by Jo Nova
Banks suddenly threaten to abandon the Glasgow GFANZ “climate action” group
It was the massive miracle-funding coalition of Glasgow but it is already starting to unravel as the banks figure out that conspiring to force “climate action” puts them at risk of antitrust suits.
A month ago I wrote that 19 US States were pointing out that it’s not OK for asset managers like BlackRock and co to join together in cartels to block investment in fossil fuels. These corporations bragged about belonging to groups like GFANZ (the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero) as if it made them into saintly environmentalists. But belonging to the group meant they are also effectively restraining trade, reducing competition and acting against the interests of their clients and against the wishes of voters.
Don’t underestimate how important this is or how ugly these monster cartels are: GFANZ has attracted some 500 members which control $130 trillion in assets. But the carbon targets they are told to aim for are set by the UN through something called the Race-To-Zero campaign. So this is a quasi World Government in cahoots with world bankers. Like a Great White Shark meets a pod of Orcas. Democracy be damned. The voters can vote for cheap energy but if the money-men and the UN don’t want you to use coal and oil, too bad. It’s a brazen move by the UN and multinational conglomerates to de facto force policies on nations that the citizens have no say in.
UPDATE: Let’s put this win in perspective — with 500 financial entities enforcing the UN decree on fossil fuel power we were looking at an effective One World Government in control. The UN could have crushed Western power while promoting China. The 19 US State AG’s are stopping that. It’s not the end of this battle, but we were poised on the edge of the abyss, and we stepped back. That’s a win…
But (hallalujah) it is illegal for groups that are supposed to serve the market, to collude to distort the market:
Banks May Leave Mark Carney’s Climate Group on Legal Risks
Tom Metcalf, Alastair Marsh and Natasha White, Bloomberg
Banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley may leave the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, Mark Carney’s coalition to fight climate change, because they fear the organization’s strict requirements for decarbonization may make them legally vulnerable.
As it is, the banks were already feeling “blindsided” by the UN:
The targets for GFANZ members are set by the United Nations-backed Race to Zero campaign, and banks are griping that they’ve been blindsided by changes to its guidance since they joined. That includes the instruction that members shouldn’t support any “new coal projects,” which prompted fears among banks that they could face legal challenges from some US states that effectively require lenders to finance coal.
The UN effectively told the banks and asset managers to get out of coal, and they had only one year to comply:
The banks’ misgivings surfaced at recent meetings after Race to Zero completed its annual review and then in June issued more stringent decarbonization targets. Among them was an explicit requirement “to phase down and out unabated fossil fuels, including coal.” Existing members of the coalition were given one year to comply or face expulsion; new members were required to immediately align.
Race To Zero may look like a quaint little NGO but the website is hosted right there on the United Nations UNFCCC web page.
Then 19 US States threatened them with Antitrust suits
From the letter from 19 State Attorney Generals to BlackRock last month:
Group boycotts, restraining trade, or concerted refusals to deal, “clearly run afoul of” Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 prohibits “[e]very . . . combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.”
“BlackRock’s actions appear to intentionally restrain and harm the competitiveness of the energy markets.”
Looks like a legal crisis. Race-to-Zero apparently realize how toxic this is, and they’ve already reworded their guidance.
Race to Zero… said it was aware “there may be cause for legal concern” around these areas while reaffirming its members have always been required to phase out coal and align to the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The guidance went too far and it has been changed, Carney said…
Mark Carney is the head of GFANZ and former Central Banker — he once was the Governor of The Bank of England. Naturally he’s only doing this to make the world a better place.
This has legal parallels in many nations
Tell your elected representatives. Spread the word. Send a letter to your favourite banker. The more members of GFANZ that feel the heat, the better — and this includes asset managers, retirement funds, bankers, insurers and financial services.
Just as an example, our Australian ACCC defines a Cartel, thus:
Businesses that make agreements with their competitors to fix prices, rig bids, share markets or restrict outputs are breaking laws and stealing from consumers and businesses by inflating prices, reducing choices and damaging the economy.
At the same time GFANZ defines itself as a group deliberately favoring one kind of business over another:
“Grounded in the UN’s Race to Zero campaign, our pledge is to mobilise finance at scale to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050″
So GFANZ is a coordinated cartel by definition. It is designed to punish fossil fuel companies that are operating legally, while promoting other companies which make energy the way the cartel prefers, and bankers that were so proud of themselves to join last year are now heading out the door. Even if GFANZ dilutes its pledges to nothing and the bankers stay on board, the 19 US State Governments have extracted teeth. It’s a win.
Read more:
- 19 US States fight back against BlackRock — the Political Climate Police disguised as a Monster Investment Fund
- The dark bubble: There’s a reason everything seems to be going off the rails simultaneously
- Like a Banker-Belt-n-Road plan, BlackRock give Australia batteries we don’t need with ESG strings attached
h/t Willie Soon
Great news.
Sadly, Australian banks (and others), like most corporations and other institutions public and private, have been infiltrated with Rudi Dutschke’s drones implementing his 1967 plan of der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen (the long march through the institutions).
The Reserve Bank of Australia is also particularly obsessed with “climate change”.
https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2021/sp-dg-2021-10-14.html
They are influencing Australian banks, other financial institutions and other corporations to subscribe to the unproven, implausible and un-evidenced hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming which is causing our economy and other Western countries to be destroyed to the benefit of the Chicomms.
People involved in the promotion of the anthropogenic global warming fraud and the economic and personal harm and deaths it is causing need to be held to account.
Even if we recover from this crisis, the guilty parties must not be allowed to disappear and merge back into the population. They must be tried and prosecuted for what they have done.
681
I wonder if the RBA have ever considered that the closure of the industrial sector within Australia, (due to high utility costs), is also a first order risk?
All those government funded jobs have to be paid for by some ‘real’ tax payer, without industry, who is going to pay the tax to fund the government jobs? And why do they tax the wages of a police officer, a nurse, the armed services or a teacher in a public school? It’s really a lesson in futility, just give them less and skip the waste. The only people adding value, (referring to tax collected), to this country are the industrialists and the producers. Strangely, they are the ones being shut down by this folly.
Noting the problem of supply and demand, (of dollars collected through taxation). What are the RBA doing to counter the plans to destroy cheap power? Will they end this folly before it’s too late? Will they even see the problem that they are contributing to?
320
The number of net wealth producers who pay the taxes in this country are rapidly diminishing while there are more and more net wealth consumers such as a rapidly expanding public service, welfare recipients and people or corporations who might be private sector but rely solely on taxpayer funds or subsidies for their existence and are therefore, too, net wealth consumers.
270
It is not going to end well.
150
They could raise the GST percentage but that relies on people having money to spend.
