Apparently only 0.3% of cars in Florida are currently EV’s, which is lucky, because after the Hurricane Ian a few of them are catching fire. Imagine what happens when all the cars are EV’s and firefighters need to pour on 100,000 liters of water and stick around for hours to baby sit what’s left:
At least one other twitter account North Collier Fire Rescue reports that “I’m in Naples there have been multiple fires like this in areas impacted by Ian.”
In the twitter thread people warn that that they shouldn’t be using water to put out a lithium battery fire, but there is so little that anyone can do to stop these fires, that pouring hundreds of gallons of water a minute continuously is the official Tesla policy.
International Associat6ion of Fire and Rescue Services
A US fire service recently needed to use 24 000 gallons – almost 90 000 liters – of water to put out a battery fire in a Tesla in a parking lot car fire. Studies suggest even more water may be necessary to put out fires in EVs.
According to an article onTheHill.com on August 17, 2021 it is considered normal procedure that firefighters will need to use up to 40 times more water to put out a fire in an EV, compared to a standard gasoline car.
The article also claims authorities have said a Tesla Model X poses a serious threat of starting a fire for hours after a crash.
“Normally a car fire you can put out with 500 to 1,000 gallons of water,” Austin Fire Department Division Chief Thayer Smith said, according The Independent.
In the Netherlands the fire brigade just lifted a smoking hybrid car and dropped it into a container full of water. Apparently it slows the fire down and only takes 24 to 48 hours. When 100% of all cars are EV’s we see the Fire Department towing cranes and truck-sized-baths to manage them…
Of course, most EV car fires don’t give this much lead time.
To make things more exciting, last week, after the underwater bombs went off, Joe Biden said he’d help European allies with gas, but this week, he’s thinking about banning US exports of gas and oil. Well, the US midterm elections are coming.
Households could experience a series of three-hour power cuts this winter if Vladimir Putin shuts off gas supplies from Russia and Britain experiences a cold snap, National Grid has warned.
Such an event would mean consumers in different parts of the country being notified a day in advance of three-hour blocks of time during which their power would be cut off, in an effort to reduce total consumption by 5%.
Apparently the King has to approve these “rota disconnections” and the privy council would advise him. Which takes British monarchical symbolism to its peak really. I mean what would happen if he said “No”?
Even though the UK didn’t get much gas from Russia, the market prices “flowed” right through:
Meanwhile the EU experiment is tearing at the edges
There is a bun fight developing over who gets the scarce energy, and at what price. Some nations are paying 7 Euros per Megawatt hour tomorrow, some will pay 270.
Day ahead prices for spot electricity tomorrow in the EU. | Energy Live
The Germans and the Greens want the collectivist solution. But nations willing to use their own fossil fuels have cheap electricity and are getting rich.
The nations caught in the middle resent having to pay for the German Energiewende grand experiment, but they also resent paying the Norwegians.
EU fumes as US, Norway energy profits put solidarity to the test
Euroactiv
As the USA and Norway reap unprecedented profits from surging energy prices, EU countries are complaining more loudly and are preparing to send the European Commission forward to negotiate a better deal, voluntarily or not.
The European energy crisis has caused energy prices to spike. While Russia, the cause of the crisis, was one of the largest beneficiaries, EU allies, primarily the USA and Norway, are reaping extreme windfall profits as they fill the gap Russia left behind.
“In an energy crisis of such magnitude, the solutions are to be found together in the spirit of solidarity,” commented Renew Europe MEP Nicolae Ștefănuță.
Those who have fossil fuels have too many profits:
Norway, now the EU’s largest supplier of fossil fuels, is profiting immensely from Russia’s actions and subsequent energy price spike. Norwegian officials say they have a difficult time with such windfall profits.
“There are times when it is not fun to make money, and this is one of them,” said Norwegian petroleum and energy minister Terje Aasland in March.
The Norwegian Greens say that the governments excuse that these profits are good for the pension fund “is lame”:
“We cannot go on being war profiteers, which is becoming more shameful by the day,” he added. Norway, a small European country, “is as dependent on peace, stability and prosperity on the continent as any other country,” Johansen noted.
