|
|
By Jo Nova
Our news is filled with fatuous lies every single day.
Mr Bowen, Minister for Changing the Weather, wants to force efficiency standards on Australian cars so we “have more choices”, he says. Mysteriously, it seems there are companies overseas making cheap, clean, wonderful cars who selfishly refuse to sell them to us. Crazy eh?
Would that be because:
- Car salesmen want to save the world?
- There’s no market for efficient cars here. Australians prefer cars that burn up and waste fuel!
- It costs more to sell to nations with no efficiency standards since they have to install the Fuel Worse-ifier?
Or could it be they know Australians won’t buy their damn cars unless the government bans the cheaper ones first?
Mr Bowen, now says they never had a target. Of course! And people are mobbing him in the street wanting to buy expensive European EV’s:
By Jess Malcolm, The Australian
Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen has walked away from Labor’s target to have 89 per cent of new car sales electric by 2030, casting doubt on the government’s green agenda.
“We don’t have a particular EV target,” Mr Bowen said on Wednesday morning.”
“We have a determination to give Australians more choices. So many Australians come up to me in the street and say, I’d like my next car to be an EV but I’m not really seeing the range of choices that are affordable.
“And they’re right because there are many more affordable EVs that are available in other countries that aren’t available here because we don’t have efficiency standards.”
It’s like he believes political rules create miles-per-gallon efficiency, not engineering.
Or perhaps he’s not serving the Australian people at all, but some entity somewhere has promised him a great job one day if he can help create a market for cars in Australia that hardly anyone would willingly buy if they weren’t forced to?
10 out of 10 based on 123 ratings
9.6 out of 10 based on 11 ratings
By Jo Nova
Imagine the outcry if a coal plant was obliterated by hail?
A few days ago, a 3,300 acre solar power plant in Texas suffered major hail damage. This was a plant so new it was still under construction. The Fighting Jays solar project started generating in 2022, but was not expected to be fully complete until the end of 2024. In theory it was supposed to last for 35 years.
It is so large they boasted that it covers 2,499 football fields (like that is a good thing). Despite the vast footprint, it was rated at only 350 MW. At noon at peak production it could generate about half of what one forty year old coal fired turbine makes all day every day, and every night too.
Collecting low density energy is more expensive than the wish-fairies might think.
At an average construction price of $1 million per megawatt the project likely cost about $350 million dollars. In order to rebuild it, they will need to remove and dispose of the broken panels, so it may cost even more.
The Fighting Jays solar farm was insured against hail damage. Presumably insurance premiums will be rising.
Locals are worried about the possibility of contamination with heavy metals, plastics and other chemicals in the local water supply. Hopefully they won’t leave it all there to rot.
On the plus side, the hailstorm reduced some pollution of the Texas energy market.
h/t Colin
10 out of 10 based on 119 ratings
10 out of 10 based on 8 ratings
By Jo Nova
The “Misinformation Industry” has been caught with its pants down — accidentally finding, then burying, the information that nearly everyone in their own industry “leans left”.
This is a field that generated headlines about how conservatives are more susceptible to believing misinformation, and conservatives consume more Facebook disinformation. It would be awkward then if the whole field turned out to be leftist academics, and they tried to hide that, which is exactly what just happened.
The leading “journal” on misinformation surveyed 150 of its own academic experts, then forgot to mention that one of the most striking and significant results from their own survey was that being a “Misinformation Expert” was a left wing phenomena.
 Bjorn Lomborg noticed the statistics on their self-admitted political leanings buried in an appendix, and graphed it himself. He writes: “Misinformation experts are perhaps not quite unbiased”.
There was barely a conservative among them:
Speaking of misinformation, it’s a little misleading, don’t you think, to pretend this doesn’t matter in a field “devoted” to researching political misinformation?
It seems The Misinformation Review has been misinforming its readers.
The Misinformation Industry looks, acts and smells like a leftist invention to censor the right
Looking at their own statistics, the “misinformation” experts are a self-confessed group of leftist soft-scientists with little understanding of maths, physics, mining, chemistry and real life.
Experts leaned strongly toward the left of the political spectrum: very right-wing (0), fairly right-wing (0), slightly right-of-center (7), center (15), slightly left-of-center (43), fairly left-wing (62), very left-wing (21).
And they specialize in media-science and political-science and think that’s a “broad range”:
The misinformation experts represent a broad range of scientific fields. Experts specialized in psychology (39), communication and media science (32), political science (22), computational social sciences (17), computer science (9), sociology (8), journalism (8), philosophy (5), other (4), medicine/other (2), linguistics (2), history (1), physics (1).
