|
|
||||
|
We may have to fix the sleep deprivation to fix the cultural apathy
Listening to a sleep specialist I was struck that so much of our civilizational decline mirrors the effects sleep deprivation has on individuals. The sleep researcher even used the phrases “deviant” and “social loafing”. Tired people free-load on the team and are more likely to make false claims. It amplifies the worst of “The Welfare State”. A sleep deprived nation is a fatter, less productive, less creative and less motivated country. Sex hormones are reduced, blood sugar is raised, immunity suffers, self control is reduced, and anxiety increases, as does every marker of suicidal ideation. Food choices become more hedonic. Self discipline suffers. Declines in sleep must surely also explain part of the testosterone drop that modern civilization seems to be suffering from. Blood tests show being tired is medically a form of premature aging — albeit, hopefully, temporary. Professor Matthew Walker argues that sleep is more important than food or exercise and yet we are ignoring it. Every species on Earth needs to sleep. If it were not essential, evolution would have found a way to get rid of it, or reduce it, because it is a costly behaviour. Sleeping animals are more vulnerable, seemingly unproductive, they’re not raising babies, or bringing in food. Walker doesn’t say it, but what’s good for a corporation is surely good for a nationAll the things that make companies more profitable and reduce their health care costs surely apply to whole countries? NASA research in the 1980s found that 20 – 60 minutes sleep improved productivity by 34%. It increased general alertness by 50%. The results were so stark NASA even transferred these findings to work conditions for people on the ground. “NASA naps” became a thing. The five reasons a lack of sleep is worse for productivity:When employees undersleep they choose less challenging problems, they check their emails but they don’t tackle the deep issues. Secondly, tired people produce fewer creative solutions. Thirdly, in teams, those who sleep less slack off, they freeload on other people. Fourthly, they are more deviant, they’re more likely to fudge data, to claim reimbursements they don’t deserve. Finally, the leaders who get less sleep are rated as less charismatic by employees, even though the employees don’t know how much sleep their CEO got that day. Plus workers who sleep less take about 11 more sick days annually. And they use health care resources 80% more than well rested people. Their obesity and mental health is worse. (This is discussed at 42 – 48 minutes in the video.) Doctors are only given about 90 minutes of sleep education in their entire degree yet it’s one third of their patients lives. Children aren’t taught much about sleep at school. No nation seems to have a public campaign to increase sleep, yet they have programs to boost exercise, reduce drinking, stop smoking, eat better and drive slower. Dr Matthew Walker is a Berkley neuroscientist and sleep specialist.
The video is surprisingly compelling. He’s an excellent speaker, with lots of research and no finger pointing lectures. We spend a lot of time here wondering why so many in society seem so apathetic, or careless or corrupt. Maybe a tired population is a compliant distracted one and maybe we should be doing something about that. If I were an adversary of the West, I would do everything I could to encourage their sleep deprivation. Night owls and larks are coded in our genes Chronotypes, meaning whether you are a night owl or a lark — are built in genetically — probably because tribes were so much better off if they had someone awake at most hours of the clock, rather than all sleeping for the same 8 hours. Tribes with mixed sleeping patterns were less likely to be surprised in a bad way. Divorce papers suggest that one third of divorcees mention sleep incompatibility. Walker suggests a sleep-divorce (sleeping separately) might be useful before people have a real divorce. A quarter of couples sleep in different rooms. People sleeping apart from each other report getting better sleep, and probably have higher libidos due to that. But people sleeping together report feeling more satisfied about sleep. I listened to the whole 2 hours as a podcast, which I almost never do. People interested in Alzheimers may want to listen from 1:30 onwards. The timeline of topics are listed below (bolding mine).