60
Raising the GST is in effect a pay cut. Pay cuts result in less spending which very fast lead to job losses. Since the private sector are the ones who seem to notice the lack of income to balance the expenses, they do the obvious thing. They sack staff. This results in a few less true tax payers today than the number yesterday.
The spiral starts with taxation.
I propose a better system would be to reduce payroll tax on everyone. Take the income down to match the tax loss too. No change to the magnitude of the money you take home. And that much cheaper for business to hire staff and grow.
Oh yeah, the government have to stop their waste before this can happen. Duck, there goes that pig. It keeps flying by, again and again and again.
130
David , that is what sensible people might intuitively think , but it that correct? Some time ago(pre-covid) I looked at UN staistics on
disposable incomes and on the relative importance of industry to GDP in different countries, including Australia.
In my ignorance I had imagined agriculture and mining would dominate in Australian economy, but no : according to UN the main element in the economy is the service
sector at 68% and agriculture and mining contribut only about 25%.
The mean disposable income/ person was almost as much as the mean total income for a working person in the UK, giving the impression that the average Autralian
(if there is such a figure ) can well absorb cost of living or energy increases that would totally destroy a British working family. Hence perhaps the lack of any concern
over the economic effect of covid lockdowns in Australia compared to the distress being , but too late , expressed in the UK.
10
…and as has been said before – if banks believe the BS then WHY are they still lending for ANY coastal real estate????
120
As I understand things, the RBA is a cartel of its own, not a direct instrument of government.
Closely modeled on the US “Federal Reserve”.
Therefore it is in an “interesting” legal position.
Any further enlightenment?
10
Correct. RBA = Federal Reserve = Bank of England.
Private businesses in effect but government authorised to issue “currency”, governments form of money…
It wouldn’t do for governments themselves to do the issuing.😉
10
The ‘Great Margin Call’ on loans and debts worldwide!
Trillions of US Dollars in loans…
As every country and company pays the minimum or turns over the debt into a larger loan.
That little writing stating that they can call in their debt at anytime is now being activated.
When the bankruptcies dust settles…who benefits in the end?
Yes, China. President China Joe was slipped in to make a statement…many people didn’t get it…a mentally incompetence President running the Great United States government.
221
They put the ‘G’ in the wrong place FANGZ is how these greedy extortionists should spell their lowgo!
291
And who better to sell FANGZ than she of the Great White Chompers, Prime Minister Comrade Cinders.
Maybe that’s why ‘New Zealand’ is slowly being programmed out of our lexicon and replaced by ‘Aotearoa’ as ‘NZ’ now refers to Net(t) Zero – the race to the bottom – all for our minuscule 0.17% of alleged ‘carbon emissions’. Pfft!
200
“Climate change” is indeed a threat to the financial system.
However it is only because of the vast amount of financial, economic, scientific, management, political and other societal resources being poured into “solving” a non-existent problem.
The alleged problem is based upon an implausible, unproven and un-evidenced hypothesis, the purpose of which is specifically to impoverish the masses, and enrich the Elites, returning us to pre-Enlightenment serfdom and also to cause a global shift of power to the Chicomms.
411
More China bashing you guys can’t resist, and I have to wonder why, what’s your motive ?
The people you should really be having a blast at are the UN 77th general assy only 2 days ago in New York. The secretary general Antonio Guterres scare mongering and frightening the whole of mankind with his forecast of gloom and doom and destruction, unless we the people of the west do what he says and give what he wants. (more money and power)
Climate change, the war in Ukraine, food and energy production,wealth and povery, and much, much more, all in his sights. And it’s our money, our wealth and our livelihoods that he wants to change and destroy. He and his cohorts have been doing this forever. Personally I will never trust them . .
112
Ha ha..
Russia and China are the real “threats” to the climate change WEF/NWO/new financial system agenda.
Everybody has to be onboard the “Ark of salvation” before it escapes the doom that we apes have caused, and then off to solar & wind Utopia (Utopia closed on overcast/non-windy days. No refunds.) or some such rot…
Oh reality, wherefore art thou?
Just around the corner…🤫
80
Is this not racketeering?
20
I think the director duty laws that require directors to act in the interests of shareholders could be used to make directors who adopt these damaging rules against the interests of shareholders financially responsible. This would become more evident as renewables borrowers show financial stress whilst coal companies boom. Saving the planet is not amongst the criteria of directors’ duties and potentially shareholders who lose money could one day have a class action against directors for their stupidity.
260
The end of the US Dollar system never has fixed the problem of currency debasement as over the decades it keeps increasing.
Canadians got rid of the penny because it became no value and costly to keep and make.
80
Australia also got rid of the 1c and 2c coins many years ago.
There are suggestions to remove the $100 bill to discourage large cash transactions.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/government-floats-100-note-removal/news-story/042220701a8310c39a1a87da4e20de35
There are suggestions to put a “use by” date on all non-digital (plastic bank notes) currency to discourage hoarding. E.g. https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/kouk-cash-expiry-date-193613323.html
The Australian Government, being a fanatical follower of the U.N., is encouraging a move to totally digital financial transactions because they want all serfs to be traceable and trackable.
https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/central-bank-digital-currency/
180
Like China’s experiment with expiration-date digital currencies.
No hoarding allowed.
Survivors of the Vaxxalypse will be given everything deemed necessary and only just enough to survive and serve your masters.
50
Time for local barter “markets” for skills and products
30
An extraordinary post, which is “extraordinary” because of the coordinated pushback of the nineteen U.S. States.
Here in Australia we have witnessed public rejection of finance for mining projects by the “Banks” and the activists who have caused havoc, cost overruns and national destruction.
Having forty percent of U.S. States now offering to fight back is a good sign and possibly a “turning point”.
Having watched the virtue signalling by the two Australian banks which “safeguard” my funds, I want to leave them, but there’s nowhere else to go.
Every time this annoys me all I can do is take out another $200 in cash, if only another one million Australians would do the same. 🙂
290
Don’t overlook the superannuation funds starting with that restive doyen of dishonesty.
And how do you become a doyen you might ask.
100
I take out $200 in cash from the Post Office once per week. With it I buy all my food. This way my monthly bank statement is only just over a page whereas previously the bank statement would be five pages.
40
And do you have flybuys or rewards so that some weeks you only need $190? Cheers.
20
Membership of GFANZ is voluntary, banks and investment companies don’t have to be members. What some US states and Jo is advocating is compulsion. investors shouldn’t be told what legitimate businesses they can and can’t invest in. Contrarian investors help a market function. Most times they lose, but on rare occasions they win big.
233
“banks and investment companies don’t have to be members.”
No, except they will miss out of support from the likes of BlackRock etc. and get ostracized by the far-left financial thugs.
There are many types of coercion. Like taking the jab.. you don’t have to, but might lose your job if you don’t.
Then of course is the incessant inane chattering of the far-left, which only fools listen to, as they try to enforce their idiotic whims on society.
