholas M. James December 31, 2020 9:44 am Guess the rumble embed only works from the BuddyPress? Reply to Nicholas M. James January 14, 2021 1:10 pm Reply to Nick Stokes January 14, 2021 1:12 pm Reply to Nick Stokes January 14, 2021 1:16 pm Reply to Nick Stokes January 14, 2021 1:20 pm again Nicholas M. James December 31, 2020 9:46 am Or perhaps it just needs a different plugin. https://winningwp.com/best-commenting-plugins-for-wordpress/ January 4, 2021 3:49 pm notation $y(t)= x(t)u(t)$ and Lord Monckton’s more opaque $\Delta T_t= q_t^{-1}\Delta F_tr_t\lambda_\infty$ Briefly, Lord Monckton’s $q_t^{-1}\Delta F_t$ is the stimulus $x(t)$, his $\Delta T_t$ is the system’s response $y(t)$ to that stimulus $x(t)$, and his $r_t\lambda_\infty$ is what the system’s response $u(t)$ to Captain Katzenjammer January 11, 2021 1:22 am Last edited 10 months ago by Captain Katzenjammer Reply to Captain Katzenjammer January 26, 2021 2:13 pm Image Reply to Nick Stokes January 26, 2021 2:17 pm Captain Katzenjammer January 11, 2021 1:25 am Captain Katzenjammer January 11, 2021 1:26 am third attempt. Might have mistyped the terminal bracket last time I didn’t. The final bracket was altered after entry to “&gt;” Last edited 10 months ago by Captain Katzenjammer Captain Katzenjammer January 11, 2021 1:39 am Last edited 10 months ago by Captain Katzenjammer Admin January 18, 2021 8:15 pm Yo Last edited 10 months ago by Eric Worrall JWurts January 25, 2021 10:20 pm testing image upload Reply to JWurts January 26, 2021 2:15 pm Reply to Nick Stokes January 27, 2021 11:02 am test <i>italics</i> JWurts January 25, 2021 10:23 pm Another test JWurts January 25, 2021 11:19 pm Anthony A generic suggestion for your new site but with a specific example. Many of my friends are reasonably intelligent but they are also rather innumerate. They buy into the CAGW story because the way it is presented does not require math & science skills. Save the planet, save the whales, alternative energy will create jobs…yada yada. To many of them charts & graphs might as well be abstract paintings, and when encountering millions, billions, mega & giga they space out & loose interest. However they do have enough math so that dollars & cents are understandable. Considering this, I am going to offer an additional way to discuss the message being presented in your “Antarctic Ice Melt is Dangerous” article. The below picture is an image of 10,000 quarters, ($2,500.00). Imagine that these quarters represent the ice cover on Antarctica in 1990. So that each of these 10,000 coins is equivalent to 2,500 gigatons of ice. So how many coins will it take to represent the 25 year ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland?

Boy this is scary…drum roll please…the answer is…ONE, one quarter. Just one out of the 10,000 coins has melted away.

Should we be scared yet?

Is global warming a catastrophe yet?

I believe that this is an explanation that can be understood by the average person that Jay Leno used to interview on his “jaywalks”

BTW – Are we really supposed to believe that the CAGW scientists can accurately determine the volume of ice on Antarctica to one part in 10,000?…..Really?

Considering the main message of the CAGW crowd is fear, this kind of message might minimize it.

I’m sure you can do a better job of presenting this than I just did.

Best

Jack

curly
February 19, 2021 1:50 pm

https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/regional/REG-TEX/GenerationByEnergySource-9/edit

<a href=https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/regional/REG-TEX/GenerationByEnergySource-9/edit>Test EIA beta</a>

curly
February 19, 2021 1:58 pm
Bellman
February 27, 2021 5:22 am
$u_R = ku_R$

Gunga Din
February 27, 2021 9:05 am

Test video

Last edited 9 months ago by Gunga Din
Bellman
February 27, 2021 1:18 pm

$\frac{u_R}{R} = \frac{u_A}{A}$

Anthony
March 4, 2021 10:27 am

An<u>th</u>ony

Bellman
March 7, 2021 5:18 am
March Range      Pause Start   Pause Length
+0.39 - +0.54    Sep 2015      5 Years 7 Months
+0.13 - +0.38    Aug 2015      5 Years 8 Months
+0.05 - +0.12    Jul 2015      5 Years 9 Months
-0.08 - +0.04    Jun 2015      5 Years 10 Months
-0.37 - -0.09    May 2015      5 Years 11 Months
-0.56 - -0.38    Apr 2015      6 Years 0 Months
-0.76 - -0.57    Mar 2015      6 Years 1 Month