Are we sleeping less?The interview doesn’t discuss whether we are sleeping less than we did 100 years ago, but a search doesn’t turn up a lot either. One review of research papers suggests we’re not, but most of the data comes from sleep labs, not people at home in their daily lives. Apparently there is very little data about how many hours of sleep people got in 1920 or 1950 and so on, and “hours in bed” is not the same as “hours asleep” which is hard to get without a sleep tracker. At least one Gallup poll suggests people thought they got more sleep in the 1940s. Eighty percent of people in 1942 said they slept more than 7 hours a night. But now less than 60% percent at most say that. Four times as many people now say they are sleeping six hours or less.  Gallup poll numbers suggest people are sleeping less. Vox. Sleeping man on train image by abdulla binmassam.  Emden, Germany by Gritte, @gritte Germany is at the leading edge of the climate wars and the Greens are starting to lose both in polling and policy. Despite the claims that the energy crisis will push everyone into renewables, one year later, the dominant energy source for German electricity is coal, up by eight percentage points to 33% of generation. While the world is supposedly caught in a renewable rush to 2030, the German government just announced it will build 25 gigawatts of gas powered plants by 2030 so they are there when “when [the] wind and sun do not provide enough”. And this week Germany is doing a backflip on their recent EU deal to ban sales of petrol and gas powered cars by 2035. It appears now they will ban the ban, rather than the car, and Germany has the power in the EU to do that. Though it’s not freedom to buy any car you want, but quixotic car loophole. It’s still a mess of awful, subsidized craziness in a futile quest to control the clouds — but there are signs it is getting less crazy. Thanks to NetZeroWatch for the links: Coalition blues make German Greens see redBy Hans von der Burchard, Gabriel Rinaldi and Peter Wilke, Politico
Not only has Germany been causing a ruckus at the EU level in recent weeks by mounting a last-minute blockade to a proposed ban on combustion engines, but the country is also facing a domestic political fight over phasing out gas and oil heating systems, as well as pushing forward the coal exit. The political coalition is tearing itself apart: All those disputes are linked to fundamental disagreements between the Greens and their two coalition partners, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP), over how the EU’s climate-protection targets should be implemented and what consequences and costs this will have for industry and citizens. The conflict is not only affecting the Greens’ popularity — is also seems to be threatening a wider crisis for the coalition. And that crisis seems to be escalating. The Greens have every reason to be nervous, as their climate policies are becoming a hard sell in Germany. What were they thinking? Habeck’s heat pump requirement alone could mean additional costs of up to €13,000 per installation for households,…
Not surprisingly, the Greens have lost a quarter of their support in the last ten months: Of great concern for the Green Party is how they have been falling in polls for months, from 23 percent last summer to currently 17 percent. Meanwhile, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been steadily rising and is now close on the Greens’ tail, at 15 percent. One poll on Sunday even put the AfD ahead of the Greens. The rush to build 25GW of government subsidized gas plants as back upsPrivate investors stopped building gas plants because it didn’t make economic sense to build them just as a rescue project to make up for the bad days of wind and solar power — especially when they would sit around unused while the wind blew. So these new rushed plants will be partly subsidized in the same crazy style that renewables are. “We will build the power plants we need for the times when wind and sun do not provide enough electricity out to tender,” said the minister at the presentation of a report on the progress of the country’s transition to climate neutrality. In recent years, Germany has used auctions to incentivise and control the expansion of wind and solar energy. Companies compete in these tenders to receive financial support for renewable electricity.
