After all these years, finally, signs that more Greens are waking up to the awful truth
Steve Nowakowski was a Greens candidate in Cairns in 2006. He was a co-founder of Rainforest Reserves Australia, and was hired as a photographer, but he didn’t like what he saw. Two years ago he was concerned at the environmental damage of the Emerald Wind farm, now he’s filming the destruction in the hope of stopping wind farms being built in Queensland. He’s calling it lunacy, and arguing we need nuclear power.
In a big leap, he even realizes the green groups are “colluding” with the government and the money making environmental vandals in the greatest land grab of the age. Mark my words, eventually this issue will split the Greens.
First Bob Brown former Greens leader, and now footsoldiers like Nowakowski and a few other conservationists are campaigning against wind turbines — word is spreading…
“I have never seen such collusion in my environmental career as I do now between big business, NGO’s and state government in what I consider the greatest land grab of the age,” he said. He said the bulk of the wind farm projects have already slipped through while everyone was sleep-walking.
Nowakowski is shocked at the scale of the industrial wind plants being planned for Queensland.
For months Nowakowski has been trying to warn about the proliferation of wind farms in Queensland and the impacts the developments are having on the environment.
“Every high elevation ridge-line outside of National Parks and State Forests will have a turbine on it between Gladstone and Rockhampton along the Great Dividing Range,’’ Nowakowski claims.
“It now seems over 60,000ha of remnant forest to be cleared across Queensland for proposed projects with approximately 4600km of new haulage roads pushed into remote and wild forests along ridge lines and mountain tops,” he said.
On the Chalumbin wind farm he says “It blows my mind’.
We will look back at the lunacy of our folly in years to come. There is already so much cleared and degraded land in Australia and here we are destroying some of the best high biodiverse remnant bits left.
Clearing and fragmenting some of the best habitat left in Australia for wind farm industrial estates is a delusional act that won’t save the climate. Real climate action is placing renewable energy projects in a planned and proper manner in appropriate locations that will lead to a net loss of carbon emissions and a net gain in increased biodiversity The environmental offsets given to these wind farm projects in high biodiverse locations are a scam.
There are more of these inappropriately placed projects in the pipeline including the Chalumbin Wind Farm, Upper Burdekin Wind Farm and the completely ridiculous Mount Fox Energy Park which is almost entirely contained in some of the best remnant wet sclerophyll forests outside of the protected estate.
Thankfully, Nowakowski is not the only environmentalist waking up. McCarthy mentions the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland which he says has also changed position due to the large amount of land being cleared for wind turbines. Then there is Apple, which has pulled out of a wind farm near Burdekin because of environmental concerns. Even the group building the Chalumbin wind farm has scaled it back from 200 turbines to 86 (and it has been renamed Wooroora — presumably for PR’s sake?)
…
This video is remarkably like ones made by skeptics for the last ten years. (Nearly). He’s now supporting nuclear power…
It would have been better if he’d realized this ten years ago, but he’s doing a great job now. Wait til I tell him about the corruption in science…
One day he will realize climate-skeptics were the real environmentalists all along.
We know it’s a cult when we have thousands of years of nuclear power available but scientists want to build giant mirrors in space to reflect the sun onto solar panels on Earth.
We know it’s corrupt when governments won’t pay for research into the suns role in our climate but they’ll give 2.5 million Euros to a wild idea that might rescue their banker and investment friends last technological white elephant. This was funded under “EXCELLENT SCIENCE – European Research Council (ERC)” don’t you know?
They figure we could get teams of robots into space to assemble vast mirrors about 1 km across that would reflect the sun from 900km above Earth onto solar plants so they make electricity a bit more often. What could possibly go wrong, apart from mishaps that blind drivers, hurt wildlife, screw body clocks and waste gazillions of dollars?
As the huge reflectors pass over a solar plant, they will spin around and point at it to illuminate it “and it’s immediate surroundings”. Thus theoretically extending the working day of the solar panels, and delivering energy at breakfast and dinner time when the peak hour demand is killing our new fragile grids.
Supposedly when the plant on the ground rolls out of view, the giant mirrors will spin themselves edge on to the sun so they stop reflecting sunlight. Just imagine the maintenance nightmare and cost blowouts possible with large precision space infrastructure? Not to mention what happens when the software goes wrong, or hostile cyberhackers play “spot light” with highways, airports and military installations. How much fun can you have with a 10 kilometer wide beam? (That’s just the inner intense core, the actual “stray light” could be an oval up to 70 km long.)
