Project Veritas do great work, catching candid admissions in private of the real power games and corruption going on.
“Look what we did. We [CNN] got Trump out”
CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester, admits on tape, in a private discussion that what they do is propaganda, and he 100% believes if it weren’t for CNN, “I don’t know that Trump would have got voted out”. “I really don’t think so”.
He was focused on getting Trump out of office, it wasn’t just a political leaning, it was his raison d’etre: “I came to CNN because I wanted to be a part of that. “
So CNN is the place political lobbyists go to get paid to push election outcomes towards the President they personally want.
Climate change is coming next. “It’s going to be the next Covid. They’ll be able to milk that for quite a bit.”
UPDATE: Twitter sees their competition exposed, and a way for Twitter to put itself at the center of the global news debate, … and ..O… immediately cancels and bans Project Veritas. Protecting CNN and or Biden is more important than growing its own audience?
Clearly Twitter is a political machine with similar goals to CNN. They all benefit from Big-Government. None of them serve their audiences, and they don’t want the audience to know that. Evidently they have other masters…
James O’Keefe, the founder of the investigative journalism organization Project Veritas, has been permanently blacklisted by Twitter, just as his organization releases bombshell undercover footage showing senior CNN employees admitting to using “propaganda.” @Project_Veritas, the organization’s official account, has also been suspended.
In a comment to Breitbart News, a Twitter spokeswoman said the suspension was permanent. This comes directly after O’Keefe and Project Veritas publicly embarrassed the far-left news network CNN.
In a statement, O’Keefe vowed to sue Twitter: “I am suing Twitter for defamation because they said I, James O’Keefe, ‘operated fake accounts. This is false, this is defamatory, and they will pay. Section 230 may have protected them before, but it will not protect them from me. The complaint will be filed Monday.”
Power, Profit and Ideology all point in the same direction. Convenient, eh?
Wrapped in so few words — ponder the vainglorious conceit embodied in such a headline. One, that Guardian “staff” are the judge and jury of a complex science, that they can prophesy the future climate, choose which experts are right, and feel that they know more than the Nobel Prize winning physicists, atmospheric chemists and professors of climate who disagree. Two, that “the media” are supposed to save the world from their own decreed emergency by making policy pronouncements, silencing opponents, and overriding elected officials. Three, that they unfailingly know what’s best for the stupid voting masses.
What the media needs is to eat humble pie and start doing their jobs.
If they were only smart enough to recognize their own failings they might start investigating the issues of the day with an open mind, serious questions, and report the smartest arguments made by the most informed commentators on all sides of the issues that matter.
These are our Upperclass wannabee rulers
How stupid must they think the rest of humanity. Oh, if only the unwashed had the vision of the self-annointed Genius Guardian rulers. Did any of these writers even pass double maths in high school?
Not for the Guardian writers the tough road of appealing to voters, listening to other points of view, studying the numbers, the costs or the physics. Instead, they want the seductive easy road to being rulers. This is the cry from the 120-IQ’ers, smarter than average, but too stupid to know how little they know. Too arrogant to listen to maths nerds or engineers. And too bigoted and intolerant to listen to the workers and consider their point of view.
The Guardian editors are the mediocre wordsmiths who were fooled by a fashion trend. Now, those who have forgotten what “the media” is even supposed to do, think they can tell the rest of their profession how to do their jobs.
Glory be! Lordy — The Guardian speaks for Planet Earth itself:
Ahead of Earth Day, the Guardian is partnering with newsrooms around the world in a joint initiative calling on journalists to treat the climate crisis like the emergency [we Arts grads think] it is.
When the world shut down last year, there was one big beneficiary: the planet.
If only The Guardian writers knew High school science — they’d know megafires can only occur where there is too much fuel, not where there is too much desert.
We are in an emergency. California is on the brink of drought, prompting fears of a new wave of devastating megafires later this year. Rising temperatures could soon make the planet’s tropical regions unlivable for humans.
And they might understand that temperatures in the tropics are limited by the giant evaporative air conditioner that keeps tropical oceans at 30 – 32C. The tropics won’t get hotter in a warming world, the warm humid conditions will just spread further into the temperate zones. More coral reef, more rainforest! The tragedy…
The only thing they “investigate” is whether other people are following their own decrees on Planet-management:
Yet a Guardian investigation recently found that only a small number of major countries have been pumping rescue funds into a low-carbon future.