Experts of what exactly?
As a theoretical field of science, the experts of misinformation could not even agree on a definition of misinformation itself. Only one in ten thought misinformation was “false information” alone. The rest felt that “misleading people” intentionally, or even unintentionally could qualify, which means the misinformation label can apply to anyone discussing a fact which they thought was true, and is actually true, but (as defined by the left-voting-experts) was “misleading” in the wrong context.
They just want to shut you up
When asked what we should do about misinformation, the correct answer, of course, is “explain why it’s wrong”. But the experts didn’t even think of that — instead they suggest nine ways to hide information and the vast majority of the pool of “experts” were happy with nearly all of them — deplatform, silence, moderate and censor away!
When asked “why do people believe misinformation?” the politically biased experts didn’t even blink — it was the human failures of confirmation bias, social identity and partisanship they declared — while buried six feet deep in confirmation bias, social identity and partisanship.
REFERENCE
Altay, S., Berriche, M., Heuer, H., Farkas, J., & Rathje, S. (2023). A survey of expert views on misinformation: Definitions, determinants, solutions, and future of the field. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-119
Website: misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu
h/t Ryan Maue, David Maddison
9.9 out of 10 based on 101 ratings
10 out of 10 based on 7 ratings
By Jo Nova
Ponder how far we have come when more than half of the US sees the media, not just as self-serving, biased hacks, but as The Enemy itself.
“Fake News” is annoying, but active lies and suppression are a campaign to steal something from you — or everything: your money, your health, your vote and your children. There is no “town square” anymore, no common forum where ideas are batted back and forth until both sides agree. There is only entrenched polarization. A house divided, and no shared meals. Fomenting civil war.
Rasmussen Reports asked 1,114 likely US voters whether the media are “truly the enemy of the people”, and an amazing 60% agreed.
By Nicole Wells, NewsMax
According to the survey, of the 60% majority who agree with Trump’s 2019 assessment that the media are “the enemy of the people,” 30% strongly agree with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee; 36% disagree with the statement, including 21% who strongly disagree.
It’s much more widespread across the political spectrum than you might think:
On whether the media are “truly the enemy of the people,” 79% of Republicans, 60% of independents, and 41% of Democrats at least somewhat agree.
Even half of Democrat voters agree the media runs on Democrat talking points:
Broken down by political party, 78% of Republicans, 61% of independents, and half of Democrats say it is at least somewhat likely that the news media’s political coverage is driven by Biden campaign talking points.
Donald Trump not only talked about the Fake News Media, but called the media “the enemy of the people” from as far back as 2017.
Recently, he talked of a “bloodbath” in the auto industry, which was twisted into false claims he was calling for a political bloodbath if he loses. The Rasmussen poll showed that media bias still has power — 40% of US voters still believe the lie that he was talking about widespread political violence by his supporters. 49% knew the truth, and 11% were unsure. Voters younger than 40 were less likely to have figured out the truth.
But only 3% of Twitter users still believe the “Bloodbath hoax”.
Rather surprisingly, Rasmussen ran a similar poll in 2021 with similar results. The 60% are entrenched.
The Democrats, the Financial House media owners, and Deep State would have to be sweating. Control of the media has been a powerful weapon but that ship is breaking up on the rocks of reality. Another round of “Factcheckers” can’t save it now. All they have left is the USS Censor Ship.
Thought for the day: How do we reach more of the believer 40%?
UPDATE: At least one commenter still believes the media care about subscriptions
The profits from subscribers and advertising are trivial compared to the power that comes from controlling the narrative. Shareholder owners invest a small part of their portfolio in their media-empire so they can then hide their subsidies, pointless industries and crony deals from public outrage and scrutiny.
The uber billionaires can lose money on the media so the rest of their investment portfolio reaps in the dough from their power to control the narrative, influence elections, and suppress public dissent.
See: What if the media was just the lobbying agency for bigger profit making ventures?
9.9 out of 10 based on 97 ratings
8.4 out of 10 based on 10 ratings
9 out of 10 based on 9 ratings
By Jo Nova
Martin Durkin’s work will be studied one day like Thucydides as a record of a bizarre moment in human history. It is so quintessentially British. I thought I’d seen it all in the climate debate, but this is so well done, perfect for a curious, matter-of-fact mind. It pulls you along, with timeless nostalgic footage in a classic English delivery, calmly unravelling mythology. It will resonate with people who remember cities, cars and great documentaries of long ago.