All the nasty surprises that make solar panels and wind farms so uneconomic on the planet would presumably multiply ten-fold in orbit as clouds get in the way, then solar flares and space junk damage the mirrors. How long will mirrors keep their smooth surface under the constant onslaught of the solar wind that runs at a million miles an hour?
Our supposedly best and brightest are publishing hallowed peer reviewed papers on frivolous new ways to rescue the low performing infrastructure that wasn’t economic to build in the first place. The whole plan is to somehow improve the weather on Earth by reducing fossil fuel use, starting by burning tankerloads of fossil fuels to mine and launch kilotons of metal into space?
Reflectors in space could make solar farms on Earth work for longer every day
Unlike proposals to build solar power stations in space and transmit energy down to earth, all the generation would still happen down here.
With the reflectors orbiting 900km above us – about twice the altitude of the International Space Station – we estimate that the illuminated area on the Earth would be approximately 10km across when at its brightest. Therefore, a system like this would not be aimed at individual rooftop solar panels but large solar power farms, typically located away from inhabited areas.
Wait for it:
Each pass would extend energy generation by about 15 to 20 minutes around the dawn or dusk hours.
So we’re spending billions of dollars for an extra 20 minutes of sacred solar sunshine?
Only government funded scientists could come up with something this exorbitantly ridiculous. Let the solar investors pay for their own damn feasibility study, their own giant mirrors, and their own research onto the effects of daylight shining at night on birds, bats, lizards and insects within some unnamed distance of the solar farm. Floating solar farms on the ocean could harass whales and corals too?
Does anyone even care about them?
REFERENCE (seriously)
Viale et al (2023) A reference architecture for orbiting solar reflectors to enhance terrestrial solar power plant output, Advances in Space Research, Volume 72, Issue 4, 15 August 2023, Pages 1304-1348
Grants: Enhancing Global Clean Energy Services Using Orbiting Solar Reflectors, grant agreement No. 883730 Cordis ERC: €2,496,392 ” CRM is also supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering under the Chair in Emerging Technologies scheme. We also thank Sun Cable for sharing information on their solar power farm.”
If man-made climate change does anything at all, it makes Global Disasters tamer
Humans produced 980 billion tons of CO2 in the last 32 years, yet global losses due to weather related damage are shrinking as a proportion of our economy.
Despite there being more humans on Earth than ever before, with more buildings, farms, and factories just waiting to be wrecked by bad weather, somehow global weather disaster losses are not as large a part of our economy as they used to be.
All those extra houses, tractors and cars are sitting-ducks for storms, floods, and hailstones, yet the “climate crisis” is doing less damage to our GDP than it used to when CO2 levels were much lower.
Back in 1990 global CO2 levels were just 355ppm, now it’s more like 417ppm.
Roger Piekle Junior investigated the economic losses of weather disasters for the last three decades. He found that when losses were adjusted for inflation, and measured as a proportion of global GDP, damages were shrinking.
Naturally this tells us nothing at all about what drives the climate, but shows the prophesies are bonkers, and the relentless weather porn on the news is like a pagan religion.
Since 1990, the toll of disasters as a proportion of the global economy has gone down from about 0.25% of GDP to less than 0.20%. That is good news and indicates progress with respect to the goals of the Sendai Framework.
He points out that the UN itself recognizes that this is the correct way to measure trends in losses, rather than just adding up “total dollar losses” as most of the mass media does.
The United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction identifies disaster losses as a proportion of GDP to be a key metric for tracking progress on disaster risk reduction.1 This makes obvious sense because as the global economy grows there is more “stuff” exposed and vulnerable to being damaged.
The UN, despite knowing the correct answer, is happy for the worlds journalists to propagate lies and errors as a way to screw more money from hapless taxpayers. UN experts could easily speak up, to point out how lives are getting easier as we emit more CO2, and how journalists are being naughty. But scaring the children is all in a days work for the global grifter cartel.
The UN is quite happy with incompetent media reporting and misinformation, it’s the truth they have a problem with. Time to dismantle the United Nations.
