Electroverse
We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy
being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by
schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and
to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the
public, including those youngsters themselves.
Here are the 25 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:
Monday, 24 June 2019
Wednesday, 12 June 2019
Wind Energy Woes: German Expansion “Collapses To Near Zero” …”2019 Threatens To Be A Disaster
NoTricksZone
Despite all the talk about the need to transition over to green energies, Germany’s progress — in especially wind energy — has ground to a complete halt."
Despite all the talk about the need to transition over to green energies, Germany’s progress — in especially wind energy — has ground to a complete halt."
Great Lakes Reveal a Fatal Flaw in Climate Change ‘Science’
Issues & Insights
ake Erie and Lake Superior — two of the five that make up the Great Lakes — broke records for water levels this May. Lakes Michigan and Huron could follow suit.
Naturally, climate change is getting the blame. “We are undoubtedly observing the effects of a warming climate in the Great Lakes,” says Richard Rood, a University of Michigan climate scientist.
But just a few years ago, climate scientists were insisting that a warming climate would cause water levels to decline. .........
The truth, of course, is that water levels in the Great Lakes vary over time. And, as a matter of fact, they varied far more in the past than they do now. A U.S. Geological Survey notes that “prehistoric levels exceed modern-day fluctuations.”
It says that “Prehistoric variations in lake levels have exceeded by as much as a factor of 2 (that is, more than 3 meters) the 1.6-meter fluctuation that spanned the 1964 low level and the 1985-87 high level.”
And, as anyone who’s ever lived near the Great Lakes knows, the lakes themselves were formed in the wake a massive change in the earth’s climate — when the glaciers receded at the end of the Ice Age roughly 14,000 years ago.
So if the lakes’ huge fluctuations in the past weren’t caused by mankind’s burning fossil fuels, why are scientists so convinced that the far more minor changes happening today are?
The reason is simple. Climate scientists can blame anything they want on global warming. The climate models are imprecise enough that no matter what is happening they can point to it as proof that man-made climate change is happening. Too much rain, too little rain, bitterly cold winters, mild winters, more snow, less snow, rising water levels, falling water levels — they can attribute “climate change” as a cause of it all.
But if nothing can disprove a theory, and every event, no matter how contradictory, is proof that the theory is valid, is that really science? Sounds more like a religion to us."
ake Erie and Lake Superior — two of the five that make up the Great Lakes — broke records for water levels this May. Lakes Michigan and Huron could follow suit.
Naturally, climate change is getting the blame. “We are undoubtedly observing the effects of a warming climate in the Great Lakes,” says Richard Rood, a University of Michigan climate scientist.
But just a few years ago, climate scientists were insisting that a warming climate would cause water levels to decline. .........
The truth, of course, is that water levels in the Great Lakes vary over time. And, as a matter of fact, they varied far more in the past than they do now. A U.S. Geological Survey notes that “prehistoric levels exceed modern-day fluctuations.”
It says that “Prehistoric variations in lake levels have exceeded by as much as a factor of 2 (that is, more than 3 meters) the 1.6-meter fluctuation that spanned the 1964 low level and the 1985-87 high level.”
And, as anyone who’s ever lived near the Great Lakes knows, the lakes themselves were formed in the wake a massive change in the earth’s climate — when the glaciers receded at the end of the Ice Age roughly 14,000 years ago.
So if the lakes’ huge fluctuations in the past weren’t caused by mankind’s burning fossil fuels, why are scientists so convinced that the far more minor changes happening today are?
The reason is simple. Climate scientists can blame anything they want on global warming. The climate models are imprecise enough that no matter what is happening they can point to it as proof that man-made climate change is happening. Too much rain, too little rain, bitterly cold winters, mild winters, more snow, less snow, rising water levels, falling water levels — they can attribute “climate change” as a cause of it all.
But if nothing can disprove a theory, and every event, no matter how contradictory, is proof that the theory is valid, is that really science? Sounds more like a religion to us."
The Cult Of Fake Statistics
Real Science
I posted a video earlier documenting that the US was coolest and wettest on record since October. Then someone named Dave Carlson steps in and explains that the record cold is proof of record heat. Followed by Brian Johnson who claims that India just set their all time record of 123.8F.