The big backdown to save ICE cars has played out in just three months. One poll suggested 67% of Germans didn’t want to ban traditional cars, and hundreds of thousands of German jobs were at stake in making car parts. Did Germany just kill the electric car?Dave Keating, Energy Monitor After nearly two years of painstaking talks, negotiators from the European Parliament and EU member states finally struck a deal last November on a new vehicle emissions law that would ban the sale of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars in the EU from 2035. Even though Germany, with its powerful automotive industry, has historically opposed ambitious car CO2 standards, in the end it supported the deal. The agreement was ready to be signed into law – but then German Finance Minister Christian Lindner stepped in. Thanks to Georgia Meloni winning in Italy, apparently she realized that Italy didn’t want the ban either in January. Italy alone didn’t have enough voting power to stop it, but the German Finance Minister did. Germany wants the law changed to allow for the sale of ICE cars after 2035 if they run on hydrogen-derived e-fuels, which are produced by electrolysis with added carbon. Climate campaigners are aghast. The NGO Transport & Environment (T&E) is warning that this is a ruse to extend sales of fossil-fuel-powered cars,…’ The big problem is that this loophole would allow people to buy new ICE cars and then fill them up with old fossils, because no one can check what consumers do, and we all know the e-fuels will be hideously expensive, so only the uber wealthy will be filling up the car with saintly fuel. It’s back to the drawing board for the EU which has to come up with some compromise. The last minute retraction is a great embarrassment to the Greens, and worse they fear Germany won’t meet the 50% target cuts in emissions by 2030. But then, it failed to meet the last target in 2020 and who cared? March 25th, 2023 | Tags: Europe, Fossil Fuel, Germany, Renewable Energy | Category: Big-Government, Europe, Global Warming |  Print This Post | | Wade Allison has done a short but devastating analysis for the GWPF. The take home message is that the energy contained in the wind is diabolically more erratic than most people realize. It’s just basic physics and almost no one in politics seems able to comprehend just how impossible these numbers are. If only they would “follow the science” eh? Thanks to Paul Homewood at Notalotofpeopleknowthat. The exponential death of affordable electricityIt’s just physics. The power of the blowing wind increases by the speed of those particles cubed which produces a twin engineering nightmare. If the wind doubles in speed, the energy goes up by a factor of 8 (or 2 × 2 × 2, and we need to spell it out), and if it slows by half, the energy drops eight-fold. It’s bad both ways. At high speeds, the mechanical engineers have to turn off the turbines to protect them, and at low speeds the electrical engineers have to ramp up power stations that may not exist, or pray to Gaia for batteries that will never exist. Allison has a graph showing the total output of all the wind turbines in the UK and Europe for a whole year compared to the total electricity needed. As he says “This is not the headline plot that the industry shows to its investors, the media and politicians, but it comes from their own published annual WindEurope Report”. Just look at this graph from 2021 where wind power is achieving so little in some of the richest nations on Earth and say the words The UN Secretary General wants us all to say: “NetZero by 2040”.  GWPF | Click to Enlarge. The installed theoretical generating capacity above was 236 gigawatts (shown in the brown dashed line), but the highest daily output in the year was 103 gigawatts which means the other 364 days were worse. Then consider the entire output of the offshore windfarms of the UK. The wind is more reliable over the ocean, but it’s still an electrical disaster. In March 2021 there was an eight day period when the wind speed presumably halved and the output plummeted. For eight whole days 8.8GW of wind power was not available (green box). The total energy lost was around 1,600 gigawatt-hours, which is also 1,000 times more than what the biggest battery on Earth could provide.  Figure 2 shows the wind power generated by all UK offshore windfarms in March 2022, as presented online on the Crown Estate website.4 Over some periods, it rose to the nominal installed capacity of 10GW. However, for 8 days at the end of the month it averaged no more than 1.2GW.| Click to Enlarge.
Allison explains the devastating maths of filling in those gaps: That much energy, 1600GWh, is 1000 times the capacity of the world’s largest grid storage battery (1.6GWh at Moss Landings, California). Batteries 20 million times larger are never going to be available and storage batteries will never make good the failure of offshore wind farms, even for a week. And the wind can drop for longer periods than that. For those who want the physics, he sums it up so well: The energy of the wind is that of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy is ½Mv2, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass of air reaching each square metre of the area swept by the turbine blade in a second is M=ρv, where ρ is the density of air: about 1.2kg per cubic metre. So, the maximum power that the turbine can deliver is ½ρv3 watts per square metre. If the wind speed is 10 metres per second (about 20 mph) the power is 600 watts per square metre at 100% efficiency.2 That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200 million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square metres of turbine swept area – that should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and