Congratulations to Taiwan tonight for their elections — shame on the UN for not recognizing a great democracy.
The things the BBC/ABC/CBC/NPR/etc didn’t tell you on the news tonight can be found in five minutes on Twitter. Vive Free Speech. Thank you Elon. Those who control most of the Western media don’t want the unwashed masses to know about these protests because they fear the protests will spread like wildfire.
“They feel like they are being ruled by people that hate them”
— Eva Vlaardingerbroek
The Wall Street Journal comments that “Radical environmentalists pioneered aggressive protest techniques, but they didn’t have tractors.” Despite the inconvenience, nearly 70% of the German people support the farmers.
One irony, which Britain’s Just Stop Oil or Germany’s Fridays for Future lefties will be too dim to note, is that if everyone who is negatively affected by the costs of net zero starts taking to the streets, the net-zero fantasy will end in a flash. — Joseph C Sternberg, WSJ
Things are so dire the German “traffic light coalition” government is thinking of using more coal. News has leaked that the German Economics Minister has shelved the old “power plant plan” which depended on gas, and is secretly planning on increasing old coal fired “reserve” power. Only in October the plan was to phase out the coal back up for next winter, but already it is clear this won’t work. –– Berliner Zeitung.
The biggest protests in modern German history. What’s happening? Eva Vlaardingerbroek is there. pic.twitter.com/uAtmkUme5Q
Breaking News: Rising Together: A Unified Stand for Freedom and Sovereignty Against Globalism is underway.
In an awe-inspiring display of unity and determination, millions of patriots and freedom fighters are converging in Germany, joining the rapidly growing farmer protest.… pic.twitter.com/nmrpkdRmpY
A massive protest mobilisation of German farmers, truckers and train drivers continues against the German government. The economic engine room (producers and transporters) have more power in maintaining a functioning society than politicians.
🇩🇪🚜 🚚 🚊 pic.twitter.com/4VfDKJRnxE
With the western world hurtling into new cars that are more costly, inconvenient, slower to refuel, and prone to burning down carparks and cargo ships, it was only a matter of time before the cracks in the socialist car market started to show.
It was the perfect storm in a bad way. Apparently the customers didn’t want to rent them, and when they did and they scratched them, they cost too much to fix. (Repair costs were twice as high). Then the bottom fell out of the second-hand market, and to recover the depreciation losses, Hertz would have to raise the prices on a product customers already didn’t want. There was no way this was going to work.
“..expenses related to collision and damage, primarily associated with EVs, remained high in the quarter”
“The Company expects to reinvest a portion of the proceeds from the sale of EVs into the purchase of internal combustion engine (“ICE”) vehicles to meet customer demand.”
Back in October 2021 it was all champagne and fireworks
Hertz put in an order for 100,000 EVs which was so exciting it pushed Tesla shares up 9% briefly to “a trillion dollar valuation”. (Two years later Tesla is worth 30% less.) At the time, Hertz expected to get the 100,000 cars by the end of 2022. Luckily for them, this didn’t happen. Instead they only got 50,000 by the end of 2022. This worked out to be about 11% of Tesla Hertz’s total fleet. So these EV’s are not even very old. No one can say “the new models are better, because these are new models.
Some of the cars are already on the market. Two year old Telsa Model 3 EV’s are going for $22,000 US.
With uncanny timing the Australian Albanese government is about to launch emissions standards we don’t need to coerce people to buy a product they don’t want, in the hope, they say, of changing the weather.
They didn’t tell us, the term “fossil fuels” might be wrong too
Dr Willie Soon unleashes on the failures of climate change and modern science for 40 minutes with Tucker Carlson (see below). As an opening he explained how one of Saturn’s moons has more liquid fuel than than all the oil and gas deposits of Earth, which rather pokes a hole in the idea that fossil fuels are only ever made from fossils.
Soon explains that Titan proves that abiotic oil and gas formation is true. In 2009 an experiment showed that when methane is put under great pressure like the kind we find 50-100 miles underground, it can form more complex hydrocarbons. (Kolesnikov). Several papers in the last dozen years find more exotic kinds of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons all over the place, like in Titan’s atmosphere and even forming in deep cold interstellar space. (Zhao, Parker, Freissinet) They also found benzene on Mars.