Last edited 9 months ago by Bellman
Janice Moore
April 7, 2021 5:02 pm

<blockquote> why didn’t this blockquote format work in my comment today?</blockquote>

Janice Moore
April 7, 2021 5:02 pm

<b>does bold still work?</b>

Janice Moore
April 7, 2021 5:03 pm

<i> italics?</i>

Bellman
April 8, 2021 5:24 am

<code>
April Range     Pause Start  Pause Length
———————————————————-
+0.40 – +0.65   Aug 2015     5 Years 9 Months
</code>

Bellman
April 8, 2021 5:24 am

<pre>
April Range     Pause Start  Pause Length
———————————————————-
+0.40 – +0.65   Aug 2015     5 Years 9 Months
</pre>

Bellman
April 8, 2021 5:28 am
April Range     Pause Start  Pause Length
----------------------------------------------------------
+0.40 - +0.65   Aug 2015     5 Years 9 Months
+0.32 - +0.39   Jul 2015     5 Years 10 Months

April 21, 2021 2:09 pm

$\displaystyle dS=\frac{\delta Q}{T}$

May 9, 2021 7:51 am

May 9, 2021 1:53 pm

png tes

May 9, 2021 10:14 pm

test PGN ed

Bellman
May 22, 2021 8:38 am

$\int_{0}^{\pi} (Vp_{day}/pi) sin(x) dx$

Bellman
May 22, 2021 8:39 am

$\int_{0}^{\pi} (Vp_{day}\pi) \sin(x) dx$

Bellman
May 22, 2021 8:39 am

$\int_{0}^{\pi} (Vp_{day}\/pi) sin(x) dx$

Bellman
May 22, 2021 8:40 am

$\int_{0}^{\pi} (Vp_{day}/\pi) \sin(x) dx$

Bellman
May 22, 2021 8:42 am

$\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\pi} (Vp_{day}) \sin(x) dx$

JCM
June 4, 2021 8:42 am

test

<blockquote>some text </blockquote>

end

JCM
June 4, 2021 8:53 am

<blockquote><p> quoted text </p></blockquote>

JCM
June 4, 2021 9:02 am

testing 123

JCM
June 4, 2021 12:50 pm

word

yo

Last edited 6 months ago by JCM
TEWS_Pilot
June 5, 2021 12:57 pm

Last edited 6 months ago by TEWS_Pilot
TEWS_Pilot
June 5, 2021 1:20 pm

TEWS_Pilot
June 5, 2021 3:41 pm

?w=800&h=623

TEWS_Pilot
June 7, 2021 12:17 pm
Last edited 6 months ago by TEWS_Pilot
TEWS_Pilot
June 10, 2021 10:44 am

Last edited 5 months ago by TEWS_Pilot
TEWS_Pilot
June 10, 2021 11:26 am

Last edited 5 months ago by TEWS_Pilot
TEWS_Pilot
June 10, 2021 2:50 pm

TEWS_Pilot
June 11, 2021 12:31 pm

Electric boat teeters on edge of Texas dam… Saved by gas-powered boat…

Last edited 5 months ago by TEWS_Pilot
TEWS_Pilot
June 11, 2021 2:56 pm
TEWS_Pilot
June 12, 2021 7:39 am

TEWS_Pilot
June 16, 2021 8:25 pm

John Garrett
June 23, 2021 3:06 pm

Bellman
June 29, 2021 4:18 am

$\sigma_{\bar{x}} = \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}$

Last edited 5 months ago by Bellman
TEWS_Pilot
July 8, 2021 9:16 am

TEWS_Pilot
July 9, 2021 6:30 pm

TEWS_Pilot
July 11, 2021 8:34 pm

TEWS_Pilot
July 20, 2021 8:39 am

TEWS_Pilot
July 20, 2021 8:50 am

John Garrett
July 30, 2021 11:29 am

Why isn’t this image displayed?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif

I can’t think of any other ideas to make it appear as an image. I give up.

