|
|
8 out of 10 based on 24 ratings
8.2 out of 10 based on 22 ratings
9.1 out of 10 based on 18 ratings
By Jo Nova
In a nasty shock, the VNI West interconnector price has doubled and doubled again
The whole renewables fantasy is unraveling before our eyes.
In 2023 the Victorian NSW interconnector was supposed to cost $1.8 billion. By May this year the price-tag had doubled to $3.6 billion, and now a mere two months later, the estimate has been revised again up to $7.6 billion and that’s plus or minus 30 to 50%. So it could cost as much as $11 billion. (And who knows where this trend ends?)
Without this transmission line, many future wind and solar farms evaporate, not just ones that wanted to connect to it, but other ones further away. Even offshore wind farms are less profitable without the VNI and other mainland connectors. Intermittent generators make more profits when there are bigger mainland lines to spread their erratic surges of electricity through.
“The Jacobs review also notes that without VNI-West, other significant renewable energy generation and network projects like offshore wind off the coast of Victoria will be less effective.”
— Summary of the Independent Assessment of Plan B
This is why it’s a blockbuster problem that the costs are rising exponentially. We are only just now finding out how shockingly expensive it is to build a short 190km high voltage line through good farmland.
The farmers hate the project so much they are locking the gates to survey teams. They even published maps of all the properties who are holding out.
Meanwhile, the Victorian government is facing a make or break crisis and so, with the gentle diplomacy of a Panzer Tank, has just legislated that farmers can be fined $12,000 if the government sends someone to their property and they don’t let them in. Now farmers hate the project even more. They have heavy machinery and are threatening to use it to block any entry, even if they risk fines.
The Victorian opposition has said they will repeal this after the next election if they can.
And now there is the new two-year delay as well. This map just marks the new interconnectors the AEMO are dreaming of adding to make the fantasy forced-transition grid come to life. The VNI is in the middle.
Electricity bills are expected to rise 50% for households or even double for businesses, if the Victorian Labor government builds this monster:
VNI-West costs may blow out to $11.4bn
By Rachel Baxendale, The Australian
Electricity bills for energy intensive businesses could more than double, and households could pay 50 per cent more, amid massive cost blowouts on a project that is integral to the Albanese and Allan governments’ renewable energy rollout.
Energy experts, industry and farmers have sounded the alarm on the VNI-West interconnector after the Australian Energy Market Operator released a report indicating the proponents of the project believe it is likely to cost $7.6bn, with a range of 30 per cent lower or 50 per cent higher, meaning it could cost as much as $11.4bn.
Victorian Energy Policy Centre director Bruce Mountain said the cost revisions were “laughable”, and followed a 2023 estimate of $1.8bn.
“This could increase power bills for large customers by between 2.5 and 3.5 times, and for households, at least 50 per cent,” Professor Mountain said.
And the only benefit of all this money spent, property invaded, and the eyesore of the high voltage towers and turbines — is so we cool the world by 0.0001 degree in 2100AD (maybe), and our useless universities don’t have to admit they were wrong, and China makes a trillion dollars more profit.
10 out of 10 based on 126 ratings
8.7 out of 10 based on 15 ratings
 … By Jo Nova
In the end, we have to win the Science battle
Donald Trump is not just slowing down the Blobocrats-of-Climate-Control, he’s on a quest to destroy it at the source. He asked the EPA Chief, Lee Zeldin, to reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and the EPA chief has delivered. Without the Finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health, the central mechanism for US climate regulation disintegrates.
Skeptics Francis Menton and Anthony Watts are celebrating this historic win after years of work. But the quest is not over. Menton estimates that the official unwinding and legal battles could continue for the rest of the Trump Presidency. He hopes it will clear the Supreme Court before the next election.
Essentially the sacred EPA finding of 2009 was that atmospheric concentrations of six key greenhouse gases threatens both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. At that moment, CO2, the building block of life, became also “a pollutant”. By issuing this “finding”, the EPA was therefore legally required under the Clean Air Act to regulate cars, houses, power plants, factories, hamburgers and your light bulbs.
Thus the Endangerment Ring binds all others, employs a million regulators, and centralizes control. Ultimately, it corrupts all those on the sacred quest to control the weather (if they were not corrupt to start with). It’s power reaches right into your home and takes your money, and shrinks the shower-head too.