..the Greens want the extra fossil fuel profits to go into a solidarity fund to be used to aid Ukraine and Europe’s energy poor.
The Norwegian Greens call their own government “War Profiteers” for looking after their senior citizens. They say they want peace, but don’t realize that energy insecurity is a weapon of war.
There are several things to ponder about the belated forced release of the US v-safe data:
That if our Ministries of Health actually wanted to know if a vaccine was safe it would be easy.
If the data showed how good the vaccines were it wouldn’t have taken two lawsuits and 463 days to get it from the CDC. Why did it take even one lawsuit? Hiding this data hurt people.
Of the ten million people in the VSafe register, nearly 1 in 12 people needed to seek medical care after getting vaccinated. Wow, just wow. What a signal.
Why didn’t the CDC halt the vaccines?
“Among numerous alarming results, out of the approximate 10 million individuals that registered and submitted data to v-safe, 782,913 individuals, or over 7.7% of v-safe users, had a health event requiring medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalization. Over 25% had an event that required them to miss school or work and/or prevented normal activities.” — ICAN
“It took numerous legal demands, appeals, and two lawsuits, and over a year, but the CDC finally capitulated and agreed to a court order requiring them to do what they should have done from day one, release the V-safe data to the public,” Aaron Siri, a lawyer representing ICAN in the case, told The Epoch Times in an email.
About 10 million people utilized V-safe during the period of time the data covers: Dec. 14, 2020, to July 31, 2022. About 231 million Americans received at least one vaccine dose during that time.
The V-safe users reported about 71 million symptoms… About 4.2 million of the symptoms were of severe severity.
ICAN has only just begun analyzing this data. They invite people so “do your own research”: The data is voluminous (one of the files, alone, is over 23 gigabytes) and so ICAN worked diligently and around the clock to get it into a user-friendly format for you to review, which you can dohere.
Free Speech is terrifying for bullies with no answers
It’s a travesty: Imagine if any old former President could say what they thought to anyone who wanted to listen?
The Elon Musk deal is on again, and Johnathon Turley has noticed that many in the media are not looking forward to having more freedom to express themselves on Twitter. Nothing says “propaganda hack” better than the journalists who want a safe-space so that people won’t be able to correct them, mock them, or report the news better than they do.
Free Speech is dangerous (for people who are corrupt):
Those words from former Politico Magazine editor Garrett M. Graff captures the hyperventilation in the media week. No it is not Vladimir Putin’s threat of unleashing a nuclear war or the word that our national debt has reached a staggering $31 trillion. No, it is the news that Elon Musk may go forward with the purchase of Twitter and . . . [triggering warning] . . . free speech protections might be restored on the platform.
There really is panic. Think about how poor journalism-school is when journalists say these things in public forums:
BBC journalist Dickens Olewe warned that “Guardrails will be dropped, misinfo & conspiracy theories will thrive. No functional alternatives available, this is it: a complete destruction of the global public square. Been nice y’all.”
PoliticusUSA head Sarah Reese Jones seemed to move from the desperate to the outright delusional: “Before 2020, Facebook deplatformed progressives, then it came for mainstream media and elevated only radicalized conservatives. Cut to 2022, we know Elon Musk plans to do same with Twitter. We know how damaging it will be.Tech giants pose ongoing threat to western democracy.”
That’s right, social media companies have been favoring conservatives and targeting progressives. That is why a wide array of conservative groups and figures have been banned or suspended. That is why the Hunter Biden laptop was buried before the election. That is why there are now numerous reports of backchannels with the government in censoring opposing views.
Euronews correspondent Shona Murray tweeted, “The end of Twitter as we know it is nigh.”
Ben Collins from NBC News, with no sense of irony — “it could affect the midterms”
Meanwhile many conservatives on Twitter are noticing their accounts are shrinking today. Is management deleting some bots?