As you say.. companies should not be compelled/coerced to join groups like GFANZ…….. but they are.
330
This is not really about compulsion vs free choice simply because government and other institutions are promoting a fraud in the form of anthropogenic global warming.
Free choice does not exist when fraud is present. Many people involved in the anthropogenic global warming fraud actually know the truth because they have knowingly and fraudulently altered scientific data to “prove” their claims, and many financially benefit from these claims.
Beyond “just” a scientific fraud, this is a major financial fraud and there needs to be trials and punishment for the guilty.
270
There’s that fraud word again. So, 99.5% of all climate scientists are either involved in a gigantic conspiracy or they have been fooled and you haven’t. Either scenario is so unlikely that it verges on the impossible. Anybody who studies the environment will tell you that the climate is observably changing. Every government in the world is also convinced that anthropogenic climate change is happening and must be mitigated or adapted to.
145
Oh come, on.
Even warmists only claim 97%, not 99.5%.
And even that 97% figure is totally fraudulent and has been 100% debunked on numerous occasions. It’s so thoroughly debunked it’s not even worth my time finding a link to post. How can you not know that?
320
That was in 2013, Simon has later data from the COP26 and it shows a 99.9% figure
423
I heard that figure was originally 99.69%, but I guess that 99.9 looks better.
110
It is, of course totally, fake. A rabid misuse of statistics with massive bias on selection of data, and in the criteria used.
Not only is the result totally meaningless except as mindless propaganda for the mindless AGW cultists…
.. but its also totally irrelevant in any field of real science.
The fact they would even bother to fabricate this nonsense shows just how little they understand about actual science and just how totally insecure they are with the lack of science backing their agenda.
Calling to “consensus”, rather than producing actual scientific evidence, is the mark of someone who KNOWS they have no science to support their belief.
110
No it might be 99.5% now. If you don’t believe in the religion you get sacked.
In an immature complex science any number over 70% just reflects how unhealthy our universities are. No debate, no science.
Simon, go for 100%, it’s so much better…
210
Ivory Soap did it first:
Ivory’s first slogan, “It Floats!”, was introduced in 1891. The product’s other well-known slogan, “99+44⁄100% Pure”, which was in use by 1895, …
50
Thanks for the laff.
60
Thank you Peter.
I am sure if we can stop the counting of votes until 2023 we can get that figure to at least 102.6%
180
About the same as the percentage triple vaxed.
[Sarc appreciated, but lets not go off topic… – j]
15
So now we know that 0.01% of scientist are correct. This says a lot about the science !!!!
100
COP26
All you need to know.
80
In a discussion recently a friend started with ‘so 99.9% of scientists agree’ and I had to stop him in mid-rant. You should not argue by starting with a lie then expecting anyone to listen to any other points, valid or not.
300
>‘so 99.9% of scientists agree’
Einstein paraphrased: “to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Right now the climate is the most inconvenient fact:
GFS 2m-T anomaly [Karsten Haustein]
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.html
SH anomaly below 0, NH wildly diverged at 1K, and a global average that is back where it was in 2015 before the El Nino i.e. very unAGW.
Karsten seems unmoved by anything in her own series preferring Germany only (see graph):
The Euro heat spike was offset by cooler elsewhere so no NH spike. Karsten appears unaware (probably willfully) of the changing jet stream influence, whether LIA or present:
NEW STUDY REVEALS POTENTIAL CAUSES OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE (LIA), INCLUDING LOW SOLAR ACTIVITY, DISTURBANCES TO THE JET STREAM, VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, AND HIGH-VARIABILITY OF ARCTIC SEA ICE COVER
https://electroverse.co/little-ice-age-causes/
The Changing Jet Stream
https://i0.wp.com/i.cbc.ca/1.4857755.1539205196!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/jet-streams.jpg?w=640&ssl=1
70
Simon >”There’s that fraud word again. So, 99.5% of all climate scientists are either involved in a gigantic conspiracy or they have been fooled and you haven’t. Either scenario is so unlikely that it verges on the impossible.”
Not impossible at all, highly likely, and by means other than what you describe – see comment #14.1 downthread which pursues the question:
I’ve listed what in my view are the 5 basic scientifically fraudulent issues in respect to the IPCC’s attribution of ocean heat – by far the most significant planetary energy rise component (93%).
From which it is easy to conclude
The article linked is titled THIS IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR GENERATION. It’s not going away Simon and neither is the reality if the AO interface microphysics and thermodynamics.
170
>”…the fraud is simply incompetence by IPCC AR authors at a lower level amplified by intent at the top…”
IPCC ARs list all authors but their qualifications are a mission to find. Here’s the AR4 WGI Chapter 10 list:
Let’s take Peter Stott for example:
Modelling applications (see next comment).
But question: does a Mathematics degree necessarily confer expertise in radiation-matter interaction and/or thermodynamics?
That expertise is critical to the attribution of OH but I doubt Peter or any other of the authors above has that expertise.
170
>”[Peter Stott Mathematics degree] Modelling applications”
One of Peter’s most influential IPCC cited papers intended to shoot down the solar case (i.e. purpose written) was this:
What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?
Gareth S. Jones, Mike Lockwood, and Peter A. Stott1 (2012)
https://www.personal.reading.ac.uk/~ym901336/pdfs/285_Jonesetal_2011JD017013.pdf
The paper was going astray even at publication time (models vs obs Figure 5) and used least case solar forcing.
When I emailed Mike Lockwood asking why they didn’t consider Shapiro et al’s 6 W.m2 LIA to present solar change he replied – “I didn’t understand their methodology”. That is not to say I don’t respect Mike Lockwood – I do. Just highlighting some bias-creep for IPCC purposes. Mike is very much solar-centric elsewhere.
Note the paper is entirely non-physical – radiative forcing is an IPCC contrived concept that explicitly dumped any ‘surface forcing’ in AR4 in favour of TOA. Even though they still wrote screeds on surface forcing in the Observations: Atmosphere chapter.
100
>”93% of observed planetary energy rise – a relatively non-contentious observation I think”
Except for some JPL ARGO “correction” maybe:
And when the UKMO EN3 OHC dataset disagreed with NODC necessitating the hasty withdrawal of EN3 by UKMO from public view. But not before Bob Tisdale downloaded the data:
ARGO Era OHC: NODC vs UKMO EN3 vs Model Mean
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/figure-7.png?w=640&h=416
Figure 7 from:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/30/dana-nuticellis-skeptical-science-ohc-grapple-down-for-the-count/
Obviously the models are junk.
Even so, attribution is still the issue and source of the fraud in my view.
70
Actually, that’s not correct. A new study has just concluded there is no climate emergency and another new study has shown the earth’s climate sensitivity to be far lower than IPCC reports and points out significant errors in AR6.
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x
The only climate emergency today is being created by dangerous climate activism and that’s currently playing out in Europe. No power for heating is a deadly situation for people living in freezing climates.