Sounds bad … we really messed the climate up. Except that it was just as hot or hotter in India in 1935, and 1953, and 1966 ….Climate alarmism is based largely on fake statistics, and always has been"
I posted a video earlier documenting that the US was coolest and wettest on record since October. Then someone named Dave Carlson steps in and explains that the record cold is proof of record heat. Followed by Brian Johnson who claims that India just set their all time record of 123.8F.
Sounds bad … we really messed the climate up. Except that it was just as hot or hotter in India in 1935, and 1953, and 1966 ….Climate alarmism is based largely on fake statistics, and always has been"
Theresa May is about to spend £1 trillion on a pointless policy. This climate madness has to end
Bjorn Lomborg
The UK is, reportedly, already resorting to the use of "creative accounting" as it attempts to meet its current obligation of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. However, that hasn't stopped the government considering an even bolder promise: net zero.
This will have no meaningful impact on temperatures because the UK is responsible for just one per cent of global emissions. If it eradicated its entire emissions forever, global temperatures in 2100 would be affected by less than 0.014°C. Yet while the benefits of reaching net zero are negligible, the cost of delivering this pledge would be massive."
The UK is, reportedly, already resorting to the use of "creative accounting" as it attempts to meet its current obligation of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. However, that hasn't stopped the government considering an even bolder promise: net zero.
This will have no meaningful impact on temperatures because the UK is responsible for just one per cent of global emissions. If it eradicated its entire emissions forever, global temperatures in 2100 would be affected by less than 0.014°C. Yet while the benefits of reaching net zero are negligible, the cost of delivering this pledge would be massive."
What David Attenborough told BBC viewers about this raging orangutan fighting a digger is only part of the truth... and that's just one of the flaws in the great naturalist's 'alarmist' new documentary
David Rose, Daily Mail
.....There are times when climate propaganda –
for this is what this was – calls to mind the apocalyptic prophets of
the Middle Ages, who led popular movements by preaching that the sins of
human beings were so great that they could only be redeemed by
suffering, in order to create a paradise on earth. Perhaps
this is how Attenborough, nature journalism’s Methuselah, sees himself.
But climate change is too important to be handled in this manner. It
needs rational, well-informed debate. Too often, cheered on by the
eco-zealots of Extinction Rebellion, the BBC is intent on encouraging
quite the opposite."
May Ramming Through Trillion Pound Climate Change Plan With No Proper Costings
Guido Fawkes
Not content with just banning porn and plastic straws, Theresa May has decided to add a £1 trillion – that’s £1,000,000,000,000 – economic black hole to her “legacy” with her new policy to force the UK to have ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050. Philip Hammond has already warned that the cost “is likely to be well in excess of a trillion pounds”. Blows the row over tax cuts into insignificance…
The problem is that no-one has any idea how much it is actually going to cost. The Climate Change Committee (CCC), chaired by scandal-ridden Lord Deben, has put out a figure of £50 billion every year. BEIS’ preliminary estimate puts the cost a full 40% higher at £70 billion per year – these are just back of the envelope calculations. The Treasury wants to do a formal review of the costs but this will take months, not days. The fact that an outgoing Prime Minister is trying to bind the country with a commitment this vast without even doing a proper costing first is the height of irresponsibility… "
Not content with just banning porn and plastic straws, Theresa May has decided to add a £1 trillion – that’s £1,000,000,000,000 – economic black hole to her “legacy” with her new policy to force the UK to have ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050. Philip Hammond has already warned that the cost “is likely to be well in excess of a trillion pounds”. Blows the row over tax cuts into insignificance…
The problem is that no-one has any idea how much it is actually going to cost. The Climate Change Committee (CCC), chaired by scandal-ridden Lord Deben, has put out a figure of £50 billion every year. BEIS’ preliminary estimate puts the cost a full 40% higher at £70 billion per year – these are just back of the envelope calculations. The Treasury wants to do a formal review of the costs but this will take months, not days. The fact that an outgoing Prime Minister is trying to bind the country with a commitment this vast without even doing a proper costing first is the height of irresponsibility… "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)