You’d think it would be big news? Deaths in Australia are running a lot higher than expected. After ticking like a metronome for years, they’ve suddenly jumped 12% or even higher. This is above and beyond normal deaths and deaths listed as “Covid”. Something mysterious or new has killed around 10,000 Australians in the first half of this year last twelve months*. This is eight times worse than the national road toll, yet this phenomenon has barely rated a mention in our news reports.
When a car crash kills three people, we hear about it on the six o’clock news. But when 10,000 lose their lives… crickets.
Total media interest on this mystery killer amounts to three tangential mentions out of 100 media outlets. One, in the Australian Financial Reviewcalled it a “marked” change and “helpfully” said it wasn’t due to suicide. The Guardian, meanwhile wondered if Covid was really killing more people than we realize. The third, NewsGP for doctors was the only serious discussion, yet even it was all questions and no answers. The word vaccine was only mentioned so that we knew that unnamed analysts believe “the probable influence of vaccine-related deaths … is ‘negligible’. Not that they had any reasons.
Actuaries Australiaestimate the increase in deaths in the first five months of the year was 12% higher than expected. They are the most conservative. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) though calculates that so far in the first half of 2022 there were some 13,500 deaths more than the historical average. If they are correct that would be 17% above normal.
Of the excess deaths, 5,292 were Covid positive deaths, many in the peak of the first major wave of widespread Covid in Australia in January 2022. But sometime around September last year there was a large rise in unexpected deaths that are not officially due to Covid. This group (marked in yellow) was far above the normal range expected and stayed higher ever since.
*UPDATE: To clarify, of the 10,300 excess deaths from Jan to June about 5,300 were due to Covid. So there were 5,000 unexplained mystery deaths, which is 830 Australians dying each month (in the most conservative actuaries estimate, and more in the ABS numbers). In the last twelve months that works out to be 10,000 people. Obviously numbers can’t be confirmed for a few more months.
A mysterious increase in deaths occurred from September 2021 and continues to the latest figures.
Peak vaccine doses in Australia occurred from August to October in 2021. The lack of deaths in winter 2021 was largely because the borders were closed and there was no influenza.
Excess deaths by Actuaries Australia was 12% higher than expected (Jan to May this year).
The grey line is what they would have expected to happen in 2022. The blue line is what the ABS estimates deaths should have been in 2022. The ABS is averaging from a five year baseline before the pandemic started. The Actuaries are including some figures from during the pandemic and allowing for our population to be growing a bit older which would make deaths rise slightly each year.
The actuaries explain the reasons their estimate of excess deaths was lower than the ABS:
We have made allowance in our estimate for late registered deaths whereas the ABS does not. This acts to understate the ‘actual’ number of deaths used by the ABS, thus understating the measure of excess deaths by around 2%.
However, the more significant difference is in the determination of the baseline, where the ABS uses a simple average of the number of deaths from 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021, with no allowance for mortality trends or demographic changes. In our view, this understates the baseline and therefore overstates the measure of excess deaths by around 6%.
These two impacts work in opposing directions, resulting in a difference in the estimates of excess deaths of around 4%.
The causes of the excess deaths:
Actuaries Australia essentially declares that most of the excess deaths are probably due to longer ongoing risks after a Covid infection. Some of the excess may be a “bounce” from the reduction in deaths caused in 2020 when influenza was gone. (But why did that “bounce” wait until Sept 2021 to start?) Some of the excess could be because doctors and hospitals and emergency wards were overwhelmed, and people didn’t get check ups. But it definitely wasn’t due to vaccines because, wait for it, Australia has a good vaccine approval process. (Yes, we sign secret contracts, and use secret data. How could anyone disagree?)
Amazingly they even quote the Australian vaccine safety report which includes 931 deaths reported after vaccination. This is nearly 10% of the mystery deaths tally, and if it were under-reported 10 to 1 (as is the case in the UK — see Ref 39/40 in the Malhotra paper) then the true tally could easily be nearly all the mystery deaths. Instead, the actuaries are comfortable ignoring 918 of those 931 reported deaths. Only 13 deaths were found “to be caused” by a vaccine. Amazing the power of faceless bureaucrats to delete all those people. Cancelled, even after death.