On his CERES sites, Willie Soon explains that in practical terms, we don’t know how much of the oil and gas on earth is made without fossils (in an abiogenic process). It could be forming 50 to 100 miles down, but we’re only drilling 6 to 8 miles deep. I seems we have little idea. Even if abiotic oil exists on Earth, it may form too slowly to be useful. Though there have been these odd claims out there for years that some oil fields are refilling.
What we do know, says Jo, is that they’re not trying to understand this, and they’re not trying to tell us the whole truth either. We’ve taught two generations of children that there is one simple narrative, and if you questioned it you were an idiot. Isn’t it time a civilization dependent on these fuels had an honest discussion about where they came from?
There’s a lot more in the interview about his experience at Harvard, and climate science and the sun.
Ep. 62 If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? A lot of what you’ve heard about energy is false. Dr. Willie Soon explains.
TIMESTAMPS
(01:49) Fossil Fuels in Space
(14:27) Global Warming Throughout History
(25:31) Outside… pic.twitter.com/GMaDkDl8z9
Willie Soon worked at Harvard in astrophysics for 31 years but prefers the freedom to say what he thinks and to research what he wants. He co-founded CERES-Science where you can find his other latest papers.
Thanks to all the readers who’ve mentioned abiotic oil over the years. Konrad, Garry Meyers, Bobl , theRealUniverse, Latus Dextro, OriginalSteve. William Astley, Beijing Yankee, Another Ian, Zane suggests “F. William Engdahl’s 2012 book ” Myths, Lies and Oil Wars “.”, plus Skeptical Sam and Chris (and others too).
In a radical move, the French government has quietly dropped their renewables targets from their draft energy bill, risking being seen as unfashionable losers in billionaire ski clubs. The nation that, forty years ago, built 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years has decided they just need to build another 6 to 14 new nuclear plants to reach “Net Zero” by 2050. This puts them in danger of being one of the only nations on Earth that might reach their target.
This, of course, is terrible for the renewables industry as it risks exposing the wanton frivolity and utterly superfluous nature of the wind and solar subsidy farms. If France can do this without the bird chopping, the slave labor and the lithium bombs, so can nearly everywhere else.
It’s a big change from 2014 when France aimed to reduce nuclear power to just 50% by 2025.
As NetZeroWatch says in their email newsletter, this is a win:
The proposed text, which is slated to go before the cabinet early next month and then be submitted to lawmakers, reaffirms France’s commitment to nuclear power to ensure “energy sovereignty”.
So France wants “energy security” as opposed to energy slavery where nations hope their enemies will be nice to them when they get cold.
The proposed text affirms “the sustainable choice of using nuclear energy as a competitive and carbon-free” source of electricity, and targets the construction of at least six but as many as 14 new reactors to pull off the transition to clean energy and meet climate change goals.
Climate activists (also known as renewables salesmen) are tying themselves in knots as France solves the net zero non-problem without their pet socialist technologies.
“It’s a terrible step back,” said Arnaud Gosse, a lawyer specialising in environmental law.
“If you only quantify nuclear power, you do not know the share of non-renewable energies. As a result, nuclear gets prioritised and, depending on remaining coverage needs, non-renewables will be the subject of floating (future) decrees. It’s no longer a mix,” Gosse said.
Lord help us all, “it’s no longer a mix”, what a disaster, and a few environmental lawyers might be out of a job.
In the end renewable energy is free, clean and cheaper than anything else they tell us, but somehow the government still has to force people to use it and set targets or no one will build it. The unwashed masses must be too stupid.
“France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.“
France is saving Germany and others from their own exorbitant experiments. Who will save Australia?
UPDATE: The bottom line is that the French government is testing out the idea of dropping their renewables target. Presumably they are waiting to see how big the protest and pressure is to keep those targets. But this is an important sign that those at the highest levels of French government would prefer to ignore renewables.
Bret Weinstein, former professor of evolutionary biology, talks to Tucker Carlson in the video below, and argues that we are in effect, living inside a coup. In May this year the World Health Organisation (WHO), a UN committee, will put forward a few modifications “to protect us all”. These harmless amendments will mean the WHO could effectively be in the room when you visit your doctor. In the event of an “emergency” foreign unelected non-representatives will decide what your doctor can and can’t prescribe for you and what vaccines you need to have, and you can’t vote them out. What could possibly go wrong?