Maybe people aren’t buying the Guardian dictats because the “low-carbon” future The Guardian imagines is a barren impoverished wasteland of futile hopium which benefits no one but the self-serving corporates which offer these expensive solutions to problems that don’t exist? Could be…
Yet they imagine they are “setting trends in language”. Spin doctors unite:
Two years ago, the Guardian announced it was changing the language it uses to talk about the environment, eschewing terms like “climate change” for the more appropriately urgent “climate emergency”. Today, we are joined by others in the news industry, organizations that recognize that a global catastrophe is already here, and that without immediate action, it will get unimaginably worse.
Thus verily and Lo! The Guardian hath forecast doom and the richest most bountiful time in human history “is a catastrophe”. An Emergency!
With more food available to the human species than has ever been made and fewer people per capita dying of natural disasters than at any point in the last hundred thousand years, the only “emergency” is the destruction of English and history.
The real question here is why even a slice of the population pay to read this arrogant voodoo. And it might be that it fills a spiritual void, giving the rich and listless “a purpose” and a cheap way to salve their guilt. Or it might just be that The Guardian is selling a fashionable social drink people use to pump themselves up the pecking order.
The ABC is just a Lifestyle Magazine for the Upperclass, paid for by everyone else.
For twenty years the media EcoRulers told people they will destroy the Earth if they use disposable coffee cups and nappies. Their whole identity as a Good Person depended on doing the right thing. And “every little bit matters” — etcetera, and ad nauseum.
Who would have guessed that asking people to save the Planet with every purchase would cause anxiety, a perpetual sense of failure, and long term stress?
And it never mattered anyway — the point was not the environment, but the political power. So now that hapless fans are being struck down with “Climate Distress” — it’s time to forgive them.
Here’s the ABC Agony Aunt column letting all of them off the hook:
While researching how to reduce her carbon footprint a few years back, Brisbane woman Zara Monteith quickly fell down an anxiety-inducing rabbit hole, with each search opening her eyes to a different environmental problem to try to solve.
Despite doing everything she could, Zara felt like nothing she did to reduce her consumption or environmental impact made a difference.
She saw a psychologist and said “I just can’t do anything”. And the psychologists said ‘I feel the same way.'”
Now is not the time to mention that “every little bit helps”. The new approach is “nevermind“.
No-one is perfect
First up, recognise that you’re not always going to be able to make the environmental choice and be the perfect Instagrammable eco-warrior.
For some families disposable nappies are necessary, for some products styrofoam containers are unavoidable and on some days the air conditioner is going to run for much longer than the climate (or your wallet) would like.
Plan B is “cry”:
Dr Burke says emotion-focused coping means addressing the uncomfortable feelings like guilt or hopelessness.
She says this can be done by “moving” the stress hormones out of your body through actions.
“That might be things like having a cry —
So if you have to use disposable diapers, you can. Whole generations were raised on cloth nappies, but we can’t expect EcoWorriers to do that. Just like using your own mug rather than a styrofoam-dolphin-killing cup. It’s all too hard.
What matters is just that Ecoworriers are saying the right thing, they’re in the right Team, even if they can’t adopt all the symbolic tokens. No one really cared about the plants, the poor or the dolphins, they just wanted to look like they cared.
Basic facts, details, accuracy, buried under the weight of propaganda.
Here’s a lost fact: most of the world likes fossil fuels and wants even more of it.
The world is using more fossil fuels than ever.
And this is not exactly a new trend — starting in 1765 or so. Yet despite that, nine out of ten Australians speak as though they have been trained by a renewable energy ad bureau. And in a sense they have.
A few years ago, 88% of Australians would say that fossil fuels are in decline around the world and we must invest in “alternatives”. So nine out of ten people are just wrong. Despite all that connectivity (or possibly because of it) nine out of ten people know something that is not true and has never been true during their entire lives.
Lowy institute polls show how strong the effect of propaganda is. Vale the ABC, undoing science education, and destroying the national debate every day of the week.