210
Nic Lewis’s paper is suggesting a lower climate sensitivity median of 2.16 °C. He is not claiming that anthropogenic climate change is not happening and nor is he accusing anybody of fraud. He is part of the 99.85% consensus.
020
Again.. you obviously don’t understand the paper.
He re-calculated using all the erroneous assumptions of the previous paper, showing the original nonsense calculation was incorrect.
There is still no scientific evidence that CO2 causes any warming whatsoever.
140
Oh and that question.
Where is the “climate emergency”?
Earth’s current temperature is only marginally above the coldest period in 10,000 years, and significantly cooler than most of that period.
So it can’t be a temperature emergency.
Sea level is creeping up at 22mm or less per year.. Hardly anything to PANIC about.
Arctic sea ice is in the top decile extent of the last 10,000 years.. so that can’t be it.
Rain, a marginal increase at best. Great for the plants and life in general
(one of the two absolute necessities for life.. the other being CO2, which is at quite low historic levels, and at low plant need levels)
Extreme hurricanes, cyclones, on the low side of historical data.
This so-called “climate emergency”, just DOESN’T EXIST !
90
oops! “Sea level is creeping up at 22mm per year or less”
should of course read “Sea level is creeping up at 2mm per year or less”
70
Since when? Beenstock et al showed 1000 tide guages were rising at 1mm a year. Nils Axel Morner studied all the beaches in northern Europe to find the one inflexion point the plate was rising or subsiding around and the ocean was only rising there at 1.25mm per year.
120
“Sea level is creeping up at 22mm or less per year..”
Was a monumental typo, Jo. it should be less than 2mm/year
Eye check and new glasses and in the next couple of weeks..!
70
Thanks Simon, you have now confirmed that the consensus is meaningless. The entire CAGW debate comes down to the climate sensitivity. A low ECS value of 2 would not be enough to create any reason for the Marxist actions on CC, which is why the ECS lie is maintained.
100
Temperature will continue to increase until net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero. A lower ECS means that we have more time to reach net zero.
There are copious reports showing that warming above 1.5°C is not considered safe. Nic’s paper does not directly consider many of the tipping points that we are likely to hit along the way. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950#:~:text=Climate%20tipping%20points%20occur%20when,to%20substantial%20Earth%20system%20impacts.
016
Simon >”Temperature will continue to increase until net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero.”
Except temperature is NOT increasing commensurate with CO2 emissions this century – see comments #8.2.1.2.1 and #8.2.1.7.4
The 20th Century warming has not continued into the present as it should in theory given the highest human CO2 emissions in human history.
The models implement the theory – yes the models exhibit continued temperature increase but the latest observations don’t.
100
“Temperature will continue to increase until net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero”
Stop making nonsense statements that you KNOW you cannot back up with anything except fairy tales.
1.5C from the coldest period in 10,000 years is not a problem, in fact it has been totally beneficial to all life on Earth.
Current global temperatures are still below those of 90% of the last 10,000 years..
There is no such thing as a “tipping point”… that is yet another little bit of science fantasy from unvalidated and totally useless climate models.
You have been asked before, “at what temperature do these fantasy “tipping points” occur?”?
You have no answer. You have zero science.
Nic’s paper only considers possible radiation effects, using the mantra of AGW, which is itself provably wrong.
There are far greater movers of energy in the atmosphere which AGW cultists seem completely ignorant of.
CO2 does not trap radiation, it channels it to other frequencies. Proven by actual measurements.
Why are AGW cultist so, so adverse to actual real data and measurements, as well as seemingly ignorant of basic physics.?
Now, those questions are piling up..
You have yet to provide anything except pointless anti-science rants to answer any of them.
90
Funny thing….
Most of the Southern Hemisphere is actually COOLING
https://notrickszone.com/2022/09/22/how-can-the-globe-be-warming-when-most-of-the-southern-hemisphere-isnt/
Oh and radiosonde data shows 1958 and 2005 being the same temperature…. you can see why the AGW hoaxsters like to start at 1979 😉
But the AGW cultists will keep using their heavily adjust, heavily urban-affected fabrications, so they can continue to pretend. !
Gotta keep that “climate” gravy-train running !!
And whatever they do, they won’t go against the “consensus” or they’ll lose their job and their access to the trough..
70
Junk in junk out.
‘Multiple abrupt shifts have been found in climate models. Recent work has suggested that up to 15 tipping elements are now active.’
40
Simon says; blah blah blah.
B.Nice says;
“CO2 does not trap radiation, it channels it to other frequencies. Proven by actual measurements.”
The fact that So Called Crimate Scientists don’t cover this basic physics in their Environmental Science degrees is telling.
Degrees in Climate Science are in reality, degrees in Political science.
90
My apologies for being Immoderate.
60
Your entire argument falls flat because China, India and the rest of the developing world that make up 70% of emissions already have no intentions of moving away from FF with a false 3 deg ECS.
70
“… will tell you that the climate is observably changing.”
Indeed. The climate has changed, and will continue to change, until such time as the Sun goes into its Red Giant phase. The climate has only been changing for something over four billion years; it started slightly after there was a solid enough crust, water had precipitated into measurable oceans, and an atmosphere had stabilized.
Just because the climate is changing over the past couple of thousand years does not mean that there is some “nefarious” cause, such as what humans are doing, and have done.
I think Climategate and the e-mail collusion evidence is sufficiently compelling that the major players, who ever they are, are in fact acting in concert. That they carry the mantle of ‘authority’ demonstrates that others are simply willing to follow wherever these “leaders” take them.
Whether you like it or not, Simon, just because an entire group of “scientists” agree that ‘this’ is true, or ‘that’ is true, it does not mean that what they believe is true; that’s why the ‘argument from authority’ is one of the frequently cited logical fallacies. Just within my lifetime, the geological sciences went from “the continents have been fixed in place since the formation of the Earth” to “the continents drift around the surface of the Earth on mobile tectonic plates”. EVERY geologist who was worth anything in the 1940’s and 1950’s (adn before) KNEW for a fact that the continents were fixed in place, and some mysterious ‘land bridges’ and ‘geosynclines’ and ‘geanticlines’ were the explanation for far-flung rock types being similar, and widely-separated fauna being nearly identical. One of my Professors, where I attended University, was a hold-out for ‘fixed-in-place’ continents, telling us that the new discoveries of mobile tectonic plates existed, ” … in the minds only … ” of the proponents.
Your resort to one of the prime logical fallacies shows you have nothing else to offer; and, speaking of offerings, when can we expect to know that level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere that leads to the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’? Surely one of your cohorts in the, ” … 99.5% of all climate scientists … ” can tell you. What’s taking so long for you to answer the question? You can specify the amount in ppm (parts per million), ppt (parts per thousand), percent, or any unit you prefer. This information must be so well known within your Universe, it would be nice if you would finally share it with us.