to other environmentalists. Keep reading → March 24th, 2023 | Tags: Battery, UK, Wind Power | Category: Electricity, Renewable, Storage, UK, Wind Power | Print This Post | | We have reverted back to the old style comment layout but with a few new buttons and a new “editing” link in comments for five minutes after publication. Save the world with disposable EV’s?After children in the Congo have dug out the cobalt for the blessed batteries we’d hope the cars would be sustained as long as possible. Alas, apparently there is just one more design flaw on top of the low mileage, delays, expense, spontaneous fires, and the need for a whole new grid. After a minor accident, no one quite knows how to assess the safety of the battery, so it’s easier to throw it away. That means more waste in the landfill and higher insurance premiums to cover the cost of writing off near new cars. Where are the Greens? If child slaves and emissions matter, isn’t it better to reduce consumption by saving your old car from landfill, especially if your new one might end up there as well? Reduce, reuse, recycle… Meanwhile the UN is demanding Net Zero targets, which are not even theoretically possible, be achieved ten years sooner. Half the technologies we need are not even invented yet. Infinity-minus-ten is a number that won’t get you to work, but it powers whole careers at the UN. h/t David and Notalotofpeopleknowthat Scratched EV battery? Your insurer may have to junk the whole carBy Nick Carey, Paul Lienert and Sarah Mcfarlane, Reuters LONDON/DETROIT, March 20- For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents, forcing insurance companies to write off cars with few miles – leading to higher premiums and undercutting gains from going electric. And now those battery packs are piling up in scrapyards in some countries, a previously unreported and expensive gap in what was supposed to be a “circular economy.” “We’re buying electric cars for sustainability reasons,” said Matthew Avery, research director at automotive risk intelligence company Thatcham Research. “But an EV isn’t very sustainable if you’ve got to throw the battery away after a minor collision.” Amazing what uncertainty can do to the value of a good car: Allianz [an insurer] has seen scratched battery packs where the cells inside are likely undamaged, but without diagnostic data it has to write off those vehicles. … Keep reading → When the formerly esteemed journal Nature endorsed one side of politics in 2020, apparently it didn’t change any votes, but about a third of Trump supporters decided the science it published was politically biased too. The loss of trust in Nature was so strong that it tarnished the whole field of US science. (Zhang et al) There goes the public faith in peer reviewed “Experts”. “Trump supporters who had been shown the summary of Nature’s editorial were less likely to trust Nature’s information on COVID-19, and also reported more mistrust in US scientists.” Being actively political meant 154 years of scientific reputation disappeared just like that. In the graph below presumably* naive Trump supporters ranked Nature as mostly “informed” (marked in orange, of course). The Trump supporters who saw the political endorsement (marked in red) suddenly, apparently saw Nature as more of a partisan rag than an impartial reporter of scientific truth.  @Nature says: In 2020, Nature endorsed Joe Biden in the US presidential election. A survey finds that viewing the endorsement did not change people’s views of the candidates, but caused some to lose confidence in Nature and in US scientists generally.* Naturally, although the data was smashingly strong, Nature completely missed the signal. The editors tell us it’s the voters fault: This experiment builds on the literature on trust in research among people with different political allegiances. This includes the idea of confirmation bias, whereby people on different sides tend to favour evidence that supports the views they already have, while avoiding evidence that does not, and the backfire (or rebound) effect, whereby evidence that challenges a view can have the opposite effect to that intended. So Nature took a hit for the team. The editors say they had to do it, and would do it again.Jo Nova says, please do, your science journal is a travesty of bias and unreason, and the more voters that realize that, the better. Endorse Away! Nature also endorses namecalling in science and published “research papers” on how to convince “climate change deniers” to believe (Bain et al). I offered to help them reach thousands of deniers, if they could only define the term scientifically and name the evidence that deniers deny. They were unable to. I managed to get an apology issued then. But, true to their religion, Nature was the journal that published a blacklist of 386 scientists and commentators who got too much media on climate change and shouldn’t be listened to (Petersen et al). It was an honor for me to be be listed at 99. (With the other half, David Evans very pleased to be ranked at 57). To mark the occasion I designed a cover page just for them for free:  … by Jo Nova, 2020. Since 60% of US voters already think climate change is a religion, all Nature has to do is keep pumping out these kind of excuses (below) and no one will believe anything it says. It’s acting for all the world like a Union of Science Bureaucrats that think they know what’s best for the health and wellbeing of US citizens, even if the voters aren’t smart enough. Nature, being paid mostly through government funded subscriptions knows Big Government is always the answer. Excuses from the Nature Editorial Staff: Should Nature endorse political candidates? Yes — when the occasion demands it Political endorsements might