89% of Australians think fossil fuels are in decline. Graph. Lowy Poll
On the plus side, the more wrong the reporting, the more the real story rattles the cage. When people get red-pilled they don’t just learn that fossil fuels are still popular and important, they also learn they can’t trust the media, that consensus means nothing, and that opinion polls are often junk. There is a lot of upside here for the truth-tellers.
Would you like contradictions with that?
In question two of the same survey, eighty percent of the population say that fossil fuels cause climate change and we should reduce them. This factoid has been used to scare politicians into signing up all to all kinds of bad deals and silly laws. Yet in questions 3 and 4 we find out that two thirds of the population also agrees that we should continue to export fossil fuels to developing nations. And half the population say we have an abundant supply and should not just export them, but use them too. Evidently most people think fossil fuels are good for the economy — both ours and the third worlds.
Assuming the people who disagreed with the first two questions were the same people who agreed with using more fossil fuels (as would be consistent) that still means one third of Australians will simultaneously say they believe fossil fuels are declining and causing climate change but we should export them and use them anyway.
Jobs trumps “climate change” every time
So what do the contradictions mean? Mostly that the media is telling porkies, but also that people are telling pollsters what they think they want to hear. On top of all that, the bigger truth is that people value the economy and jobs more than the imaginary threat of climate change (which is consistent with nearly every other survey done anywhere).
Let the Red-pilling begin.
h/t Simon.
REFERENCES
Global Energy Use, OWID: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
EIA: US Government https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
They couldn’t cancel Prince Philip, but the media have cancelled that he was a skeptic of climate change.
Prince Philip not only read Ian Plimer’s books, and said good things about him, he wrote, thanked and endorsed him on official letterhead. He organised a speech for Plimer at the Royal Society of Artists (which then cancelled by other people).
So while the BBC et al are lavishly and justifiably praising the Great Duke, they prefer not to mention that he thought wind farms were “useless” “monstrosities” that were ‘completely reliant on subsidies’ and ‘would never work’. The Australian ABC found time to say that he once made a joke asking whether Australian Aboriginals still threw spears at each other. The ABC called it a “faux pas” as if the Duke might have been asking it seriously, or aboriginals might not have a sense of humor? (There’s that soft racism again).
Here is the letter from Windsor castle, dated 29 April 2018: …
What is extraordinary about that letter is that as well as confirming the Prince’s admiration for the Professor, it points out that the Royal Family should have nothing to do with the politics of climate change. Yet today, a decade on, both future monarchs Prince Charles and Prince William, the former in particular in advocating the Great Reset and embracing Greta Thunberg, and the latter in his fondness for Sir David Attenborough, are in climate politics up to their eyeballs.
Duke Edinburgh, Climate Change, Letter to Ian Plimer.
…
From the GWPF
It is with deep sadness that we learn of the death of HRH Prince Philip, who passed earlier today. The GWPF offers its condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family on the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. Prince Philip, an environmental campaigner and fellow climate realist, will be profoundly missed.
All decaying civilizations have a decaying language
Some call the changes an “evolving” thing or a “living language” but when all the changes produce ambiguous misunderstandings or emotional reactions rather than analytical ones, it’s obvious the abuse of words is just degradation for political gain, not progress. Civil behavior is what makes civilizations. Any barbarian can rant with indignation.
When words are exploited we lose meaningful tools.
It’s about free speech
One word has become a favourite weapon to silence people and stop discussions. Hate.
Pat Condell reminds us that “hate” is a powerful word, the darkest emotion, an extreme word — but it’s misused and abused now for any old reason, but only in a selective way.
The word hate is thrown like a verbal frisbee — tossed like verbal acid — every unwelcome remark, and unpleasant truth is “hate”. If you vote for the wrong candidate, you are voting for “hate”. And now this extreme word has been crowbarred into the law.
You can be arrested if you say something that may causing alarm and distress to people who are determined to be alarmed and distressed by your free speech. But if the suppression of your birthright causes you alarm and distress, you won’t see anyone arrested for that.
Being offensive and mocking is not “hate”. It’s just a word but it is wielded like a baseball bat.