For the sake of the record, here’s part of the Actuaries discussion:
1. Post-COVID-19 sequelae or interactions with other causes of death: Possible impact in Australia: High
An earlier COVID-19 illness could be causing later illness and death, and/or COVID-19 could have worsened other diseases which ultimately caused death. Studies have shown that COVID-19 is associated with higher subsequent mortality risk from heart disease and other causes. To some extent, this shows on death certificates in the 999 deaths in the first four months of 2022 where COVID-19 is listed as a contributory cause, and a further 77 deaths were identified as from Long COVID. However, we understand that medical science has not yet established a causative link that would allow, say, a heart attack several months after a COVID-19 infection to be attributed back to COVID-19. As such, it seems likely that there would be more of these deaths than identified.
2. Delayed deaths from other causes: Moderate
3. Delay in emergency care: Low to Moderate
4. Delay in routine care: Low to Moderate
5. Pandemic-influenced lifestyle changes: Low
6. Vaccine-related deaths:
While there have been deaths in Australia caused by the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, the number of such deaths has been small. Australia has a very good vaccine approval and safety monitoring processes, administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The latest vaccine safety report (to 25 August) shows 136,000 adverse events have been reported from 63 million vaccines administered (a rate of 0.2% per vaccine administered). Of those adverse events, 931 were reports of death following vaccination. Of those deaths, 13 were found to have been caused by the administration of the vaccine, and all were following a first dose of AstraZeneca which is now in limited use in Australia.
Possible impact in Australia: Negligible
7. Undiagnosed COVID-19: Possible impact in Australia: Negligible
If the actuaries were really interested in whether vaccines or late Covid sequelae were the problem, they could dissect the state level data. There was an ideal experiment in Australia where at least one state (WA) had virtually no covid cases for all of 2021, but vaccinations were rolling out. Surely there we could compare the excess mysterious deaths with say, NSW, and see whether it was the virus or the vaccines…
____________________
*The 10,000 deaths in the headline starts with the conservative 8,500 estimate of the actuaries from January to May and multiplies it by 6/5 to make it a six month estimate. The UPDATE in the middle of the post clarifies that half those deaths were Covid related so the 10,000 mystery deaths applies to the last 12 months. (2am WST Oct 6.)
Oracle Films has a new documentary out to help fill the gaping hole that is the legacy media. While every news outlet could afford to send a full camera crew to hospitals to show the pain of Covid patients, there’s a five mile exclusion zone around the home of anyone who claim to be victims of vaccine side effects. The media won’t talk to widows and family of loved ones; won’t tell the stories of people who died within days of their second shot. They won’t show montages of athletes collapsing on the field or children who lost a parent. Indeed the BBC’s big contribution was to dob in a Facebook group with 250,000 members who were reduced to talking about their injections with carrot emoji’s in a secret code. Facebook axed them, and the BBC bragged about it. Just another great moment in Public Broadcasting.
Dr Aseem Malhotra pointed out last week that in Norway, which has good official figures, about 1 in 1000 people are getting side effects that “put them in hospital” or are described as “life changing”. While 99.9% didn’t suffer like that, it still means tens of thousands of people across the West are suffering something awful and they are invisible. Based on Norwegian estimates there may be 20,000 people in Australia, 50,000 in the UK, and perhaps 200,000 in the US. Perhaps they just visited hospital for a few days, and they’ve since recovered, or maybe it’s an ongoing hell a few describe (see from 24 minutes on in the documentary). Whatever they are going through, it’s invisible. It’s like someone is very afraid to even let one story through. What if thousands of other victims recognize a pattern and stand up to be counted?
“The figures surely demand a full investigation…”
If Youtube decides it’s too dangerous to show this documentary below, go to Oracle Films. In the meantime, spread the word, not just about the invisible victims but about the culpable media.
Once upon a time Google had the best search engine in the world but solo unfunded skeptics had all the fun and were outscoring the UN, academia, and official government sites.