Last edited 4 months ago by John Garrett
Bellman
August 3, 2021 5:03 am

Image test

John Garrett
August 17, 2021 9:44 am

Editors/Monitors: It doesn’t look like it’s going to work. Feel free to delete this post.

Image test

?g=Gbjn

It doesn’t look like it’s going to work. Feel free to delete this post.

Last edited 3 months ago by John Garrett
Janice Moore
August 22, 2021 1:45 pm
1. Bold
2. italics
3. underline
• strike

A quotation

not part of quote

<b>BOLD</b>

A cool song:

Another video link to above song:

What is this (“Spoiler”)?

Hello, World! :)

Janice Moore
August 22, 2021 1:48 pm

Another attempt at video post, now using “Embed”

Janice Moore
August 22, 2021 1:51 pm

Trying to get the video to post with a still frame like I used to be able to do …. (removed “[youtube” from above link)

Janice Moore
August 22, 2021 3:32 pm

Now, for an image:

https%3A%2F%2Ffscomps.fotosearch.com%2Fcompc%2FCSP%2FCSP329%2Fbutterfly-on-flower-of-dahlia-stock-image__k23079103.jpg

Janice Moore
August 22, 2021 3:35 pm

Cool! But, how did the still materialize?? It wasn’t there when I posted my comment. Was it after I left WUWT and returned? I will try refreshing page to make the still image appear (if it doesn’t appear right off the bat, here):

﻿

Janice Moore
August 22, 2021 3:39 pm

THAT WAS IT! 🙂 YAY! Just needed to refresh to get youtube still/control window to appear.

Now, for an image again….

Janice Moore
August 22, 2021 5:02 pm

HOORAY!!!!!!

Beta Blocker
August 30, 2021 9:14 am

The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP):

A fast track approach for reaching President Biden’s greenhouse gas reduction targets

(August 30th, 2021 Update — Placed here on WUWT for reference by other web sites.)

———————————————————————————

The Biden administration wants a 50% reduction in America’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. In addition, America’s power generation sector is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2035. America must be fully net zero by 2050.

These are highly ambitious targets. But can these targets actually be met?

The means by which these targets are to be achieved is the rapid electrification of America’s entire energy infrastructure. The transition is being funded in large part by the Green New Deal and will be implemented through a massive commitment to wind and solar energy backed by grid-scale batteries and by a greatly expanded power transmission network.

But regardless of how much money is being spent by the Green New Deal on a renewable energy power grid, can enough wind turbines, enough solar panels, enough storage batteries, and enough new-build power transmission lines be manufactured, sited, and installed in time to fully replace America’s legacy electricity resources by the year 2035?

What about transportation? Can enough electric vehicles be manufactured and sold by 2050 to largely eliminate gasoline and diesel powered transportation in America? Can our airliners and our airports be replaced with high speed trains powered by an electrified intercity rail system? Will enough renewable electricity be available to power our cars, our trucks, and our trains and at the same time power our homes, our municipal services, and our factories?

Can all this be done on Biden’s schedule? Or is it really the case that the only means of guaranteeing Biden’s reduction targets can be met is through government-enforced rationing of fossil fuel energy?

* The Realities of a Credible Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan *

Climate activists argue that America’s leadership in quickly reducing our own carbon emissions is essential for convincing China and India to quickly reduce theirs. If convincing China and India to follow our lead is the goal, simply spending money isn’t enough. A credible GHG reduction plan is one which actually achieves Biden’s emission reduction targets on the timetable he has announced.

Resetting America’s economic, cultural, and social order in accordance with President Biden’s social justice agenda is as much of an objective, if not more of an objective, of the Green New Deal as is a quick reduction of our GHG emissions. However, if the goal is to quickly reduce our emissions in order to demonstrate that it can be done, then technology innovation alone can’t do it. Building enough wind and solar to replace even half of our fossil electricity resources by 2030 is impossible.

Only through a policy of mandatory energy conservation measures can Biden’s targets be met. Government enforced energy rationing, in other words. Americans must do with the Green New Deal what the Germans have done with their Energiewende: double the cost of energy for the average consumer and reduce the average person’s energy consumption to roughly half of what we consume today.