Because it’s not angry or activist it’s a gift you can send to friends who are science nerds, or history buffs, or who remember the sixties. Send it to people with teenagers who have no idea the curriculum hides a half a billion years of history. Send it to green friends, who have no idea a third of the food made in Africa rots before it can be eaten without fossil fuels and plastic to preserve and transport it.
Imagine the effect if this was shown at schools.
It’s the story of how an activist movement became a big industry, they say. But I can’t help thinking it was a big industry that grew an activist movement…
Honest scientists are no longer free,
To discover; what science should be,
Fearing censure and sacking,
And from colleagues no backing,
With consensus are forced to agree.
–Ruairi
9.7 out of 10 based on 128 ratings
10 out of 10 based on 13 ratings
 By Jo Nova
Nobody mentioned the nausea
The planet-saving cars that are being forced upon us have another catch — they might make you vomit. Apparently, motion sickness is “a thing” for EV’s, not that our public broadcaster would mention it in the regular adverts they run to tell us how wonderful EV’s are “with ridiculous savings!”. Apparently the silent sudden acceleration of an EV is leaving some stomachs in a lurch — and some adults, kids and even dogs are throwing up.
Zane Dobie, Drive
Another user said: “I drive in an electric vehicle a lot, and I’ve found that regenerative braking absolutely makes me motion sick. I’m not always driving, so I don’t always have control of how it’s being driven, so other people’s driving really makes me sick… I really need to find a solution fast”.
Some drivers also reported their electric cars making their pets sick too. “Since [buying] the Tesla, [my dog] throws up in it almost every time…”
The theory is that EV’s are too quiet, too fast, and have too few cues to warn our insides to prepare for motion. But who knows, perhaps sitting inside a giant electromagnetic field triggers a queasy feeling too?
Shhh!
The problem (that no one mentioned in public) is apparently already so well known in the industry that car manufacturers are researching ways to reduce it. (Where are our journalists?)
Solutions include driving the car more like a combustion engine car and switching down the regenerative braking, both of which reduce the range of the EV (o’ the irony).
Manufacturers like Honda are looking to squash carsickness by revising their power mapping for a smoother ride at low speeds. Honda is on the case with its e:Ny1 (which is not available in Australia at this time) by changing their throttle map to emulate an acceleration similar to an ICE vehicle.
Adding that feeling of throttle lag that you get from internal combustion vehicles will help ease discomfort for those who aren’t used to the immediate torque of an EV, likely at the cost of some performance.
Hyundai is even adding fake engine noises to mimic normal cars.
Other brands, like Hyundai with the Ioniq 5 N, are adding fake engine sounds that are linked to the pedal on their EVs and even adding fake flappy paddles that mimic gear changes. While this is just a bit of fun for the owners, it could actually help combat some of the motion sickness felt in an EV.
This story is more about the media than about EVs. It’s hard to know how serious this problem is (where are those studies?). Perhaps it only affects a small percent of the population. But whatever it is, we know it’s worse than our normal cars. If there was any evidence that EV’s reduced motion-sickness by even 2%, the ABC and BBC would make it prime time news.
If 25-30% of all people are susceptible to motion sickness in traditional cars and if EVs exacerbate that sensation, the sick feeling could affect a lot of people.
On Geoff Buys Cars, @JamesSmith-qs4hx says:
EVs make me sick – and I don’t even own one 🤮🤮🤮
h/t Troy.
Image by 2690457
9.8 out of 10 based on 90 ratings
9 out of 10 based on 11 ratings
By Jo Nova
The clean energy revolution is failing, and everyone knows it
In a radical move, the CEO of an oil giant actually defended oil. For a brief moment the space-time continuum opened a worm hole to reality, and leaders of some of the world’s largest corporations briefly said sensible things.
The energy transition is falling apart so fast, even the prime targets of hate, the Big Oil Men themselves, are now openly pointing out what a waste of time and money solar and wind power are. BP was trying to cut oil production 40% until very recently when it flipped to increasing it. But now we have a whole conference of Big Oil.
By Spencer Kimball, CNBC
HOUSTON — Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said Monday that the energy transition is failing and policymakers should abandon the “fantasy” of phasing out oil and gas, as demand for fossil fuels is expected to continue to grow in the coming years.
“In the real world, the current transition strategy is visibly failing on most fronts as it collides with five hard realities,” Nasser said during a panel interview at the CERAWeek by S&P Global energy conference in Houston, Texas.
We spent trillions of dollars and we have nothing to show for it:
Nasser said alternative energy sources have been unable to displace hydrocarbons at scale, despite the world investing more than $9.5 trillion over the past two decades. Wind and solar currently supply less than 4% of the world’s energy…
Meanwhile, the share of hydrocarbons in the global energy mix has barely fallen in the 21st century from 83% to 80%, Nasser said.