Melissa Fleming: (Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the UN) “We partnered with Google. For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do. But again, it’s a huge, huge challenge that I think all sectors of society need to be very active in.” (Full transcript here)
Naturally this bragging was at the World Economic Forum — the hippest conference-cum-holiday club that can be called a tax deduction for the uber-ultra-rich and their minion political puppets.
Where else could people say smug totalitarian lines with a straight face: “We Own The Science and we think the world should know it”.
If ever the Government got something wholly absurdly wrong, and thousands of free thinkers were mocking it and winning over the masses, we can rely on Google to protect the Government and crush the people.
…public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Though it would be better to call it the banker-technological elite. It hasn’t got anything to do with science.
As Daniel Greenfield described: Big Gov protects the Big Tech monster from market competition — and in return Big Tech protects Big Government from political competition. Democrats have outsourced political repression of their enemies to cabals of private companies.
And Big Bankers get protection from public criticism, political pressure, and market competition. What’s not to love?
Jacinda Ardern gave a speech to the UN last Friday which has suddenly gone viral in an Ebola kind of way. The new weapon in war she tells us, is misinformation. Since she is the single source of truth (she told us that in July) that means the disinformers are anyone who disagrees with Jacinda. See how easy this is? It’s just another Ministry of Truth plan to save the world from climate change and Covid.
Who needs Free Speech?
Following in the foot-stomps of dictators everywhere Jacinda Ardern lays out the threat of speeches from people more inspiring than her:
The face of war has changed. And with that, the weapons used.
Traditional combat, espionage and the threat of nuclear weapons are now accompanied by cyber-attacks, prolific disinformation and manipulation of whole communities and societies.
After all, a bullet takes a life. A bomb takes out a whole village. A lie online or from a podium does not. But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms? To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?
This is no longer a hypothetical.
And surely we can start with violent extremism and terrorist content online.
So that’s alright then, it’s only the violent extremists, right? But look who’s on her list, war-mongers and climate skeptics:
…how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?
And they are evil people for sure those climate skeptics… she can see into their minds:
The weapons may be different but the goals of those who perpetuate them are often the same. To cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves. To disband communities. To collapse the collective strength of countries who work together.
What do you do if people don’t believe Climate Change exists Jacinda — how about “persuade them”?
In a free society, our leaders were supposed to explain the benefits. If the science is overwhelming it ought to be easy, right?
Jacinda Ardern’s problem is that she can’t explain how Black is White, Up is Down, and Fertilizer is Pollution, so her only option is to demonize and silence the people who are more convincing than her. In the same speech where she’s wondering what to do with climate skeptics she also happens to talk about mass murderers.
…we have an opportunity here to ensure that these particular [speaking] weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare.
She effectively says internet freedom is a weapon of war and we need more rules.
Like a Travel Agent on the Bus to One World Government Jacinda Ardern’s entire speech was devoted to buffing up The Collective over the Individual. It was not about New Zealand’s needs, it was her job application for the UN.
She mentions the collective six times. But if we look up Bureaucratic Collectivism, for example, we find a theory of class society used to describe the Soviet Union under Stalin. And she certainly wants a collective of bureaucracies. She raves about a new Global Health Instrument, run by the WHO which is also the best friend of the CCP. What could possibly go wrong? She gushes about the WTO as well, as if it were their job and not hers to secure New Zealand’s supply chains.
In RightThink all roads lead to the collective: Apparently the virus taught New Zealand “how interconnected they are” she claims. This is the nation that successfully kept out the virus by rather “un-collectively” shutting its borders, and against the wishes of the same WHO she so admires.
She’s a one-woman advertising campaign for unelectable global rulers
Perhaps she’s eyeing off a job in case she loses the New Zealand election next year, which looks likely given the polls. She certainly seems to be serving global bureaucrats more than the hapless New Zealand voters. Funnily enough, the Australian ABC sees her falling to 33% and wonders if “the PM’s international star power save her?” As if selling out New Zealanders to Geneva will win the election. Only the ABC could ask that.