I can keep asking, if you like.
Regards,
Vlad
130
just to be clear;
you are saying that because the resistance to change an old theory (continents fixed in place) is a reason why a new theory (AGW) is wrong?
218
AGW theory is scientifically unsound.
140
That was said about plate tectonics and its predecessor continental drift from around 1915. Both were considered unsound, AGW has maybe another 15 years to go before it becomes the prevailing theory in the general (non scientific) population, based on that timescale.
are you saying that in this case old theory should not be replaced by new theory even though the scientific community is 99.9% behind the new explanation
However, the original comment referred to “Your resort to one of the prime logical fallacies “, while displaying inconstant logic in the previous paragraph, it deserves comment
012
Peter, Argument from Authority, or Ad populum too, it’s all a fallacy. It’s been known to be fallacious for 2,300 years. By rights you have failed the logic bar repeatedly and don’t qualify to comment on this site, but because I’m nice (and because we can’t find any fans of AGW who can reason) we let you come back to keep making the same mistake. But if you know someone who can think, send them over…
180
Nope. Just pointing out that the ‘consensus’ view (which is what ‘fixed-in-place’ continents was) is often wrong. The history of science, Mr. Fitzroy, is that what is thought to be ‘settled’, and ‘consensus’, is often replaced by a better view. We have an entire generation of ‘scientists’ who are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their view, that human-generated carbon dioxide is causing some catastrophic climate change. So convinced are they, that any debate or consideration of opposing ideas is, and must be, ruthlessly crushed. This is not science; it is unfalsifiable religion, and a very dangerous religion at that.
I hope that you will recall that when Albert Einstein was asked, ‘how long it will take for Relatively to be proven’, his response applied equally well to this whole malarky of human-caused climate change. He said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”
And, once shown to be wrong, the idea is discarded, just as ‘fixed-in-place’ continents was discarded in favor of continental drift. Others have discussed the various demonstrations that the EPICA and Vostok ice cores show distinctly that carbon dioxide changes follow temperature changes. I have pointed out the Hirnantian Epoch; carbon dioxide was ten times today’s concentration, but the Earth was in a multi-million year glacial event. There is also the Cryogenian Period; according to GTS 2020, carbon dioxide concentrations were measured in percents, but if one looks at the root of the name, “Cryogenian”, one should see what was taking place environmentally (I’ll give you a hint: stromatolites barely managed to survive, and not because they were having a ‘hot time in the ol’ town, tonight!’).
“A single experiment can prove me wrong.” I just gave you three demonstrations that the myth you cling too with every fibre of your being, is in fact quite flawed, and should be discarded, as every other falsified theory has been (phlogiston, etc). Maybe you can help Simon out, since he (she?) seems incapable of answering the question: what concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth atmosphere causes the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ to start?
I hope I will not have to ask multiple times. Just type a number, and hit the “Post Comment” button underneath your identification information.
Regards,
Vlad
160
none of you examples include the recorded human activities in CO2 production or the increased rate (above natural variation) of observed warming.
try this paper https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.978.3598&rep=rep1&type=pdf
09
“I hope I will not have to ask multiple times.”
Now that’s funny 😉
You do know you will never get an answer, don’t you… certainly not one back by anything to do with actual science.
80
Its the first I’ve heard of it.
‘The perturbations of (temperature) and CO2 during the LIA period from 1500 to 1750 are strongly correlated, with (temperature) leading CO2 by ~50 years. These records indicate a tight relation between CO2 and (temperature) with a gradient of 40 ppmv/K.’
30
“or the increased rate (above natural variation)”
What a completely absurd comment !
Nothing you have produced show in any way that human CO2 has caused the slight but highly beneficial warming since the LIA.
Some urban warming, exacerbated by adjustment, in the urban-based surface data… but urban areas are only a small fraction of the globe.
There is no global warming above natural warming..
UAH data shows very clearly that warming since 1979 only comes from El Nino events.
And why link to yet another junk model study.. when we know the current models are total junk
Even Trenberth knows that….
Trenberth when challenged on the question of observations vs models was to admit that climate research was not based on observation but on modelling and then elaborated as above.
We also know that the real warming is far below the junk predictions of the climate models
… and that real data shows that 1958 was around the same temperature as 2002.
There is no human caused global warming.. period.
It is a figment of combining localised urban warming with data manipulation
”
There is no warming between those events.
Near Zero trend form 1980-1997
Zero warming from 2001-2015
Now another period of cooling since the strong El Nino of 2015/16
80
I doubt if even Kamala Harris can come up with a better ‘word salad’ than this example of yours, Mr. Fitzroy:
” none (sic) of you (sic) examples include the recorded human activities in CO2 production or the increased rate (above natural variation) of observed warming.”
At least you have that part right: nothing I used as evidence that carbon dioxide cannot and does not control temperature had anything to do with human-generated carbon dioxide; my examples showed carbon dioxide’s (in)ability to cause dangerous heat. You did not refute anything I stated. That was a nice attempt at deflection, but you still did not answer any of the evidence I provided that carbon dioxide has little-to-no influence on current temperature changes. Dispute those, please, before you attempt to change the subject.
Let us examine this statement of yours: ” … or the increased rate (above natural variation) of observed warming.” [my emphasis]
So, just as I asked Simon for the numerical value of the carbon dioxide concentration that causes the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’, I’ll ask you to post the maximum amount of ‘natural variation’ in temperature change that Mother Nature is capable of making. If one cannot quantify it, it is not Science. Please, tell us how much temperature change is the most that the Earth’s atmosphere is capable of making on its own, and then we’ll have a good handle on how much temperature change is natural, and how much is ‘man-made’.
Your next post should advise us of this ‘maximum’ natural temperature variation number*, and we’ll all do the arithmetic on our own, to figure out that pesky ‘human’ contribution from all that carbon dioxide we’re putting into the atmosphere.
And, just FYI, I’ve made similar requests for quantification(s) from previous posters such as ‘blackadderthe4th’, and ‘Harry Twinotter’, to whom I referred as “Dr. DeHavilland”; they were a lot like you, since a question of quantification went unanswered for endless posts … … …
You’re very good at throwing out references, but as I have seen, when someone either tells you, or asks you, to check out a reference, you ignore it completely.
A very good day to you and yours, Mr. Fitzroy (and Mr./Ms. Simon),
Vlad
._._._._._._.
*A word of caution for you, this is known. Please heed the caution (above, 8.2.1.5.2) by our very lovely hostess; provide what is asked for, or go home.
60
‘Anybody who studies the environment will tell you that the climate is observably changing.’
It has never been static, climate change is happening and we have to adapt.