Like the Ring, the Finding is treated as sacred — “It shalt not be questioned.” Like the Ring, the Finding was forged by an undeserving power — this large political decision was not set by elected representatives in Congress, but by bureaucrats using the Clean Air Act in a way its authors never intended.
And like The One Ring of Middle Earth, the Endangerment finding would corrupt even the good hearted. It is so toxic, it could not be used for good without being corrupted. And it makes the wielder of the power invisible — the hidden bureaucrats are the ones choosing what car you can have, or where you buy your oranges, or what kind of power stations you are allowed to buy electricity from. Soon they want to keep you in a 15 minute city…
In the words of Alex Guillen at Politico — “The rollback is the most audacious attempt yet by President Donald Trump to undo federal restrictions on fossil fuels.”
In some fields of science, The Blob owns almost all the scientists. Because the case was scientifically weak, those who even challenged the sacred Endangerment were cast as heretics or enemies of progress.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who was also on hand for the announcement, added that he asked five scientists who “have not been cowed by the politics of climate change” to conduct “an honest, credible, data and fact-driven assessment of climate change.”
“We want to end the cancel culture Orwellian future reality we’ve been in where climate change is not treated as a serious science, is treated as a political force to silence and shame people,” Wright said.
Also on Tuesday, EPA proposed scrapping all limits on carbon dioxide pollution from cars and trucks
As Francis Menton says: . The Big Question, is Can the administration get this process to the Supreme Court in time to avoid a reversal of this whole regulatory effort by a Democratic administration that could be elected in 2028?
As the shackles are released and the US Economy takes off — the last few nations still practicing climate sorcery will slow to a crawl. Whole nations will become the stranded assets.
There’s more detail at both the Manhattan Contrarian and WattsUpWithThat.
10 out of 10 based on 110 ratings
8.1 out of 10 based on 12 ratings
Sorry. Internet outage due to maintenance here. No writing tonight. Back soon…
9.3 out of 10 based on 20 ratings
By Jo Nova
The Blob cometh to shake some more money out of us
Australia is due to set a global weather target for 2035 in September, so the UN sent a former Minister of Climate Resilience from Grenada to poke pins in his Voodoo dolls on national TV. He invoked the No-Fruit Incantation and prophesied that Australians will only get one bit of fruit a year, which is 99.7% reduction from current production levels of 150 kilograms per capita. No one batted an eyelid. The ABC repeated it all, unquestioningly.
What no one said, was that thanks to the horrors of extra CO2 the world now grows twice as much fruit for every, man women and child, as we did in 1960. It’s that bad.
In toto, following The “UN Science” — fossil fuels have thus caused total global production of fruit to increase five fold. Even though we were besieged by all those droughts and floods, fungus, rat plagues and jellyfish, somehow we all grew five times as much fruit.
As we can see, this is the total collapse of global living standards, graphed by the OWID:
 Perhaps being ludicrous is the point?
There is not one thing that makes any sense about his speech. The threats about fruit are like a nanny berating a preschooler.
While speaking to investors in Sydney, Mr Stiell surely knew, just as they all knew, that what he was saying was preposterous fruity nonsense. Either the bloated corruption at the UN has run off the rails, which is believable, or perhaps there’s a kind of perverse psychological warfare going on here. Maybe the message he was sending is that the UN is so powerful they can send nobodies who say crazy things, and they don’t get laughed out of town? In a stock market boom, investors are not asking if it makes sense, they just want to know if it will keep going.
By Sarah Ison, Geoff Chambers, and Matthew Cranston, The Australian
The UN’s climate chief has declared Australia will let the world “overheat” and fruit will be a “once-a-year treat” if Labor does not lift its clean-energy ambitions, as Anthony Albanese prepares to trumpet an ambitious emissions target to world leaders in his bid to host the next global green summit.
“Mega-droughts (will make) fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat. In total, the country could face a $6.8 trillion GDP loss by 2050,” Mr Stiell warned at an event hosted by the Smart Energy Council in Sydney on Monday.
Like a school football cheerleader — egging on the under-eights:
“Australia has a strong economy and among the highest living standards in the world. If you want to keep them, doubling down on clean energy is an economic no-brainer. Bog standard is beneath you. The question is: how far are you willing to go?