But it’s all about The Group now:
The next pandemic will not be prevented by one country’s effortsbut by all of ours. Climate action will only ever be as successful as the least committed country, as they pull down the ambition of the collective.
Which automated processes are these I wonder, this is a very carefully crafted sentence? What is she covering up?
This week we launched an initiative alongside companies and non-profits to help improve research and understanding of how a person’s online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online. A challenge that we must as leaders address.
Can we get someone to clarify that the NZ government are not shadow-banning, search engine rigging, or using automated robot-commenters?
Lucky she is the single source of truth:
h/t John Connor II, David Maddison, Richard C (NZ)
Warn the bankers, our climate models are not something to invest in say the modelers
A group of top climate modelers have come together to warn bankers that climate models are wonderful but basically useless for predicting things that financial models need — like the trends in the hottest, wettest or windiest weather in any city on Earth. Often the expert models can’t even agree on the sign. Will it get bigger or smaller? It’s that bad.
The raw truth of just how unskilled these models are is laid bare in the graphs. The modeling team chose London, Mumbai, New York and Beijing and picked the nearest 100km x 100km “square” on the map. They ran about 37 models on 3 scenarios and achieved something that looks like a painting done with a jet engine.
The modelers can’t say if the hottest maximums in Beijing will get hotter. Even if the world warms 2 degrees (by random happenstance), Beijing’s hottest-days might actually get cooler. The rainiest days of the year could be more extreme unless they’re less extreme. And the windiest days will definitely be stronger, weaker, or about the same. Get it?
Lead author Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, told The Weekend Australian: “Climate models are very valuable tools for many applications but they are not something I want used to decide investment strategies for my superannuation.”
So climate models are not good enough for his superannuation but it’s fine to bet the national economy on? Should we transform our entire energy network, change our vehicles, our crops, and eat crickets for breakfast? Why not. More to the point, all around the world people are blaming individual floods and storms on “Climate Change” but modelers know that isn’t true, and they are staying very quiet. While people are selling homes, farmers are planting different orchards, and councils are thinking about sea-walls, the truth is that we don’t even know if heavy rain will increase or decrease in any one location. Wind farm owners (and the hostage public) are building wind farms in places that may not get windier. The list of potential economic damage is vast. Why do only the bankers matter? (Because they can afford lawyers..?)
And why is every two-bit attention seeking celebrity mayor or high school drop-out promoted on TV to say things that are patently scientific voodoo while our billion dollar national institutions sit mute?
“We show that GMT [Global Mean Temperature] provides little insight on how acute risks likely material to the financial sector (‘material extremes’) will change at a city-scale.”
Modeled change in temperature of the hottest day of the year in Beijing (the index TXx )
We get an idea of the uncertainty involved. Note the zero line runs through the middle. That’s a range of plus or minus 6 degrees Celsius for every scenario up to 3 degrees warmer.
And this below is the change in the amount of rainfall occurring on New York’s wettest day of the year ( R1X)
The wettest day might be 25mm less, or 35mm more, or about the same. And it’s even true in a world three degrees warmer. (Well, true in the models).
It’s true to say that one of the models will be right, we just don’t know which one.
Like there will always be one guy who is brilliant at tossing coins, but no one knows who he was til after the game.
And the models are skill-less with wind as well
This is 37 models, 3 scenarios and millions of lines of code. Imagine starting with this kind of scattergun uncertainty and then multiplying it by the unknowns in economic model forecasts for the next fifty years. We’d get the perfect cloud. Call it a fog.
Click to enlarge, not that it matters whether you look up close or far away…
Click to enlarge
It’s presented as an eclectic modeling issue of importance to financiers, but the raw truth is that it rather blows away the idea that the hottest, wettest or windiest days now or in the next fifty years can be blamed on “climate change”.
Are there two kinds of science?
Professor Pitman said attempts to use dynamical downscaling to get far higher resolution data was “excellent science but not science designed for the financial sector”.
The laws of science used to be universal, now we need a new science to help people make money. Excellent science must be good for propaganda campaigns, but people who want to make money need the other kind of science — the one that works.