120
My apologies, the proportion of consensus papers is actually 99.85%. The 95% confidence limits were 99.62% – 99.96%
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
117
When was the scientific method changed to allow for scientific fact to be decided by consensus rather than physical reality?
I am unaware of any such change.
180
My apologies, the preponderance of communist purges at university is 99.85%…
100
It’s decided by consensus andphysical reality. Occasionally a new paradigm comes along which explains reality even better. Where is this new paridgm? If you have one publish it, and let the system of experimentation and peer review determine whether it is right or wrong.
09
“physical reality”
Physical reality shows that warming by atmospheric CO2 doesn’t actually exist.
Why do you DENY that physical reality ?
Thank goodness for the slight warming since the LIA. Its only NATURAL !
Plenty of real evidence that it is the SUN and clouds and the ocean cycles that have cause basically all of that much needed warming.
Absolutely zero real evidence that human released plant food has caused any of it.
80
An apology is irrelevant when the basic material is flawed scientifically.
We live in strange times when truth is classed as untruth and vice versa.
150
It would be clearly unrealistic to aim for unanimous agreement.
40
Simon >”the proportion of consensus papers is actually 99.85%”
Pay-for-play papers. Out of public view a personal view:
Actually a multidecadal oscillation (MDV) superimposed on the secular trend (ST) which has reached zenith (see figure 1):
Application of the singular spectrum analysis technique to study the recent hiatus on the global surface temperature record.
Macias, Stips, Garcia-Gorriz (2014)
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25208060
Some consternation:
The strongest CO2 forcing in history (supposedly) cannot have caused “a sharp deceleration” in the ST.
The MDV oscillation has gone negative and the ST has topped out – hence the “hiatus” this century so far. Given the ST prior to 1880, plenty there to ascribe natural forces to the ST.
81
“Mark Lynas (born 1973) is a British author and journalist whose work is focused on environmentalism and climate change. “
Very obviously does not have the vaguest clue about anything to do with real science.
He is rabid AGW cultist who will LIE and FAKE anything to support his cult-like non-science belief.
100
Hey Simon! Please post pictures of the spaceship you arrived here on as I’ve always wanted to see a real UFO.
90
Could look like this:
^
0
0
I0I
90
It’s been said that; ” Membership of GFANZ is voluntary”.
So is suis cide.
60
The solution is simple. Everyone withdraws money from all banks.
100
Unfortunately that idea of action has been mitigated with the banks quietly removing ATMs from streets and shopping centres for around the last 5-7 years ie limit “easy” access. Meantime they have been feverously working toward a single electronic identity for everyone coupled to their electronic only bank account. To paraphrase the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood “all the better to control you with”.
Australian banks probably got spurred on by the global financial crisis which saw some $A7-8billion withdrawn which about a year down the track forced the Reserve to print more big denomination notes as there were so few in circulation. I believe that even some 3 years after the GFC had “finished” and things were back to “normal” about $A1b still had not come back into circulation. Can’t have institutions loose control over circulation.
90
The “race to nett zero” seems to be the latest buzz phrase. Popping up all over the place. Gosh I hope we arent falling behind the sucesses in Germany, UK and California.
180
Great article! Thanks for this nice to see something encouraging
140
I wonder whether the ACCC can be engaged to mimic what these US States are doing. If not the ACCC, then maybe APRA or ASIC? Certainly not the Federal Guv’ment or the Australian States/Territories.
90
No need to wonder. It’s no! Who do you think these people work for?
20
It’s good to see some push-back, but I’m not sure this is “winning”. Left leaning governments will now be pushing to change these laws and most judges tend to be products of a far left tertiary system these days, so penalising those that restrict trade won’t be easy. I see this as a big wave of resistance and we need this to spread across all conservative states and beyond.
In order to start winning, a greater % of the general public need to work out that the phasing out of FF is being pushed by the global Marxists to bring down the western economies and create their great reset and at the same time the big green rent seekers and associated financial groups are using this as a license to extract the remaining government largess on the way to the bottom.
In the USA, if a large resistance movement grows, it’s possible that the country could divide into two, with the traditional conservative capitalists breaking away from the new age green “woke” genderless society that is pushing their great reset without energy, food or industry. Basically we have a situation today where the west has two incompatible cultures and there is no middle ground. To survive beyond this period, IMO – we need to break away and allow the “woke” culture to continue their journey towards extinction alone, whilst we create a western “safe zone” and “woke free” society with western values with freedom and equality.
90
Let’s put this in perspective — with 500 banker entities enforcing the UN decree on fossil fuel power we were looking at an effective One World Government in control. The UN could have crushed Western power while promoting China. The 19 US State AG’s are stopping that. It’s not the end of this battle, but we were poised on the edge of the abyss, and we stepped back. That’s a win…
61
As I alluded to above, how about we interpret the anthropogenic global warming scam as a financial fraud rather than “only” a scientific fraud.
People are likely to be more interested in investigating and understanding financial fraud than they are scientific fraud.
190
David M >”how about we interpret the anthropogenic global warming scam as a financial fraud rather than “only” a scientific fraud”
One follows the other. A Lawyers opinion would help here (I’m not one) but from my DipBus law papers my take is this: is the fraud civil (incompetence) or criminal (intent) or a combination of both?
The original fraud in my view is the IPCC’s attribution of ocean heat (93% of observed planetary energy rise – a relatively non-contentious observation I think). Problem is there is a list of reasons why this attribution is not possible. Basically the main items are (drawing from AR element-by-element critique and my MechEng thermodynamics):
1) The IPCC presents no physical evidence just speculation – “the expected mechanism” is “air-sea fluxes”.
2) The microphysics and thermodynamics of the AO interface precludes 1).
3) The energy-per-photon of downwelling IR-C radiation (DLR) is miniscule in comparison to solar IR-A/B (3 orders of magnitude less) and incapable of heating water.
4) The change in the CO2 component of DLR as a compared to total DLR changes is insignificant; WV changes completely overwhelm CO2 changes, see Wang & Liang (2009):
5) The sun heats the ocean in the tropics – not GHGs.
And so on.
I’m inclined to to think that the fraud is simply incompetence by IPCC AR authors at a lower level amplified by intent at the top by the likes of Thomas Stocker co-chairman of IPCC Working Group I 2008 to 2015 and the Climategate scoundrels:
THIS IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR GENERATION
NOVEMBER 28, 2009 By Christopher Booker
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation
100
>”1) The IPCC presents no physical evidence” [GhGs => OH]
They do present non-physical circular reasoning based on CO2-forced climate models but no actual physical evidence of CO2-driven OH rise (which must be greater than any driven by solar change or solar modulation e.g. cloudiness changes).
100
G’day Richard,
I disagree with you on the question of “original fraud” and suggest that that term is better applied to the wording, deliberately chosen and promulgated, that the IPCC should only look at anthropological warming, and not natural causes, so defining the outcome before any analysis what so ever. Without any authority to explore natural causes, regardless of their validity.