The ABC, dotingly, called the former Minister from Granada, “One of the Worlds Top Diplomats”, even though he has apparently never met an Australian fruit statistic. Not even in a brochure on the plane.
Stephen Dziedzic, theoretically a journalist and part of the $1-billion-a-year-ABC, could have spent five minutes looking up the same graphs that unfunded bloggers do, but instead did the full free marketing and PR sell out for Blob-Industries and Blob-Governments:
Mr Stiell called the new climate target a “defining moment” for Australia, and said the government had “one shot to build a blueprint that protects Aussie workers and businesses by preparing them for a fast-changing global economy”.
He used a speech to a group of investors and clean energy representatives in Sydney to warn “unchecked climate change” would be an “economic wrecking ball” for the Australian and global economy, and that action was imperative.
… The United States has slashed clean energy subsidies and pulled out of the Paris Agreement under Mr Trump. However, Mr Stiell said investment in renewables in countries like India and China was “off the chart” and “trillions of dollars are shifting” globally.
He didn’t blink when the UN witchdoctor forecast the complete collapse of our 4 billion ton fruit industry, which I suppose was more believable that Antony Guterres boiling the oceans last year.
The last word: Even though the Australian population has increased 260% and humankind has emitted nearly all the planet-wrecking CO2 that we’ve ever produced (or 80% thereof), the total Australian fruit production has freakishly remained the same at 150 kilograms per person year after year. It’s almost like we eat as much as we want. Yay, free market.
Image by Julius H. from Pixabay
10 out of 10 based on 112 ratings
8.4 out of 10 based on 14 ratings
7.8 out of 10 based on 18 ratings
9.1 out of 10 based on 23 ratings
By Jo Nova
The poor today are even paying to help the very rich people of 2100 get slightly richer
 Matt Ridley In a droll, but scathing assessment, Matt Ridley calculates that even in a best case scenario, with the most generous estimate of how useful a wind turbine might be, the people in the UK are spending £25 billion a year to reduce global emissions of CO2 by 0.00002 or two hundredths of one percent.
At that rate getting the world to net zero will cost £100 trillion a year – or the entire world’s economic output.
The numbers burn like the Hindenburg, yet serious people keep a straight face, like we are living in an episode of Monty Python. The Parliamentarians pretend to save the world, the scientists research a pretend world, and the media pretend to be journalists.
Excerpts from Matt Ridley on X:
The climate boondoggle is one of the most regressive wealth transfers in history: never in the field of human commerce, or at least not since the sheriff of Nottingham, has so much tax been paid by people so poor to people so rich. Perhaps Ed Miliband is hoping that by giving lots of money to rich people, he can then impose a wealth tax on them in a sort of economic perpetual-motion machine.
There appears to be no end to his generosity to the rich. He has recently announced an increase in subsidies for electric cars, electric heating and electricity bills, and this week he quietly let slip that he will raise the amount he pays for new wind farms and index-link the payment for an extra five years.
What’s that? You don’t have a wind farm? Bad luck. Landowners who do can trouser £150,000 per wind turbine per year in rent for twenty to thirty years. One is arguing in court that £10m a year for his wind farm is not enough. …
Ridley quotes the latest official State of the Climate Report and asks:”Wheres the horror, Ed?”
The state of the climate report, which he presented to Parliament last week, says only that “recent decades have been warmer, wetter and sunnier than the 20th Century” with earlier springs and more “lawn-cutting days”. Mostly good news unless you hate lawn-mowing. There has been more warming in winter than summer, so less frost, less snow and fewer “heating days”: good news given that death rates spike in cold weather much more than in hot weather.
It says we now have 10% more rain, most of it in winter but the report can only “suggest a slight increase” in heavy rainfall while finding a “downward trend” in both average wind speed and maximum gust speed. On balance, good news. The only bad news is that sea level is rising, still very slowly – about a foot per century – but perhaps with a slight acceleration.
The inescapable pointlessness of the wind power boondoggle is there for all to see:
…let’s do the sums: Britain produces 0.8% of the world’s emissions. Electricity supplies roughly 20% of our energy and wind supplied about 25% of our electricity last year.