We lost that somewhere.
No wonder the climate modelers are nervous about the financial risk
Admire the detail. Here are the trends in hottest and wettest days in four hand-picked cities with a combined population of about 70 million people. Remember these graphs every time you hear about the hottest ever day or the worst flood, or that a “rain bomb” was caused by climate change.
The paper drily notes no link, and no statistical significance (These eight graphs above are all “Figure 1”)
…Figure 1 demonstrates no strong link between GMT [Global Mean Temperature] and the amount of rainfall on the wettest day of the year (RX1). For London, the largest increases occur under the lowest emission scenario, and none of the regression lines are statistically significant (the highest R2 value is only 0.08). Results are very similar for the other cities. Note, for each city, increases in GMT can be associated with decreases in RX1 for many of the models, and the sign of the change does not become clear for any emission scenario until GMT exceeds 2 ◦C.
Gone is the guarantee that a higher Global Mean Temperature means a hotter, wetter and winder city.
Curiously one of the new risks to worry about is called a compound event. It involves odd combinations of weather which are not extreme just extremely-expensive:
However, material extremes could also include events that are not ‘extreme’ in a statistical sense, especially if they occur concurrently as compound events (Zscheischler et al 2018, Ranger et al 2021). One example is the possible shift in climate towards long periods of low wind and cloudy conditions—a material extreme to a renewable energy provider and a potential risk to a national economy via disrupted energy supply, a problem that has already occurred in Europe (Bloomfield 2021)
Wouldn’t it be good if modelers could have warned us about how climate change causes low wind and cloudy conditions before people built energy systems based on wind and solar power?
Wouldn’t it be good if modelers could predict the climate. Most of the hottest and wettest days have something to do with large oceanic cycles that we can’t predict more than a few months in advance.
Even the modelers say the models are for telling stories, not for making predictions:
They just don’t say it so simply:
Using climate models to inform scenarios, storylines (Shepherd 2019, Jack et al2020) and stress testing, or using climate models to modify the statistics represented in current-day catastrophe modelling can all help break the false assumption that the numerical precision in climate models equates to accuracy at a granular level. In many ways, this echoes guidance from Schinko et al (2017) to consider models as tools to explore a system as distinct from predicting a system, or Saravanan (2022) who explores the need to take climate models seriously, but not literally.
What’s the difference between serious and literal? Should we salute the modelers but not spend billions of dollars on their storylines?
The UK is pretty much one wayward submarine away from losing a third of its gas supply. Even if the pipe stays intact, it’s already a national security crisis. It’s a vulnerability that will affect the UK’s ability to bargain with confidence or battle right now.
German authorities are saying that the pipelines will be rendered unusable if salt-water has entered the pipes. Corrosion will make them unrepairable.
And lets not forget there are a lot of other underwater cables which nations with unreliable energy are now utterly dependent on. Here in Australia, an interconnector trip led to the Statewide blackout in South Australia, and the Bass Strait cable break (not even an act of war) left Tasmania on the verge of one for five months. In both cases they lost hundreds of millions of dollars, but it would be so much worse if that happened today during a global energy crisis when there’s is already a bun fight for spare parts and spare fossil fuels.
The UK imports 11% of its power from Europe, half from France, and two years ago President Macron was threatening to block an interconnector in a battle over post-Brexit fisheries. In a unsettled world, countries which don’t have energy security don’t have any security at all…
The EU may unravel when push comes to shove and nations with energy don’t want to share.
As war on gas pipelines escalates, Britain faces national security crisis
In a letter to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Net Zero Watch director Dr Benny Peiser has warned that the sabotage of three Nord Stream gas pipelines in the last 24 hours has brutally revealed how Britain’s energy system and its entire economic and societal stability is exposed to grave external threats.
Dr Peiser writes:
There is now a serious and growing risk to Britain’s national security due to the extreme vulnerability of the gas pipeline from Norway which provides a third of UK gas supplies.
It is vital that you understand that a similar attack on the Norwegian gas pipeline would, on its own, completely cripple the UK economy. This extreme vulnerability must be fixed as a matter of national priority, and must take precedence over all other considerations.