not always win hearts and minds, but when candidates threaten a retreat from reason, science must speak out. …the study does question whether research journals should endorse electoral candidates if one implication is falling trust in science. This is an important question, and there are, sadly, no easy answers. The study shows the potential costs of making an endorsement. But inaction has costs, too. Considering the record of Trump’s four years in office, this journal judged that silence was not an option. Nature’s October 2020 editorial was an appeal to readers in the United States to consider the dangers that four more years of Trump would pose — not only for science, but also for the health and well-being of US society and the wider world. Trump had laid waste to science and scientific institutions at home on issues from COVID-19 to climate change, and had gutted environmental regulations even in the face of increasing climate risk. At a time when the world needed to unite to deal with these and other global threats, he took an axe to international relationships, pulling the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the United Nations science agency, UNESCO. He moved to defund the World Health Organization, and he walked away from a deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) that the United States had carefully negotiated with Europe, China and Russia to prevent Iran’s government from enriching weapons-grade uranium. It is hard not to think of a worst-case scenario for public health, climate change or nuclear security had Trump remained in office today. How dare any political leader defund globalist committees that spread viruses and rave about President Xi?! ____________ * The graph Nature tweeted doesn’t say what the survey answers relate to, and the paper is behind their own paywall, but we presume this graph refers to a question about their own reputation, not how Trump supporters scored on a science-quiz. REFERENCESFloyd Jiuyun Zhang, Political endorsement by Nature and trust in scientific expertise during COVID-19, Nature Human Behaviour (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01537-5. www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5 Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent & Anthony LeRoy Westerling (2019) Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians, Nature Communications, volume 10, Article number: 3502 (2019) | Copy of the deleted supplementary list here. Today we are trying to fix the comment box toolbar to allow commenters to add bold etc to comments. So the layout may change and randomly. Thanks for your patience and feedback.  Art by Syaifulptak Now that half the US knows that climate science has become a religion, let’s all thank the IPCC for working hard to convince the other half. Here comes Fire, Brimstone, and Ticking Bombs again:Like all successful bureaucracies, The IPCC is here to pretend to save you from problems it invented. The taxpayer funded doomsday cult wants you to think of them as a brave bomb disposal team, putting their lives on the line to do anything humanly possibly to make storms go away, except for using a tried and tested technology with a 50 year record of zero emissions. Nobody say n.u.c…. IPCC climate scientists issue ‘a survival guide for humanity’, warning window closing to reduce emissions“The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres, at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which this week released its final “synthesis report”, marking six years of work by about 700 scientists. “Today’s IPCC report is a how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb,” he said. “It is a survival guide for humanity.” Senior marketer of renewable energy, Sarah Prophet Kirkpatrick says we are all doomed unless we buy more Chinese solar panels, even though China is making most of them with coal: University of New South Wales Associate Professor Sarah Perkins Kirkpatrick said it had to be done before 2030. “Bottom line, we need to stop burning fossil fuels — 80 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions actually comes from burning fossil fuels [such as] coal, oil and gas,” she said. Quick, buy my panels, she says, they come with nice weather eighty years from now after you’re dead, but only if you sign here by Friday. The Perfect Doom Sale:The panic is now perfectly tuned like a Boxing Day sale — stocks are limited but there is hope if you act fast. Every warning is the last chance, every catastrophe is ten years away, and every final clearance sale has a discount for early responders… “This is the final warning to limit the climate warming,” Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “In the next 10 years, we’ll overshoot that 1.5-degree threshold, but then we can bring it back down again — with heavy climate mitigation, heavy investment in renewable energy and also carbon capture and storage,” she said. Macquarie University’s Professor Lesley Hughes … “One of the things this IPCC report emphasises is that the window of opportunity for a safer climate in the second half of this century is closing rapidly, but it’s not yet closed,” she said. 16 years ago we had only ten years to save the world: Pagan witchery and voodoo meets catholic guiltThe ABC include no evidence at all in this round of perfect panic — just the words “drought” and “flood” and gospel of the 700 scientists of the high realm of the IPCC is enough. The new IPCC report, is just like all past reports: it depends on climate models that ignore solar magnetic effects, solar wind, cosmic rays, and changes in the solar spectrum to pretend that CO2 causes all the changes they can’t otherwise explain. It’s argument from authority that depends on argument from ignorance with circular reasoning and it’s based on a simulated planet that has a tropospheric hot spot which 28 million weather balloons can’t find here on Earth, but nevermind. It’s only data! But a foreign unaudited committee says “it’s unequivocal” and it will cost us trillions, and the ABC can’t see any problem with that. Just lay on the guilt trip — what kind of evil person wants to send their own children to hell, I tell you… Macquarie University’s Professor Lesley Hughes said what happens in the next seven years would be vital if we’re to leave a world that’s habitable for our children and grandchildren.  