Let’s be generous and assume that windmills cut emissions by maybe 60% over their lifetimes compared with gas turbines…
It follows that Britain’s wind farms are achieving a reduction of 0.008 x 0.20 x 0.25 x 0.6 = 0.0002, or two hundredths of one percent of global emissions. That is what £25 billion a year, paid by you in direct and indirect subsidies according to the Renewable Energy Foundation, is buying you. At that rate getting the world to net zero will cost £100 trillion a year – or the entire world’s economic output.
He cites Richard Tol’s study showing that even if the world warms by (an unbelieveable) 3 degrees, global GDP will only be about 2% smaller than it would have otherwise been. And total GDP is expected to grow massively, either way.
Alternatively, if we go by the IPCC‘s business-as-usual model, and if “…we forget about climate change and just let the fossil-fuel economy rip” the average person will be an “astonishing 9.8 times richer in 2100 even with the effects of rapid climate change, instead of 10.4 times without it”.
Matt Ridley:
So Mr Miliband is asking you to reduce your standard of living today to save a bunch of very, very wealthy future people from being slightly less – but still very, very – wealthy. Your prosperity is sacrificed to their posterity. This is therefore yet another way in which he is transferring money from the poor to the rich. Was he sheriff of Nottingham in a previous life?
Read it in full on X, there is a lot more — or in a somewhat edited version in the Daily Mail, which Matt warns contains errors, introduced by editors while he was away.
Image by emely krause from Pixabay
10 out of 10 based on 108 ratings
9.6 out of 10 based on 13 ratings
By Jo Nova
Another day — another setback for the Mega Green Hydrogen Dream
The The Australian Renewable Energy Hub (AREH) started at 6GW, grew to 11GW and then to 26GW as the mania spread. Such was the vision — it would produce five times the power of the whole Western Australian grid system. It would be the star of “exported renewable energy”.
Once pitched as the largest renewable project in the world — the fantasy is that 1,753 wind turbines, and nearly 11,000 megawatts of solar power will fill 6,500 square kilometers of the Pilbara in Northwest Western Australia.
 The cable plan of 2018 to Jakarta and Singapore Originally, the plan was to build a giant DC undersea cable to Jakarta or Singapore, but when that didn’t work they decided it would churn out 1.6 million tonnes of green hydrogen and 9 million tonnes of ammonia every year for export to Asia. The project was so ambitious they were going to have to build a whole new small town on the coast, with it’s own desalination plant — because rainfall is so low. “We need to have lakes” he said. Sure.
Funny how the same thing that makes a site great for solar power is exactly the reason the area is largely uninhabited, sparsely farmed and thus “available” for acres of solar panels. (Things like this are just another hidden cost of collecting “free” solar power).
BP controlled a whopping 63% of the AREH and while it still “believes wholeheartedly in the project”, it will take its money and run far, far away. Clearly, it doesn’t “believe” it’s profitable.
Not long ago, bizarrely, for an oil company, BP had a target to cut its own oil production by 40% from 2019 levels by 2030. Not surprisingly this led to an existential crisis where in February it was on the brink of being a takeover target. It’s now planning to reopen Libyan oil and gas fields instead.
The AREH project may still theoretically go ahead. (The other parties haven’t pulled out yet). But green projects are being cancelled all over the world. Just in the last week, Andrew ‘twiggy’ Forrest dropped plans to spend $900 million on hydrogen in Arizona, and confirmed that the billion dollar Gladstone PEM50 hydrogen project would definitely not proceed.
Things are so bad, the Labor government has even asked “Twiggy” for the money back.
But if (when) the Pilbara mega project falls over, it will do Australians a favour. As well as the subsidies, the project also needed a 260km transmission line called the Pilbara Green Link, which taxpayers would have to pay for, at a likely cost of a billion dollars or so.
By Colin Packham and Brad Thompson, The Australian
 “…in a statement on Thursday, BP said the project does not align with its current focus although it continues to believe wholeheartedly in the development.”
“Despite BP’s withdrawal, its holding was 63 per cent, the project’s remaining partners appear to be pushing ahead.”
The costs of hydrogen are obscenely high:
“In June, InterContinental Energy conceded today’s cost for delivering green energy was estimated at between $8 and $11 a kilogram, exceeding the price of rival energy sources it aimed to unseat. It expected green hydrogen costs to eventually fall to about $4 a kilogram, but even at those levels experts said it was unviable.”