The sites are 75 kilometers apart just outside official Danish territory.
Euronews –– Swedish national broadcaster SVT reported that national seismologists had registered “two clear explosions” around the area, first at 2:03 AM and then at 7:04 PM (CET) on Monday.
At this stage everyone is saying the leaks are sabotage, but no one is claiming to know anything for sure. The US government has said it is ‘ready to provide support’ to Europe.
So, below, this is quite an awkward flashback, to say the least. It’s from February when Joe Biden was trying to talk Russia out of invading Ukraine:
Biden: “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
Reporter:— “But how will you do that, exactly, since… The project is in Germany’s control?”
Biden: — “I promise you, we will be able to do that.” “
A moment of hope in Civilization. Some elections appear to produce a result the unelected EU powerbase is not happy with. The speech trending on Twitter today after the historic win by the ultra far right fascist extremist who is practically Mussolini’s granddaughter (so they want you think, in echo’s). As an insight into the new PM of Italy, and also into the “free media” that portrays her as a danger to democracy, listen to her words.
Giorgia Meloni’s speech at the World Congress of Families 2018
I believe the state should incentivize the natural family based on marriage…
every choice has consequences and you accept responsibility for them…
I reject a society where every desire becomes a right.
On parents being the ones who know whats best for their child but only when it comes time to turn off the life support:
Why is the winner always the one who wants to disconnect the plug? Why is the winner always death?
Why do we spend all our time fighting all types of discrimination but we pretend not to see the greatest ongoing persecution, the genocide of the world’s Christians. Why?
UPDATE: Youtube have censored this “dangerous” video, so below I have found the bitchute version. I will leave the Youtube censored version for all to see.
See for yourself how it violated Youtubes Progaganda Terms.
The last 2 minutes of the speech is multiplying across Twitter today:
Why is the enemy the family?
Why is the family so frightening?
There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity, and to simply be the perfect consumer slaves. And so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity, they attack family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, women, mother, No. I must be citizen x, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer.
Through evolution we know the incentive for parents to look after offspring is woven right through our genes. No other individuals have a greater natural vested interest in the welfare of children. Scientifically then, it follows that civilizations based on families will be most likely to succeed. Yet to say the banal and obvious is a threat to the power of the Big-State.
Meloni is of course a hero of feminists a neo-fascist now:
The media cartel repeat the new message of hate. Has the pre-programmed, non-independent nature of “the Free Press” ever been more obvious? “God, homeland, Country” is not just an obvious slogan, but code for Mussolini.
Like a Mafia threat: the unelected bureaucrats try to intimidate the Italian voters before the election: “we have tools”.
Just in case anyone missed the casual mob threat issued a few days ago.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen issues threat just before elections in Italy, warning that if conservative parties win, such as has been seen in Hungary and Poland, then the EU has “tools” for dealing with them. Currently, the EU is looking to cut €7.5 billion in funding for Hungary and is blocking EU Recovery Funds from both Hungary and Poland.
Science too has become a consumer slave
It seems a long way from a science debate. But science — the human industry, lives within the milieu of civilization. Instead of a search for truth, like the individual consumer slaves Giorgia Meloni refers to, science itself has become a consumer slave to the cartels of power. Only a few days ago we were talking about the $130 trillion dollar cartel of Big Bankers and Biggest Government, an unholy alliance accountable to almost no one. Theoretically those assets colluding to punish legal energy corporations are worth five times more than the entire GDP of the USA. Who runs the world? The EU and UN are unelected bureaucrats, clearly acting with impunity against voters. But the big financial institutions still depend on state protection of their monopolies. That’s why the antitrust laws being used by US State governments are so important. Elections matter (especially ones done with voter ID like in Italy).
Obviously the power of Big-Government, like the EU, or the UN grows if the power of nation-states and families shrink and it’s threatened by free speech and real science.
h/t Scott of the Pacific, OldOzzie, TdeF, David Maddison, Johnny Rotten
Recent Comments