Think of the children! | Image by Garten-gg. Gone are the days when the media would even try to communicate science. Now it’s like reality TV. Tug my heartstrings — one poor man in Torres Strait is being terrorized by witchdoctors in lab coats. The ABC is exploiting his macabre fear of the bones of his parents being washed out to sea. This is climate science reporting in 2023: On Australia’s Torres Strait islands, Warraber man Daniel Billy has been taking photos of what has already been lost as the sea creeps up on his homeland. “Just to see a lot of the land mass taken out from the islands, it’s really sad,” he said. “It’s destroying places. “It’s very sad and it’s scary at the same time, as it’s slowly coming up to the community.” Mr Billy is worried about the cemetery, metres from the shoreline, where his parents have been laid to rest. “I don’t want to pick up my parents’ remains from the reef,” he said. “I don’t want my children, or their children, my nieces and nephews to pick up my remains.” Someone needs to show Mr Billy the study of 700 Pacific islands which are almost all growing (thanks to climate change). As long as he buried his parents on an inhabited island, they’ll be fine. The only islands disappearing are sand drifts with a population of zero that are just a hundredth of a square kilometer in size. It’s war, I tell you, War! sayth NonScientist magazine:The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global group of climate scientists, has released its latest report today. It yet again warns that without immediate and massive emissions reductions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C will be beyond reach. “If we don’t act with the necessary speed, we will shoot past 1.5 degrees and possibly even 2 degrees,” says Peter Thorne at Maynooth University in Ireland, one of the authors of the report. “Really it’s a call to arms.” Hyperbole knows no bounds. REFERENCE Synthesis Report, Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC, Working Group I, II and III.  A sign in Rockhampton. Where do they mention the fine though? | Photo by RegionalQueenslander Block a sacred weather-changing EV from a charging point and you may have to sell your carFeel the fear. The whole EV fantasy is coming undone as people miss planes, get stuck in cars, or ruin holidays because their battery is flat. There aren’t enough chargers, and charging is slow. In abject desperation, some Australian states are slapping monster fines on to make inadequate infrastructure stretch further, or because they realize how vulnerable they are to a protest campaign. Either that or they are actually trying to finance the transition to NetZero through parking fines. Call it a secret subsidy… Victorians may be hit with a $370 fine if they drive a normal car and accidentally park it in an EV charging spot, thus depriving a sacred EV user of the chance to top up. You might think that’s wildly out of proportion — it’s only $100 less than if you recklessly run a red light. But it’s nothing compared to what NSW, Queensland and the ACT are doing. Drivers in these states who make the same mistake could end up paying, respectively, a blistering $2,200, $2,875, or $3,200. It’s just climate maths at work isn’t it? Take any normal number and extrapolate to bankruptcy. How long would I have to spend in jail for non-payment, I wonder? Drivers face steep fines for parking non-electric vehicles in electric vehicle charging stationsby Someone at The ABC So it’s written in the road rules but “little known”? The fines, some of them added to road rules late last year, range from $3,200 in the Australian Capital Territory to $369 in Victoria. Drivers could be fined as much as $3,200 for parking in spaces for electric vehicles as part of little-known penalties introduced in four states and territories. Remember when they said EV charging would be fast and convenient, and it would be easy to build a network of chargers? Then they found out the lack of EV charging spaces is threatening their whole fantasy transition… But experts say the heavy penalties are important to encourage electric vehicle adoption and prevent drivers doing the equivalent of parking “in front of a fuel bowser”. Yes, because lots of people accidentally park in front of fuel bowsers and go shopping, right? Lots, as in — absolutely no one, ever. Maybe because fuel bowsers aren’t sometimes placed in what used to be normal parking spots.  | Photo by Mariordo of a charging station in Costa Rica. You might be ICE-ing a climate warrior…Apply a malignant acronym, and suddenly these car drivers who park in a spot with a charger sound like terrorists or a drug gang: The fines apply to drivers who leave petrol or diesel vehicles in spaces designated for electric cars, in an act known as “ICE-ing” for its use of internal combustion engine cars. So EV drivers need another subsidy then? NSW Metropolitan Roads Minister Natalie Ward said the government added the offence to “support the transition to electric vehicles on our roads”. “To make sure we keep the community moving forward, we want electric vehicle drivers to have access to charging stations when they are on offer,” she said.