Hydrogen is “The valley of disillusionment” says Portuguese Energy chief
The AREH project is symbolic of the bad news for hydrogen around the world:
The gap between ambition and reality in Europe shows the extent of the reset happening within the industry, said Jun Sasamura, hydrogen manager at research company Westwood Global Energy.
Only about a fifth of planned hydrogen projects across the European Union are likely to come online by the end of the decade, he said. That equates to roughly 12 GW of production capacity against an EU target of 40 GW, Westwood Global Energy data shows.
Even with all the subsidies, no one wants to buy the hydrogen:
“Green hydrogen was an inflated expectation that has turned into a valley of disillusionment,” said Miguel Stilwell d’Andrade, chief executive of Portuguese power company EDP (EDP.LS)“What’s missing is the demand. There are 400 million euros ($464.2 million) of subsidies for hydrogen in Spain and Portugal, but we need someone to buy the hydrogen.”
It is at least three times more expensive than natural gas as a fuel for power generation, for example, and twice as expensive as grey hydrogen. The latter is produced from natural gas and coal and is already used in industries such as oil refining and production of ammonia and methanol.
Does any customer, anywhere, want to spend a dollar more to buy “Green Hydrogen”?
10 out of 10 based on 105 ratings
9.3 out of 10 based on 12 ratings
By Jo Nova
It’s a great day for lawyers
A court at the top of the UN Faraway Tree has proclaimed that rich countries have an obligation to “protect the climate system”.
In full Blob-propaganda mode, the BBC rushed to tell us how this was a win for the people, in “the worlds highest court”. The BBC-Blob doesn’t mention that the poor people of Britain (and the free world) will pay, and most of the poor islanders cheering in the South Pacific will get nothing. As the BBC says, dripping with Marxist-medicine: ““This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard.” When they say “us” they mean “the Blob”. When they say “frontline community” they mean the Blob rent-a-crowd protestors. They don’t mean frontline farmers, or small business owners or Christians.
The ruling is “non-binding” which means any sensible government will ignore it, just like the USA, France, Israel and India have in the past, and even Australia did in 2002. China pretty much ignores it every year. But this ruling is very useful for patsy governments who want to do something anyway (like give back the Chagos Islands for no good reason). It will suit sell-out Prime Ministers who want to score a UN job “après politics”. It will suit China because no one will sue them for fear of sparking a trade war, even though it’s the worst “climate troll” on Earth, instead, it will just sell more useless wind turbines, batteries and solar panels to patsy nations that use this symbolic ruling to pretend they must do more “weather-changing” on their national grid (or what’s left of it).
“Tonight I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally.
The ICJ is considered the world’s highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week.
The UK put in a tepid effort to defend its own citizens from the latest UN phishing scam:
But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed. On Wednesday the court rejected that argument.
Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.
It is all about the money — ka-ching times a trillion:
Previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change – or $16 million per hour.
The only solution to the perpetual money funnel is to leave these unelected, unaudited, power hungry black hole institutions who serve no one but themselves and their Blob compatriots. It’s time to exit the UN. Turn off the taps. Axe the funding stream. This starts by embarrassing patsy governments who don’t serve their citizens and the schmuck journalists who serve the Blob and not their country.
The whole world could potentially sue everyone else
It’s a game of ideological roulette with unlimited plaintiffs.
The Pacific Islanders can apparently sue us for warming the world, even if their islands are not sinking (and the sun probably caused the warming). But what if Russia, Poland or the ‘akistans decide to sue The West for trying to cool the climate which could harm their farmers and reduce their crops? What if France sued everyone else for not building nuclear plants. Or Africa sued the West for not giving them nuclear plants? Or Indonesia sued us for cutting back CO2 and reducing their rice yields. The list only ends when Donald Trump puts a tariff on nations that still feed the UN.
We can feel the One World Government breathing in our ears. The ICJ threatens sovereignty — the unelected masters are making up their own rules. The money they eke out will be quietly siphoned through electricity bills and taxes in such a way that no one will be quite sure who paid what and when.
Who decides what “Protecting the Climate” means? Whoever that is, they are the Kings that want to rule over us.
The theatre of the absurd
As the BBC says, without so much as two minutes of analysis, “Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuel”. As if.