* The Goals of a Fast Track GHG Reduction Strategy *

America’s legacy energy infrastructure is the product of more than a hundred years of economic, technical, and industrial evolution. If America’s energy infrastructure is to be replaced on President Biden’s schedule, then a process which historically took a hundred years must be compressed into a timeframe of no more than thirty years. Any fast-track greenhouse gas reduction strategy must achieve these goals:

1 — Be highly effective in quickly reducing America’s GHG emissions.
2 — Be conceptually and operationally simple to implement, relatively speaking.
3 — Be in alignment with past regulatory practice and past legal precedent.
4 — Be constitutionally and legally defensible in the courts.
5 — Be formulated and written in a way which discourages lawsuits.
6 — Motivate all energy consumers to quickly reduce their energy consumption.
7 — Incentivize the participation of the fifty state governments in controlling our GHG emissions.
8 — Incentivize private sector corporations to cooperate in reducing our GHG emissions.

* The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) *

The Executive Branch of the US Government already has all the legal authority it needs to unilaterally impose a fossil fuel lockdown on the American economy. That authority can be enabled in practice by combining elements of the Clean Air Act with elements of national security law as it applies to the declaration of a national emergency.

The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) is a means for guaranteeing that the Biden administration’s ambitious GHG reduction targets can be met.

The basic starting point for the SSCECP is the declaration of a climate emergency. A series of Executive Orders is then issued which define and enable further action under the plan.

The SSCECP incentivizes energy conservation by imposing higher prices on all forms of energy and by placing direct constraints on energy production and consumption. Higher energy prices will in turn attract greater levels of investment in zero carbon energy technologies and will also allow the higher costs of wind, solar, and nuclear — assuming we choose to use nuclear — to be spread more evenly among all energy consumers.

Under the SSCECP, Americans will be consuming roughly half as much energy per capita in 2030 as we do today in 2021, and roughly one-third as much by 2050.

In order to expedite environmental reviews and other permitting reviews of new-build wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, and energy transmission facilities — portions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), along with portions of other project permitting requirements, are either partially suspended or else are bypassed altogether, as specifically directed by the President for each eligible new-build energy facility.

Moreover, the president is empowered to assert federal eminent domain over all lands, waters, and properties, either publicly owned or privately owned, which are to be reserved by the federal government for wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, and/or power transmission development.

A hard target schedule is established for the phased shutdown of America’s legacy fossil fuel infrastructure.

This schedule includes the closure of coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants, oil fields and refineries, fracked natural gas fields, LNG production facilities and terminals, and the majority of our petroleum product pipelines and distribution terminals. Each legacy fossil fuel power plant and each fossil energy support facility being targeted for shutdown is listed individually on this master closure schedule.

* The Eight Elements of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) *

These are the eight major elements of the SSCECP:

I: Establish the legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions (1941-2021. Status ‘Complete’)
II: Declare a climate emergency and publish a climate crisis response plan (2021)
III: Expand and extend federal regulation and control of all carbon emissions (2021-2022)
IV: Establish an expanded carbon emission regulation program (2021-2022)
V: Establish a carbon fuel rationing program (2021-2022)
VI: Establish a process for expedited energy project siting, permitting, and approval. (2021-2022)
VII: Publish and implement a national energy infrastructure transition plan (2021-2022)
VIII: Perform ongoing GHG reduction monitoring & control activities (2023 through 2050)

These are the lower-level implementation details of the SSCECP:

I: Establish the legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions (1941-2021. Status ‘Complete’)

I-a: Impose government-mandated energy rationing in response to a declared national emergency, World War II. (1941-1945)
I-b: Pass legislation establishing the regulation of harmful atmospheric pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (1970)
I-c: Establish the Environmental Protection Agency and further define and implement the process for controlling and reducing pollutants. (1970-2020)
I-d: File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (2007)
I-e: Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s. (2009)
I-f: Successfully defend the CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. (2010-2012)
I-g: Establish a recent precedent, the COVID-19 pandemic, for taking strong government action in response to a declared national emergency. (2020-2021)

II: Declare a climate emergency and publish a climate crisis response plan (2021)