A close second would be that the IPCC itself is a political body which produces its summary report before the associated set of scientific papers are published.
And down the list, but still above yours I suggest, is that the press are given advance views of the summary report, with publication rights of comment for propaganda purposes.
Cheers i
Dave B
60
David >”…term [fraud] is better applied to the wording, deliberately chosen and promulgated, that the IPCC…
I was referring to scientific fraud for which there’s specific definitions, for example:
Criminal law, which I think you are referring to, is somewhat different:
WHAT CONSTITUTES FRAUD IN THE EYES OF THE LAW?
https://federalcriminallawcenter.com/2015/11/what-constitutes-fraud-in-the-eyes-of-the-law/
The IPCC is political (“Intergovernmental“) i.e. governments initiated, at the behest of the UN, the platform on a political level. Yes they set the parameters of the assessments by I don’t think that constitutes scientific fraud, maybe criminal fraud (from second link):
This is the financial fraud that David Maddison raises upthread. Problem is the UN cannot be sued and how do you take action against multiple governments?
The authors of the assessment reports are not UN employees but they are employees of the participating governments – they can be sued for scientific fraud.
20
Yes, I have always thought it is illegal for, say, the ANZ bank to refuse to finance a fossil fuel project on the basis of AGW because they can’t prove that it is detrimental to mankind. It is like the bank refusing to lend to black people as a group because they think they are unreliable payers. You can’t prove that. It’s discriminatory. And the bank can’t do that, it’s against the law. They will get sued. It’s about time this push back happened, and I’m sure this is going to be a lot more “front of mind” for the likes of ANZ and Blackrock. The same goes for insurers. They had better have another reason other than AGW to refuse to insure, say, Adani. Otherwise they are in trouble I reckon.
And just wait for action that companies might take against third party suppliers on “Scope 3 emissions”. Gonna be some lawsuits on that. If ONLY they could PROVE anthropogenic Global Warming! But they can’t, and never will be able to.
90
More wonderful news and let’s hope the US states hold firm and then even more states could then wake up and jump on board.
The US Republicans should appeal to the voters ASAP and take this issue to the mid terms in NOV.
But few people seems to understand that militarily the OECD countries will be defenceless if they abandoned fossil fuels and China, Russia and other extreme totalitarian regimes will always be able to attack at the first opportunity.
But AGAIN we have to ask how their so called net ZERO BS and fra-d would change the climate by 2100 or 2500 or…..?
Just look up the Vostok ice core data and then explain how we can change the co2 lag time over many thousands of years.
130
AGAIN I should link to the Euan Mearn’s article on the Vostok co2 lag of 14000 years as the Eemian interglacial temps plunged into the next full glaciation.
https://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-and-the-14000-year-co2-time-lag/
110
Nice charts, clearly CO2 does not influence temperature.
110
And to Jo and Frank Lansner who wrote about the 14,000 year lag seven years before Euan:
https://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/ice-core-evidence-no-endorsement-of-carbons-major-effect/
90
AGAIN here’s what the Royal Society and US NAS believes about co2 lag times if we reduced our Human emissions to ZERO today.
This bi-polar type of disorder is amazing and even the UN etc are well aware of this data. The accepted study is Zickfeld 2013, but Maths guru Nic Lewis thinks it may only take a few hundred years to make a difference. Who knows?
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
100
For too many years now, the squeaky wheel has been getting all the oil. Kind of ironic, I know. Once these climate panic merchants have their ‘oil’ supply cut, reality will dawn like a shining morn and the people might finally see through the propaganda and realise how much time and money has been splurged on the whole attempt to subvert our way of life. The race to net zero is just that – a race to the bottom. And Australia is challenging for the lead.
90
LOL. Don’t these Bird Chopping Wind Mills need oil for the gears and the turning mechanisms? Or, are the Greenies going back to killing Whales to get the grease/oil/lubricants? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. How Green is that?
50
AGAIN here’s a link to The Conversation article about the thousands of years co2 lag. and here’s a quote from the link.
https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882
“Slam on the climate brakes”
“What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders?
The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it”.
80
I like the way you are joining those dots Neville…
50
“Would we return to the climate of our elders?”
What does that even mean?
Climate now is all but indistinguishable from climate 50-100 years ago (except the “dust bowl” period in USA, which stood out)
We certainly wouldn’t want to return to the LIA ! Too cold.
MWP was somewhat warmer than now.. no SUVs then… perhaps that’s the time period he was referring to ?
60
“It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it”.”
Whoever said that seems totally clueless.
The only thing humans have done is brought a small amount of sequestered carbon (coal) from the longer term cycle to the short term cycle.
That small extra amount has brought the carbon cycle back to life.
Plant life can now breathe and grow properly again, and all life on the planet is the better for it.
60
There is one other way, massive reforestation. But, that requires lots of land conversion. As you rightly point out, we have to slow the change so that we have the chance to adapt.
27
Yep, let’s remove all the wind turbines and re-plant the trees.
Good idea.
Actually, the increase in CO2 is doing far better job at increasing world plant life than humans could do otherwise.
50
What change? The global temperature is still only a degree or so above the coldest its been in 10,000 years !
Still very much cooler than most of that period.. Global temperature is not a problem. !
30
Well I think its too cold. I’m desperate for global warming to start. Now where are my thermals.
30
Simon >”There is one other way, massive reforestation”
Spoken like a true harvest forest and carbon forest manager.
Sarc on/ But no vested interest at all /Sarc off
20
What is the end game for “net zero” ? If we could make it happen (which we can’t) most of the current world population would starve/freeze/die of disease . It’s obvious to us but they cannot see it. The catastrophe will consume everything and everyone and even Bill Gates and Black Rock will be destroyed . A hungry/freezing mob will tear down their walls and take their resources without caring about how much money they have . This is happening in Europe now and will force the deluded fools to finally join us in the real world . The big question is how big the pile of bodies will be…
80
Europe Is Losing the Energy War
Wars are fought on many fronts. So far, Russian president Vladimir Putin is winning the energy war. High energy prices, triggered by supply disruptions, have neutered Western sanctions. Russia’s current account balance stands at record highs. Meantime, the same forces are de-industrializing Europe right before our eyes. Industry after industry is throttling back, shutting down, or considering doing so if the energy chaos continues. Britain is staring at the potential shutdown of 60 percent of its manufacturers. Germany and most of Europe are on the same track.
Discussions of how to rebuild Ukraine when the ground war eventually ends are prevalent, but the question of the decade will be how to rebuild Europe’s industrial infrastructure. Industrial facilities and supply chains that use and produce energy can’t easily be restarted once stopped. That’s one lesson, at least, that policymakers should have taken from the Covid lockdowns.