It’s hard to find a more daft example of Pravda-style Public Broadcasting
ABC journalist Markus Mannheim was given the task of making Canberrans feel good about having to pay nearly $300 more for their electricity this year. He also had to hide that the rise is all due to renewable energy. Canberra has now gone “100% Renewable” so there is no other energy to blame. Thus, he’s created an article which actually says that prices are falling which is why they are rising.
Like all good Pravda pieces, higher prices were “always expected” and the only graph he shows is not of Canberra and not about retail prices. Graphs are just eye candy anyhow.
The ABC journalists are apparently being trained to write in the genre of top level teenage girlie-gossip magazines. This is how a precocious, fifteen year old girl would explain electricity pricing to her 12-year-old Youtube fan-club:
To ensure this, the ACT government has contracts with generators across the country, including the massive Hornsdale Wind Farm in South Australia.
However, to lock in that supply and to help fund the construction of those generators, the government needed to offer them an attractive, fixed price for their electricity.
Now you tell us? Weren’t renewables meant to be cheaper — not “always expected” to be more expensive. And isn’t $5.50 a week, just a way to hide that it’s “nearly $300 a year?”
Energy Minister Shane Rattenbury says those contract prices were always expected to be slightly above the market price — a difference of about $5.50 a week per household.
Can anyone else hear a used car salesman knocking?
This is the expected, direct cost to Canberrans of living in a city with 100 per cent renewable electricity.
Canberrans won some, now they’re losing some
For the past few years, however, ACT households have not been paying more — the ACT’s price regulator says Canberrans have actually been paying “among the lowest prices in Australia”.
How did that happen? The ebbs and flows of the market moved in Canberrans’ favour.
And the Ebbs will get you every time. (Are we learning yet kids?) The true convoluted story probably has to do with contracts that had contingency clauses triggered by falling wholesale prices, though it’s impossible to tell from this “news” report.
In the scramble for excuses, there are some gems: did he just admit the ACT is powered by dirty black coal?
Hidden among the vague details of interstate trading:
Now, the market price is falling below the ACT’s negotiated prices, which means the ACT must pay extra to fulfil its contracts.
And that’s the main reason Canberrans’ bills will increase — EvoEnergy says it expects its payments to renewable suppliers to more than triple from $42 million this financial year to $127 million in 2021-22.
There are also differences between the market prices in South Australia (where a lot of the ACT’s contracted supply comes from) and New South Wales (where the ACT’s actual electricity comes from). Those differences are currently disadvantaging Canberra consumers.
So the ACT’s “actual energy” comes from the black coal of NSW but they have to pay more so they can call it “renewable” and pretend it comes from South Australia?
But it’s all OK, because Canberrans are already paying $2000 a year for electricity (what’s another $300?). And people can always switch providers, cook dinner at 11pm, or move to Queensland each winter.
Prince William wraps himself in the UpperClass Climate Club Fashion du jour
After all the hoo-ha with Megan and Harry, somehow the harangued Duke thought that standing with the bankers, multinational corporations and Tech Giants while pressing the Public Guilt Button would endear him with the people?
Or perhaps he’s just hoping to buy a bit of protection from the thought police? Boy, is he in for a surprise. Every flight he gets on will be mocked by both sides.
In a video message broadcast at the Conservation International Gala in the UK, the Duke of Cambridge called for humanity to “reset our relationship with nature and our trajectory as a species” in order to avoid a climate disaster. He said the next decade will be “one of our greatest tests” and he warned that the most vulnerable people around the world would be most hit by the devastating effects of climate change. While many have applauded William’s efforts to tackle the climate crisis, which includes the £50million Earshot (sic) Prize, he has also been criticised for perceived double-standards.
The Duke of Cambridge has said humanity needs to ‘fundamentally reset our relationship with nature and our trajectory as a species’ to avoid climate disaster.
By definition Prince William is the most Upper of the Upperclass. He is Uber-class, but it’s still not enough. He seems to have held out against the Upper-mob-warriors longer than most. But there is no denying the cult.
It’s like the Monarchy have a death wish — picking up the globalist aim against the interests of their own people. How’s all the pomp and pageantry going to look as the punters’ electricity bills rise?
Long live the Queen. Fifty more years should do it.