It’s the sense of entitlement that shines like leaders of a weather cult: Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones said while the penalties for blocking infrastructure were high, they were necessary to educate members of the public who may not have considered the repercussions. People who aren’t driving EV’s must be really really stupid, yeah? In Chris Jones’ vision, the sort of fine that stops dumb punters running a red light needs to be five or ten times bigger so they understand how they are threatening the planet, or at least, threatening his plans to sell more EV’s. Imagine if EV cars were a personal luxury, doing almost nothing of benefit to society, and everyone was expected to learn new rules, avoid their parking spaces, and practically go to jail if they made a mistake? Electric Vehicle Council policy head Jake Whitehead said the fines sent “a very clear and strong signal”. But he said greater education may be needed for petrol car drivers who encountered chargers added to existing car parks, as well as new electric vehicle drivers who did not recognise the need to vacate charging locations for other drivers as soon as practical. At least they recognise that some EV drivers also haven’t read and memorized Labor’s Powering Australia Plan either. Nor, after being sold sunshine on stilts, have they figured out that the rushed EV-transition is doomed to run up hard against the brutal reality of charging times and access to kilowatts. Imagine how inconvenient it would be as an electric car owner to have to return to your car from shopping or a business lunch because the car’s finished charging and you need to park it somewhere else or face a $3,000 fine? Don’t worry, there will be a phone App for that soon, so your car can call you. The cult confuses “want” with “need”:
“Every charger available is critical and valuable to the fleet of 80,000-odd EVs in the country, and we need to make sure they’re not blocked, either intentionally or accidentally,” he said. “There are genuine mistakes made by some people, but we need to have a broad recognition across society that these chargers need to be available to EVs so we can have more on our roads.” Every charger is critical to keep their fantasy alive… March 19th, 2023 | Tags: Electric Cars (EV) | Category: Australia, Global Warming, Grids | Print This Post | |
Australia on the Frontline Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order 2.30 – 4.30pm, Sunday 19th March Royal Perth Yacht Club, Crawley, Perth, Western Australia. Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Virginia based Population Research Institute (1995 to present) and the author of a number of books on China, including Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order, recently published in a new Australian edition by Wilkinson Press. His other books include Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World and China Misperceived: American Illusions and Chinese Reality. Keep reading → March 18th, 2023 | Tags: China, Social Events for Skeptics | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | By Jo NovaThe TGA in Australia* have handed Clive Palmer a dynamite story to use against them and Big PharmaPalmer is in fine form below — shining a light on the pathological success of health regulation. Early use of HCQ could have saved thousands of people, but as readers here know, if there was a cheap useful treatment for Covid available, other expensive, barely tested, risky new drugs would not be given an Emergency Use Authorization, thus threatening to kill a $200 billion dollar cash cow. Getting rid of safe competing drugs is just a part of the business plan for Big Pharma and they would be letting down their shareholders if they didn’t lobby like hell to make it happen.
HCQ reduced death rates by 72% in 15 early treatment trialsThe short video above could use one more slide so people know there are at least 466 studies of hydroxychloroquine with Covid-19 involving as many as a half a million people. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine was adopted for early treatment in all or part of 41 countries. Claims were made that the doses of HCQ required in lab studies were too high to be useful in vivo, but Ruiz et al found that the drug concentrated 38 fold higher in lung tissue than in blood plasma.  Click to enlarge. | See all the papers listed at: https://c19hcq.org/ The C19 team add the caveats: Late treatment and high dosages may be harmful, while early treatment consistently shows positive results. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment delay. Some In Vitro evidence suggested therapeutic levels would not be reached, however that was incorrect [Ruiz]. Recent: Spivak Mathew Llanos-Cuentas Delgado Alshamrani Nasri Viglione. If the short video doesn’t show above watch from 2.30 here, and also hear how he was treated with ivermectin.