II-a: Issue an Executive Order declaring a climate emergency.
II-b: Publish a Climate Crisis Response Plan (CCRP) which establishes a defined strategic mix among three major policy directions covering: a) zero-carbon energy production; b) energy conservation technology; and c) mandated energy conservation measures.
II-c: Establish a comprehensive list of carbon emission reduction targets and a detailed strategy and plan for reducing each category of carbon emissions.
II-d: Establish a formal process for coordinating and reconciling America’s GHG reduction goals with its environmental justice, climate justice, and social justice goals.
II-e: Assign a joint task force comprised of all cabinet level departments, plus the National Security Agency, to manage the carbon pollution emergency.
II-f: Create a joint interagency control board to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
II-g: Place this control board under the direct supervision of the president and his national security staff.
II-h: Defend the president’s emergency actions as needed in response to specific lawsuits filed in the courts.

III: Expand and extend federal regulation and control of all carbon emissions (2021-2022)

III-a: Issue an Executive Order further defining the scope of the declared carbon pollution emergency.
III-b: Issue an Executive Order further defining the scope and objectives of the Climate Crisis Response Plan (CCRP).
III-c: Issue an Executive Order establishing an expanded carbon emission regulation program.
III-d: Issue an Executive Order establishing a carbon fuel rationing program.
III-e: Issue an Executive Order establishing an ongoing program for continuous monitoring and control of carbon emission reduction activities.
III-f: Issue an Executive Order suspending the application of anti-trust regulations in the energy marketplace.
III-g: Issue an Executive Order allowing for the suspension of portions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to expedite environmental reviews of new-build wind, solar, and nuclear facilities.
III-h: Issue an Executive Order granting authority to the President to reverse the final decisions of federal, state, and local permitting agencies if those decisions are deemed to be ‘not in the national interest’ as that stipulation is defined within the Climate Crisis Response Plan.
III-i: Issue an Executive Order granting authority to the President to assert federal eminent domain over all lands, waters, and properties, either publicly owned or privately owned, identified as being necessary for the siting of new-build energy facilities.
III-j: Defend the president’s expansion of federal authority as needed in response to specific lawsuits filed in the courts.

IV: Establish an expanded carbon emission regulation program (2021-2022)

IV-a: Publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
IV-b: Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112.
IV-c: Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
IV-d: Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
IV-e: Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts.
IV-f: Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
IV-g: Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
IV-h: Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
IV-i: Establish the legal basis for sharing the revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines among the federal and state governments.
IV-j: Defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.

V: Establish a carbon fuel rationing program (2021-2022)

V-a: Research and publish a system for government-enforced carbon fuel rationing.
V-b: Establish a time-phased, hard-target schedule for reducing the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
V-c: Establish cooperative agreements with the state governments to enforce the federal government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
V-d: Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
V-e: Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
V-f: Defend the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.

VI: Establish a process for expedited energy project siting, permitting, and approval. (2021-2022)

VI-a: Research and publish a system and process for expedited governmental review and permitting for the siting and construction of new-build wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, and power transmission facilities.
VI-b: Establish cooperative agreements with federal and state agencies for expedited reviews and approvals of energy infrastructure projects.
VI-c: Establish a register of new-build wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, and power transmission projects eligible for an expedited permitting review and approval process.
VI-d: For those projects listed on the expedited review register, establish a process and a procedure to be followed if the President reverses the final decisions of federal, state, and local permitting agencies, if those decisions are deemed ‘not in the national interest’.
VI-e: Establish a register of lands, waters, and properties, both publicly owned and privately owned, which may become the targets of federal reservation actions for the siting of new-build energy infrastructure.
VI-f: For those lands, waters, and properties listed in the reservation action register, establish a process and a procedure to be followed if the President asserts federal eminent domain over those lands, waters, and properties.
VI-g: Defend the government’s expedited siting, permitting, and environmental review processes in the courts.

VII: Publish and implement a national energy infrastructure transition plan (2021-2022)

VII-a: Research and publish a national energy infrastructure transition plan for the siting and construction of new-build wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, and power transmission facilities.
VII-b: Publish and implement a hard-target schedule for deployment of new-build wind and solar facilities, new-build nuclear facilities, new-build grid-scale energy storage facilities, and new-build energy transmission capacity.
VII-c: Publish and implement a technology implementation plan which specifically identifies those energy technologies to be prioritized for near term investment, development, and production.
VII-d: Publish and implement a US Treasury policy plan for redirecting energy market financial investments as needed to support the federal government’s GHG reduction goals.
VII-e: Publish and implement an Energy Infrastructure Land Use Plan (EILUP) which identifies those lands, waters, and properties, either publicly owned or privately owned, which are to be reserved by the federal government for wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, and/or power transmission development.
VII-f: Publish and implement an Energy Facility Closure Plan (EFCP) which specifically identifies those legacy coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities which are to be decommissioned between 2022 and 2050, including a specific target date by which each legacy facility is to be retired.
VII-g: Defend the government’s national energy infrastructure transition plan in the courts.