Last week Turnbull was offered the gift position to chair a new body called Net Zero Emissions and the Clean Economy Board. Two days later the MP for the Upper Hunter (a coal mining area) resigned because of rape allegations. Suddenly a byelection was called — and the conservative state government was faced with an existential dilemma. They couldn’t afford to lose one seat, yet Turnbull — who was unaware of the byelection coming — was creating headlines calling for moratoriums on coal mines when the voters the NSW government suddenly cares about are in a coal mining electorate.
One Nation and Mark Latham (a former Opposition Labor leader, for foreign readers) pressed the obvious DefCon1 button. The Turnbull appointment “anti-coal” and an “insult to the electorate”.
“Malcolm Turnbull should never have been appointed as the NSW Government’s Climate Chief, because, in reality he is an anti-coal activist with clear property financial interest that have led him to lobby against job-creating coal projects in the Upper Hunter region,” Mr Latham said.
Mr Latham pointed to proponent estimates that the Mach Energy project would create 400 extra jobs, and 500 jobs in the construction phase. “If the project is not approved, the mine and its current 440 jobs will end in 2026. So all up, 1340 jobs are at stake,” he said. “If this is how strongly Malcolm Turnbull feels about coal mines, how can he do this new $60,000 NSW job independently and objectively?”
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says the NSW government has capitulated to a “ferocious campaign” from the media after his appointment to a clean energy board was overturned.
Mr Turnbull, who has been a fierce critic of News Corp, said the government had caved to pressure from the Murdoch press by reversing his appointment. “There was a pretty ferocious campaign, a vendetta, really, in the characteristic way that News Corp operates,” Mr Turnbull said. “Its goal was to bully the state government into not appointing me chair of this net zero board.”
And thus the conversation wheel turns back to the media. Nobody mention the voters.
If there is any bullying here, it’s by the electorate who are fed up with the regressive UpperClass, anti-coal, anti-jobs and anti-cheap energy plans. This is the power of the voters. (Isn’t that a great and marvellous sentence to read in 2021?)
Appointing Turnbull was like getting my “pants pulled down” says NSW Deputy leader:
That bad eh?
NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro said on Nine Radio this morning that he was embarrassed he had agreed to Mr Turnbull’s appointment.
“I gave the benefit of the doubt to the Liberals and the benefit of the doubt to Malcolm Turnbull and he pulled my pants down within 48 hours,” Mr Barilaro said.
The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) calls it “bad timing” and “bad luck” for Turnbull, who “probably had to go” given the situation — but would have been fine if he’d been appointed after the election (because who cares what the voters want?).
Since coal demand is likely to fall, if too many new mines are approved, it will likely cause an oversupply in coming decades. Such a coal glut could threaten the financial viability of the coal mining companies, which in turn raises serious concerns about whether they will have the cash to remediate the scars all over the upper hunter left by open-cut mines.
[2017] Malcolm Turnbull should come clean and explain to his party and the public that his son, Alex is heavily invested in wind power outfit, Infigen and did so at a time when it was on the brink of bankruptcy.
In one of the luckiest bets of all time (see our post here), Alex Turnbull managed to buy in when Infigen shares were a measly $0.20, just before his Dad signed Australia up to the Paris Climate Change agreement, after which they rocketed to $1.20.
The scandal eh? Citizens arrested at the Capitol Riot were collecting donations from fellow Americans to pay for lawyers when USA Today swooped in to “expose” the travesty of it. Imagine the presumption of innocence and the right to “a fair trial”?
Once upon a time the second largest masthead in the US used to expose corruption in the great halls of power, but now they just attack private citizens. USA Today was wielding its influential power to cut off avenues for powerless people to raise enough money to afford better legal protection.
BLM rioters got donations direct from Kamala Harris and 13 Biden staffers, but Trump supporters are not even allowed to use Paypal or Venmo to get help from fellow Americans to cover their legal costs.
In the battle between the little guys and The Establishment Rulers, the legacy media is picking the side of Goliath, then asking us to be gentle on them.
Glenn Greenwald lobbed a sarcastic reply to the lead author:
…
And she and half the profession were so enraged they briefly set twitter on fire –saying she was “just an intern”, it was only her first story, and he was a mysogynistic bully.