*The TGA — Therapeautic Goods Association, is equivalent to the FDA in the US. March 18th, 2023 | Tags: Antiviral, Coronavirus, Corruption (Medicine), Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Palmer (Clive) | Category: Health | Print This Post | |  … The expert science bubble has popped. New polling shows 60% of US voters agree that that Climate Change is a religion and has nothing to do with the climate. Even more shocking is that 47% of US voters strongly agree. It’s an Exocet for the priests of Climate Science. Their power depends on people believing “they are The Science”, and The Science is sacred. But word is spreading that the experts are more like prophets-of-gloom than disciplined researchers. And once the idea is seeded, it won’t go away. People who didn’t notice before will suddenly see the failed predictions, the ice age that never came, the droughts that become floods and the snow that children wouldn’t know. Humans are excellent at pattern matching, just give them the right pattern to look for… This is an idea that has barely been mentioned in mainstream TV yet half the nation are already 100% sold. Ten days ago Vivek Ramaswamy talked about the climate religion on Fox News, and so Rasmussen asked the punters. And thus the emperor has no clothes — fully six out of ten agree that “Climate is a religion”. Vivek Ramaswamy on FoxNews:…the climate religion actually has nothing to do with the climate. It is all about power, control, dominion and apologizing for America’s own success. And the reason why is that this religion looks the other way when PetroChina picks up the projects that American companies drop. Last time I checked, it was global climate change, and also it’s hostile to nuclear energy, which is truly bizarre because that’s the best form of carbon-free energy production known to mankind. This Rasmussen question is Kryptonite There is no pussy footing around the question, no ambiguity, no caveats: “Do you agree or disagree with this statement: Climate change has become a religion that actually has nothing to do with the climate and is really about power and control?” AGREE – by Party
Even nearly half the democrats agree. Does anything show better that democracy is not about voters anymore? There are no vote winners for pushing the climate faith, instead there is a vast untapped sea of voters who think climate change is a money making scam. They want someone to vote for, not a politician who says I’ll be less of liar than the other guy. Strong questions bring out strong answersIn a world of wishy-washy surveys, just saying the flagrant bleeding truth in full technicolor will bring out a stronger response than tip-toeing around the point. Sometimes just asking the question provokes the answer. How many people heard the question and went — oh yeah, now that you mention it… The last dynamite poll in the world of surveys was in late 2015 when Donald Trump stepped out and said “climate change is a total hoax”, and when asked, 31% of US voters agreed, which was astonishing in an era when three quarters of Americans would also say “climate change is happening” and “was a threat” to the US. Now, half the voters are so cynical they believe the media is actively trying to deceive them. And the meme is even more dangerous because it’s closer to the truth — “climate is a religion” not only includes the hoax, but also explains the blind passion of the teenage throwers of soup and glue. They are not hoaxers, they’re just deluded kids. Live by the smear, die by the smearFor 30 years the Climate Crisis Team have talked about the dark influence of fossil fuel money, like it was Gore’s Law of Physics, and it worked to inure sleepy people against skeptical points. But now the tables are turning and the insidious suggestion that “it’s all about power, control and money” will work every bit as well against those who never once spoke up to stop the namecalling and demonization of other scientists. They could have told the world there are no sacred cows in science, instead they created the cows — “there is a consensus!”. They could have said that science is not a religion because there is no bible, but instead they held up the IPCC reports like The Word of Mother Nature. Instead of debating skeptics, with their overwhelming evidence, they called them deniers and fled from the room. 97% of climate scientists acted like science was a religion. Karma comes back to get them. The creed of the global warming craze, –Ruairi UPDATE: The Rasmussen survey was by phone and online and involved 950 likely US voters on March 6-8, 2023. h/t ColA via Gateway Pundit |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2024 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
A growing backlash over climate-friendly policies is now hitting the German Greens, putting wobbles into the country’s three-party ruling coalition.
Recent Comments