VIII: Perform ongoing GHG reduction monitoring & control activities (2023 through 2050)

VIII-a: Issue a further series of Executive Orders, as needed, to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework, America’s carbon fuel rationing program, the federal government’s expedited energy facility permitting process, and the government’s energy infrastructure transition plan.
VIII-b: Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulation framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
VIII-c: Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
VIII-d: Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
VIII-e: Monitor the effectiveness of carbon fuel rationing programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
VIII-f: Monitor the progress of the energy infrastructure transition plan in closing legacy fossil fuel energy facilities.
VIII-g: Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
VIII-h: Adjust the carbon fuel rationing targets upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
VIII-i: Continue to defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations and the government-mandated energy rationing programs in the courts.
VIII-j: Continue to assess the need for enforcing the government’s GHG reduction programs beyond the year 2050.

* REMARKS *

President Biden says that climate change is the most serious problem the world now faces. Biden’s climate czar John Kerry says that America’s leadership in quickly reducing our own carbon emissions is vital for convincing other nations, especially China and India, to do the same.

The plan described above, the SSCECP, is a highly coercive approach for quickly reducing America’s GHG emissions. However, it is also completely legal and constitutional under current law. The SSCECP can be implemented unilaterally by the Executive Branch using its existing environmental protection and national security authorities. Not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress either to enable the plan legally or to fund its operation.

Nor does the plan require a separate line of funding in the federal government’s budget. The planning activities and regulation roll-out activities are easily accomplished within the existing spending authorities of the US-EPA, the US-DOE, the USDT, and the US-DHS.

A plan like the SSCECP will generate many lawsuits. But if the plan is applied with equal force against all major sources of America’s carbon emissions, and with equal impact upon all affected economic sectors and demographic groups, those lawsuits will go nowhere. It is specifically designed to survive any lawsuits brought against it.

Even if the House of Representatives and the Senate were both in Republican hands in January, 2023, and passed legislation forbidding the adoption of a plan like the SSCECP, a presidential veto can kill that legislation with the stroke of a pen.

So the big question remains. How far will President Biden and his climate czar John Kerry go in acting upon their stated convictions? Will they, or won’t they, do all that is in their power as our Chief Executive and our climate czar to reduce America’s carbon emissions just as far and as fast as climate activists say is necessary?

——————————————————-

Disclosure: I’ve spent thirty-five years in nuclear construction and operations. Because the bulk of my occupational radiation exposure has come from beta-gamma sources, my internet handle is ‘Beta Blocker’.

Last edited 3 months ago by Beta Blocker
Steve Case
September 30, 2021 10:43 pm

This is the spoiler
What does the spoiler do?

Doug S
October 16, 2021 8:41 am

Doug S
October 16, 2021 8:42 am

Try that again:

j wurts
October 16, 2021 12:49 pm

Test pics

j wurts
October 16, 2021 12:51 pm

another pic

j wurts
October 16, 2021 12:52 pm

A third pic

Doug S
October 24, 2021 4:33 am

image test



Last edited 1 month ago by Doug S
Editor
October 26, 2021 12:17 pm

<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/MF-Mmk30cOE” title=”YouTube video player” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>

Editor
October 26, 2021 12:18 pm

<code><iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/MF-Mmk30cOE” title=”YouTube video player” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe></code>

Editor
October 26, 2021 12:18 pm
Bellman
November 12, 2021 4:50 am

$\pm\bar{\sigma}^\prime_\mu = \sqrt{N \times \bar{\sigma}^{\prime^2}_{noise} / (N - 1)}$

Last edited 27 days ago by Bellman
Steve Case
November 13, 2021 12:07 am
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
330 468 338 256 497 348 267 217 285 291