Thus do the media bullies pull the Snowflake Defence:
Wow, what brave and intrepid journalistic work: speaking truth to power and standing up to major power centers by . . . working as little police officers for tech giants to prevent private citizens from being able to afford criminal lawyers. Clear the shelves for the imminent Pulitzer. Whatever you think about the Capitol riot, everyone has the right to a legal defense…
…increasingly, the largest corporate media platforms are used to punish ideological dissent and thought crimes by powerless, private citizens. They do not criticize or investigate real power centers, but serve them. And what makes it worse — so, so much worse — is that, as they assault, dox and harass private citizens, these journalistic bullies depict themselves as the real marginalized people, as those who are so fragile, voiceless, powerless, and vulnerable that criticizing them is tantamount to bullying, harassment, and violence.
Do you see what they are doing here? They are working to create a moral framework where it is always impermissible to criticize their journalism, no matter how shoddy, deceitful and amoral it is. They constantly concoct reasons why the journalist in question is too marginalized and too vulnerable to legitimately criticize.
Those who like monopoly-government like monopoly-media too:
In the next ten years, Australia will close a couple of coal plants, while Africa will build 1250.
Africa is going to double its energy and almost all the increase is coming from fossil fuels. This is hard to explain, given that renewables are “free” and Africa is poor. But at the end of the decade unreliable renewables will still make less than 10% of the energy in Africa.
A new study into Africa’s energy generation landscape uses a state-of-the-art machine-learning technique to analyse the pipeline of more than 2,500 planned power plants and their chances of successful commission.
African power generation, 2030, graph.
The study predicts that in 2030, fossil fuels will account for two-thirds of all generated electricity across Africa. While an additional 18% of generation is set to come from hydro-energy projects. These have their own challenges, such as being vulnerable to an increasing number of droughts caused by climate change.
This is only the start. Most countries in Africa are not even in the race yet:
South Africa alone is forecast to add almost 40% of Africa’s total predicted new solar capacity by 2030.
Five years ago TonyfromOz looked at Niger — a nation of 17 million people and estimated that the entire country used about as much electricity as Dubbo, Australia, a town with about 40,000 residents.
One Damon Gameau has a created a kind of fairy fantasyland movie of a cheesy-chirping renewable world called 2040 and it’s being played in our schools.
It taps into the primal longing for a simple pure fantasy world where all recycling is good, there is never any rubbish, nothing is wasted, and everyone wants to help. Sing Ye O Lordy for a Binary world of Good and Evil, (and maths that never uses bigger numbers than 0 and 1). A land of plenty, where children know all the answers, and no one ever has to do a cost-benefit analysis because there are no tradeoffs.
If you can say Carbon sequestration it can happen. Wave your glorious wand!
Our children are being taught to “save the world” by writing letters to politicians and creating their own advertising campaigns to convert even younger children to grow up to be little activists. Not for them the drudgery of earning a living, balancing books, or estimating risks. As Tony Thomas says “The lesson templates would do credit to Soviet-era indoctrination.”
Tony Thomas has watched the whole 90 minute brainwash spin, so you don’t have too. This has been out for two years, quietly winding it’s way through Australian schools. It comes with prepacked lesson plans fit to match a curriculum designed by Ms Julia Gillard (former PM). Perfect for harried teachers who can’t think of ways to weave sustainability into every second lesson.
I knew things were bad at schools, but not this bad…
This brought tears to my eyes. As someone who has grown up in a world where climate change is a fact and it seems little process has been made it’s really hard to see a hopeful future sometimes
I guess the suggestible minds trained to see disaster coming finally get some relief from the angst.
I see kids using landfill waste to generate more landfill waste. All it needs is tape, board and styrene…!
Get all the details at Quadrant:
Making Kids Shrill, Scared and Stupid
Tony Thomas, Quadrant
The premise of his film fantasy is that he time travels to 2040 and discovers that all his green solutions have been a brilliant success. He helps his real-life four-year-old daughter, Velvet, to navigate through climate perils to 2040’s nirvana. The movie closes with rapturous music and vision of youngsters of all colors and creeds dancing through a forest to celebrate low CO2 levels. One 20-something gal in a white frock grows from her shoulder-blades giant butterfly wings that actually flap. This must be the cheesiest movie clip ever made or even imaginable.[6] He doesn’t actually tell kids, “Vote Green”, but calls for strong new political leadership. “Wouldn’t it be terrific if new leaders emerge who could navigate us to a better 2040,” he says. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.