The country that has generated the most carbon dioxide, bar none, is the US, and it withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice 40 years ago, and the ICJ can’t hear a case against the US unless the US consents. (That was Nicaragua v. United States of 1986). In 2005, the US just ignored the ICJ ruling that the US violated the Vienna Convention. (Even Australia withdrew from ICJ jurisdiction over maritime boundary disputes in 2002 — just before East Timor was about to sue it over the Timor Gap oil field.)
The number two country on the global emitters list, — that has historically burned the most coal on Earth — is China, but good luck getting them to pay. They will, however, offer a Belt and Road climate loan, paid back in harbors, airports and railway lines or just pro-China votes in the UN.
So who is this legislative theatre aimed at? The only suckers left — Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
10 out of 10 based on 91 ratings
9.6 out of 10 based on 10 ratings
Image by Steve from Pixabay
By Jo Nova
The poor suffering Blob experts are losing the information war
They can’t seem to get a break, even with all the Governments, bankers, media, universities and the United Nations to help them.
If only they had truth on their side, they could just explain it, but since they don’t — the next best thing is publishing concocted studies demonizing the truth-tellers as conspiracy theorists, and blaming profiteering Big-tech. Free speech is so dangerous, they warn, that “Elon Musk-owned X lacked fact-checks or Community Notes on 99% of the posts”. Ninety nine percent! Clearly, The Blob wants warnings and labels on every single damn tweet. No moment in the public town square can be left unguarded.
We can’t have adults thinking for themselves! And that’s the thing isn’t it, there is something profoundly condescending and undemocratic about those who believe adults can’t be trusted to have conversations that no one corrects, live, one tweet at a time. The incredible unbridled smuggery of the Blobocrats is there for all to see, (as is the desperation) yet so rarely mocked, tarred and feathered as required.
But it’s true, climate misinformation (put out by Professors) puts lives at risk — right now people are dying because they can’t afford air conditioning or heating. Climate sorcerers at universities took public money and told them the “science was settled” and they needed to redirect jet-streams with solar panels and windmills. It was a wanton electro-weather experiment that pushed the price of electricity up.
Censorship is the real killer
Climate misinformation can always be fixed if the skeptics are not censored
By Anuj Chopra, Tech Explore
Major social media platforms are enabling and profiting from misinformation around extreme weather events, endangering lives and impeding emergency response efforts, a research group said Tuesday.
The report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)—which analyzed 100 viral posts on each of three leading platforms during recent natural disasters including deadly Texas floods—highlights how their algorithms amplify conspiracy theorists while sidelining life-saving information.
Just name-calling:
“The influence of high-profile conspiracy theorists during climate disasters is drowning out emergency response efforts,” the report said, adding that the trend was “putting lives at risk.”
The crime of writing something un-fact-checked!
Nearly all of the analyzed posts on Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram lacked fact-checks or Community Notes, a crowd-sourced verification system increasingly being adopted as an alternative to professional fact-checkers, the report said.
DeSmog are now “reporters on climate misinformation” (and prophets too):
Following natural disasters, misinformation tends to surge across social media—fueled by accounts from across the political spectrum—as many platforms scale back content moderation and reduce reliance on human fact-checkers, often accused by conservative advocates of a liberal bias.
“Climate disinformation costs lives,” said Sam Bright of DeSmog, which reports on climate misinformation campaigns.
“As extreme weather events become more and more frequent, these falsehoods will only get more dangerous.”
Converting power stations to global air conditioners costs a trillion or two, and the price is not just money, but blood, sweat and tears.
Mortality increases in rooms that are too cold or too hot, and financial stress increases death rates. For example…
 Cumulative hazards for mortality across each level of financial strain are shown. The light blue line indicates severe financial strain, or those who reported not having enough monthly income to make ends meet. The orange line indicates moderate financial strain, or those who reported having just enough to make ends meet. The dark blue line indicates those with no financial strain, or those who had more than enough money to make ends meet. REFERENCE
Falvey et al (2021) Association of Financial Strain With Mortality Among Older US Adults Recovering From an Acute Myocardial Infarction, JAMA Intern Med Published Online: February 21, 2022 2022;182;(4):445-448. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.8569
Thank you Elon.
9.9 out of 10 based on 84 ratings
8.9 out of 10 based on 9 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
|
Print This Post | | 
Recent Comments