These amendments used to be called “the Pandemic Treaty” but like a shapeshifter, it now has a different name. This is part of the language battle — it’s so much harder for opposition to coalesce, or gravitate towards a moving target. It’s like wrestling with jello.
Obviously, after these clauses come into force, we could get a climate or flu emergency practically any day…
The Turnkey Totalitarian Planet is an invisible cage built around us:
8:49| The Covid Pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us; Something former NSA Whistleblower William Binney once described as the Turnkey totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is erected around you, but it’s not activated. And then once it’s built the key gets turned. We’re now seeing something that even outstrips Williams Binney’s description because it’s the Turnkey Totalitarian Planet. The World Health Organisation is above the level of nations, and it’s going to be in a position, if these regulations pass, to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens — to override their own constitutions. So that is frightening…
It’s a loophole of the mind, not the constitution
Our rights aren’t necessarily extinguished by a UN committee “treaty” but in reality people’s willingness to accept the erosion of their rights can make it a daily reality anyhow.
Only idiot conspiracy theorists, of course, would suggest that the UN wants to be a World Government, but nearly 150,000 Australians were denied the right to leave the country without an injection, unless they swam or paddled across the Arafura Sea. What looks, acts and smells like a government we didn’t vote for — one that stops us getting on a plane.
…
Weinstein offers no exact legal quotes, which is a shame, but the difficulty of finding quotable quotes is no doubt also part of the strategy. Some of these UN amendments are unreadable — there is often no single complete sentence in sight, only grammatical warfare, with dependent clauses split across sections and articles and changes buried in appendices. The swamp of legalese can hide a crocodile and who would know? Bad writing is a crime.
In May the UN World Health Organisation (WHO) will table their little amendments (for your own good). My understanding is that we have a ten month window to get our PM or President to write to the UN to opt out. For people in the US this will be decided at the election. Trump says he will terminate the Treaty. No wonder they work so hard to stop the voters getting that choice.
The new proposed amendments strike out the words “non-binding” with respect to WHO advice, so it’s “binding advice” now? They also strike out “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” which are apparently out-dated and dangerous terms for public health. Where the old agreement says “public health risk” that’s now going to become “all risks with a potential to impact public health” which almost certainly includes the risk of climate change, nasty language, and any discussion of the failings of vaccines or the WHO itself. See Article 3.
Obviously criticizing the WHO would be “a danger to public health”.
The 46 page document is loaded with layers of legal origami that are hard to unpack. But if WHO advice is “binding” and “State Parties shall implement these regulations…” and “develop and maintain capacities to implement the Regulations”, there are plenty of dangerous phrases for UN lawyers, and compliant corruptocrats to work with.
Australia will be obliged to follow the WHO’s “recommendations” in relation to public health, in the event of a public health emergency such as a pandemic. We can see this in black and white in the proposed amendments to Articles 1, 13A, 42 and 43 of the IHR. Yes, it will be Australia making the decisions, but we will have given the WHO the legal authority to tell us what those decisions should be.
You can argue ’til the cows come home whether that’s “ceding sovereignty” but I ask you: why would an Australian government want to put us in the position where we are legally obliged to follow the WHO’s “recommendations” in the first place, noting that the list of (binding) recommendations in Article 18 includes – but is not limited to – mandatory vaccination, isolations, medical treatment and restrictions.
Now that “recommendations” are to become binding, Australia finds itself in the bizarre position of its parliament having to pass legislation in order to avoid becoming indentured to the WHO. This is a magic trick!
If the UN is so smart and it’s intentions are so good, why do we need to enshrine our lack of choice into law? We could just let them persuade our elected representatives for each and every incidence instead. What’s wrong with that? Klein asks:
Why does the Federal government want to hand decision-making over to the WHO?
If the Federal government doesn’t intend to comply with binding WHO public health “recommendations”, why is it supporting the power transfer? What would the sanctions be for non-compliance? (See here for a good discussion of the likely influence of the amendments despite the lack of formal enforcement mechanisms.)
If the government does intend to comply, why?
How is committing to complying with future WHO legally binding “recommendations” in Australia’s national interest?
If it gets accepted, our only option is to exit the entire UN — and since this “treaty” is so draconian, and filled with ill intent, let’s do that anyway.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
Recent Comments