This is the graph he was surely thinking of — the one that shows how irrelevant, inconsequential and trivial the whole “renewable energy transition” has been so far. See that black line…?
 OWID https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix The free market cut six times as many emissions with energy efficiency measures as the socialists did with wind and solar and billions of your dollars:
The CEO said efficiency improvements alone over the past 15 years have reduced global energy demand by almost 90 million barrels per day oil equivalent. Wind and solar, meanwhile, have substituted only 15 million barrels over the same period, he said.
And they say they care about CO2…
For thirty years it’s been obvious that we could make bigger reductions in emissions by burning coal at hotter temperatures, and using shale gas when we could, but instead of “saving the world” the Eco-Worriers really wanted to prop up their crony industries instead.
Australia is about to bolt headlong into a renewables quagmire that the rest of the world is starting to back away from. Spread the message!
10 out of 10 based on 109 ratings
10 out of 10 based on 10 ratings
By Jo Nova
Winning? For the moment the UN has quietly packed away plans to tell everyone to give up meat to stop bad weather
Back in November the UN was all set to boss the citizens of wealthy nations around. The plan was to badger them into giving up meat so their grandchildren would have slightly nicer weather.
Possibly, after thousands of farmers stormed across the EU in their tractors this winter, the idea has lost its appeal. Not that the UN has the honesty to explain why they changed their minds, or even to admit they did. But the first installment of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) food systems roadmap has left the activists reeling.
The omission of meat-eating reduction from proposals in a UN roadmap to tackle the climate crisis and end hunger is “bewildering”, according to academic experts.
The group also criticised the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s report for “dismissing” the potential of alternative proteins, such as plant-based meat, to reduce the impact of livestock on the environment.
For the first time ever, some activists even called for “transparency”:
In a commentary published in the journal Nature Food, experts said the FAO’s failure to include a methodology on how the 120 actions it did support were chosen, or a list of authors, was “concerning and surprising”. They called for the next instalments of the roadmap to be more transparent …
A group of academics has written a paper in Nature criticizing the UN group. They can’t believe the UN would miss an opportunity to promote vegetarian lifestyles and fake meat. The head of the FAO group defended himself, saying “Dietary change is mentioned eight times in the 50-page summary report” which sounds like nothing at all, especially when they don’t even mention “reducing meat”.
It may not last, but looks acts and smells like a win. Score 1 for the farmers…. the UN is being badgered by The People.
9.9 out of 10 based on 92 ratings
9.4 out of 10 based on 8 ratings
By Jo Nova
Brave researchers have decided to save the world by pumping seawater onto ice sheets in the depths of winter. They are struggling through -30C windy conditions somewhere off the top end of Canada. Their plan is to thicken the ice so it will survive longer in summer, thus presumably raising the albedo of Earth.
For some reason the dedicated team at the BBC don’t mention what energy source drives the pump. I wonder where that cord goes?
Could the cord go to a diesel gen, sitting on arctic ice, snipped out of the photo?
If it was a solar panel, we know they would have told us.
Even the BBC calls the plan “insane” — though we sense they mean it in the same way a fourteen year old might describe a diamond encrusted skate park.
Their goal? To slow global warming.
But a small number of advocates claim their approaches could give the planet a helping hand while humanity cleans up its act.
The ultimate goal of the Arctic experiment is to thicken enough sea-ice to slow or even reverse the melting already seen, says Dr Shaun Fitzgerald, whose team at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Climate Repair is behind the project.
Researchers are apparently excited that they’ve “already seen the ice thicken by a few tens of centimeters across their small study area.” That much eh?
Since arctic sea ice stretches across some 10 to 15 million square kilometers, this could be quite a task.
The experts at the BBC didn’t think readers need to know these details, but they do briefly hint that they might need “10 million wind-powered pumps to thicken sea-ice across just a tenth of the Arctic.”
Apparently the words “diesel, petrol, fossil fuel” can’t be mentioned in a story about solutions of climate change.
Naturally, they have a struggle session about whether this is even a wise experiment given that salty ice might melt faster than normal ice. The worst possible thing of course, is that polluters might get the crazy idea they could burn fuel without tantric guilt.
9.8 out of 10 based on 90 ratings
9.9 out of 10 based on 8 ratings
8 out of 10 based on 28 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
The link on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ONMGnSiOLhjG/
and Vimeo https://vimeo.com/924719370
UPDATE: Surprisingly it is still on Youtube today (Sunday) and with subtitles in other languages. Vote it up there while you still can…