By time travelling into the future, the film can pretend that every green policy works. Make way for rainbows and unicorn stampedes! Its climate solutions include swapping steaks for seaweed and pulling down levels of evil CO2 to return the atmosphere to 350ppm CO2 (now 412ppm). That’s some feat.
Grow up to be a planet saviour!
Kids obviously will parrot that “the environment” is their future concern (notwithstanding that our air has never been purer and we’re putting out up to five colored bins weekly). Kids must then scrawl on their workpads answers to “What is one possible solution” and “Who is responsible for this solution and why?” Thus kids who have trouble solving 9×13=?, are coached to guide our planetary destinies. The 2040 “Factsheet”, by the way, finishes by telling kids to send letters to politicians and join the school-strike manipulators Youth Climate Coalition. They are also to run around ordering adults to cut their emissions. It’s the strangest “Factsheet” ever compiled by homo sapiens.
The poorest quarter in the UK have more information at their fingertips than King George did, but half the modern population have no idea what’s going on. In big bold terms of history, no other century saw so many lives saved, and deadly foes conquered. But most of the lucky recipients of the biggest bounty in a hundred thousand years aren’t just oblivious to the good news, they think things are getting worse.
Instead of drowning in floods they are drowning in junk headlines.
View this poll as a test of the media. If they told the truth — in perspective — the responses would cluster in a bell curve around the correct answer. Instead, a third of the population don’t know, and half the population know even less.
The GWPF has done a survey in the UK and discovered that less than 10% of the population even realize that the death toll from natural disasters is down at all, let alone by 95%. More than half the population can’t even guess the trend. And if these were “per capita” stats, the trend practically fell off a cliff. Since 1920 the global population has increased four-fold, but the death toll shrunk by a factor of twenty.
History and a connection to the real world is being wiped out. Great floods, fires and storms are being dropped down the memory-hole, while less deadly modern phenomenon fill up the news cycle.
The supreme auditors of Germany warned about the costs of Green energy a few years ago, but now they are paying attention to energy security too, and with sudden alarm they’ve announced that Green energy poses “an existential threat” to Germany.
It’s something dumb bloggers have been saying for years. But this is good news that German bureaucratic numerical masters are on to it.
So explosive is the German Government Audit report that Die Welt and the government auditors see the Energiewende as a “danger for all of Germany”.
Daniel Wetzel at German national daily Die Welt reports on the latest German Federal Court of Auditors’ warning: “If things continue like this, Germany as a business location is in danger. The costs are out of control – and there is a growing threat of an electricity shortfall.”
The Bundesrechnungshof in Germany or Federal Audit Office sounds rather awesome — legislators can’t tell it what to do, and its exact position in the layers of power is disputed, which only makes it sound more significant.*
The Federal Audit Office sees the danger that the energy transition in this form will endanger Germany as a business location and overwhelm the financial strength of electricity-consuming companies and private households. This can ultimately jeopardise social acceptance of the energy transition.”
No one will want to do business in Germany, everyone will be poor, and they worry about the social acceptance of wind plants?
“Ever higher electricity prices” are also to be feared in the current system. The Federal Court of Auditors quoted from a study according to which an additional 525 billion euros would have to be raised for the power supply including the network expansion in the years 2020 to 2025. Electricity prices for private households are already 43 percent above the European average.
The Auditors say the government has too many rosy assumptions and they underestimate the need for more reserve power.
According to Federal Audit Office data, the Energiewende has cost around 34 billion euros in 2017 alone. In addition to the federal government’s expenditure of almost 8 billion euros, this also includes the burdens on end consumers, in particular due to the renewable energy levy (EEG). “The Federal Government, incidentally, does not have an overall grasp of the costs or any transparency in this respect.”
The wastage of resources to implement the Energiewende was “unprecedented”…
Is there a process other countries can use?
Will government audit offices do the due diligence that the politicians, media and academics won’t?
.svg){kind=link}
Austin Rood