Europe is learning the importance of energy resilience and reliability and seeing just how pivotal energy-intensive industries are for an economy. With gas and electricity prices soaring by as much as 1,000 percent, the fuel bills to make steel, aluminum, glass, or fertilizer in Europe far exceed what the final products can be sold for—hence the closures. Those products are inputs to other domestic industries, from cars and beer to agriculture, that are scrambling for other sources or closing down themselves.
All this economic carnage and geopolitical leverage arises from Europe losing just 5 percent of its total energy supply.
Policymakers are doubtless praying that the energy chaos will be short-lived, after which most appear to think that life will go back to normal. Unfortunately, that means a return to the same energy policies that facilitated the chaos in the first place.
The existential economic issue facing Europe in the aftermath of the twenty-first century’s first energy war, then, is whether the continent can fully rebuild many of the energy-intensive industries already shut or facing stoppages. (Certain classes of machinery, notably some in glass and steel manufacturing, can be irreparably damaged if shut down.) Whether such businesses decide to risk deploying capital to reopen involves speculation about whether foreseeable energy supplies will be both reliable and cheap. If the answer is found in locations in Asia, or Africa, and even Russia, that’s where those supply chains, jobs, and economic benefits will migrate.
China is now building the world’s biggest natural gas storage facility, drilling more, and increasing its coal use. What does China know about the future of essential energy-intensive industries?
90
Not enough “oats” in the European power supply
Rafe Champion
Postscript. Why we can’t build RE capacity to get out of the hole.
As the saying goes, when you are in a hole, first of all stop digging. We are in a serious hole with the power supply but the standard response is to keep digging by accelerating the building of wind and solar, storage, interconnectors, hydrogen.
That will not work due to the combined effect of the following factors.
1. Wind droughts. These are well-known in some circles but not among the people in AEMO and other advisory bodies who planned the destruction of the conventional power supply.
2. Need for continuous supply – no gaps. Hence the term “choke point” that I used to convey the sense of “rapid death” when the wind power supply is too low to keep the lights on.
3. No storage
4. No capacity to exchange power with neighbours.
The reason why more windmills and solar panels will not help at the “choke point” is that when you have no RE on a windless night, no amount of additional capacity will help. The horses will get out of the paddock through gaps in the fence, regardless of how high you build it. Building the high parts even higher will not keep the horses in. We can increase the penetration of RE in the system by building more capacity but the gaps persist (so why bother?)
As for storage and the calls for “Storage Targets”, we don’t have any effective storage at grid scale at present and there is no prospect of any in sight, despite the number of “big battery” projects in the pipeline. Add them up in terms of MWhrs (instead of MW) and see how much you get compared with the demand on a windless night.
Wind watch update
This morning just before sunrise the wind was generating 7% of power across SE Australia at a capacity factor of 12% (almost down to the 10% for a severe wind drought.) South Australia (the wind leading state) was importing two thirds of its demand and the local generation was 80% gas! A bit of a gap there!
This evening at dinnertime WA was down to 1% of power from the wind
100
Surely the worst legacy of WW2 was the UN
150
Yep, time for UNEXIT.
60
I’m trying to think of a way I can more easily explain my earlier comments today.
Here goes a very simple explanation.
1. On the one hand the howlers are telling us we must immediately TAKE ACTION on their climate change, ASAP.
IOW we must avoid an imminent EXISTENTIAL THREAT or CRISIS.
2. On the other hand they then tell us we can’t MAKE A DIFFERENCE for thousands of years, even if we STOPPED all Human co2 emissions TODAY.
If this isn’t a bi-polar disorder I’ve never seen one. But don’t worry just keep going with the TOXIC, POLLUTING S & W disasters and continue to WASTE 100s of TRILLIONs of $ FOREVER.
Does any of this make any sense to anyone?
130
No
70
Yes. You are attempting to apply logic to an illogical premise. Stop that.
Having a Scientific debate against “The Science™” is to completely misunderstand the battlespace, and the war it serves.
In truth, they haven’t a clue about CO2 relationship to a changing climate, nor do they care.
It is merely a convenient weapon in a continuing battle, for use by a misanthropic tyranny against a complacent Western Culture; a culture with an immune system deliberately degraded for decades and now struggling to defend itself.
When the effectiveness of the current weapon begins to wane, they will pivot to an alternative, and continue the war.
* Warming Climate / Cooling Climate – doesn’t matter: “Climate Change™”
* More Drought / Less Drought – doesn’t matter: “Climate Change™”
* More Flood / Less Flood – doesn’t matter: “Climate Change™”
* More Bushfires / Fewer Bushfires – doesn’t matter: “Climate Change™”
…and so on…and so on…and so on…
Fossil fuels, CO2, Nitrogen, Meat eating, Freedom. Doesn’t matter. It’s all hurting the earth, it’s all your fault, and the only way to atone for the horrible sin of your very existence is to surrender your mind, body, and soul to them – Entirely. Completely. Utterly.
Enslavement.
How many fingers am I holding up?
‘Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’
100
Slightly OT, but it would nice to see Murdock send Crikey broke in the current law suit. Running media articles branding someone a co-conspirator in an insurrection without evidence, should carry a hefty consequence. Of course Murdock is not exactly strapped for cash either and this is a $100 Million company defaming an $18 Billion one and thinking they can win 🙂
70
[…] by Jo Nova […]
10
Mark Carney was a useless governor of the Bank of England such that the financial press labelled him the unreliable boyfriend for his moving of the goalposts every time the economy reached one of his targets for raising interest rates. He kept rates below what was needed to bring the economy back to normal after 2008 which allowed a cheap credit bubble to build up. He was given the post by Boy George Osborne, another useless twat as chancellor, who killed off tax free savings accounts and decent interest for savers by chucking cheap money at the banks, and stalled the housing market chain by giving higher value homes a big tax bill which cuased owners to stay put and block those wanting to move up the ladder.
60
Aloha! What the CEOs of those banks really don’t want to see is RICO statutes applied to their own personal wealth. That’s the main motivator once you get past the “cartel” crime.
I don’t get it! Where are all the class action lawyers who took on big tobacco? This is a dream $tril case against companies like blackrock. Just don’t file anything in the US Southern District Court in Manhattan! File in every one of those 19 states where the pension funds are based.
50
On a bank related topic.
Has anyone here recently paid out their house or land Mortgage and recieved a hard printed copy of the Title, or been refused such? I am very close to paying out my land mortgage, but heard that all property Titles have gone digital and no copies are given to the owner. Also heard that the Titles office has been moved overseas , which itself sounds strange but could be conspiracy theory nonsense. Or it could fit in with old Klaus’s plans that “we will own nothing etc etc.
30
COP26
All you need to know.
30
[…] fooled by emotional soppy propaganda pushed by Global bankers, billionaires and UN industrial cartels, right? PETA can tell those moist adiabatic lapse rates from the missing tropospheric hot spots. If […]
10