'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[stickdog99]

Corbett Report: Oxford Fights Climate Lockdowns

[Joe Hillshoist]

traffic congestion measures are now climate lockdowns?

[Gnomad]

Car drivers hate it when they are told that its better for everybody to ride bicycles instead. The Dutch did this first in Utrecht, which now is the best cycling city in the world - they banned driving cars between city sectors, and installed bike lanes everywhere so with a bike you always ride straight to where you are going, in a few minutes, while cars are forced out of the city, onto a ring road. Result - today almost everyone cycles, and almost no-one drives a car unless it is necessary.

https://www.goodnet.org/articles/how-th ... e-friendly and a video from Utrecht at the link.

Utrecht is made up of a historic city center, scenic canals are lined with shops and restaurants and bike paths and roads weave through the downtown making it really easy to ship, commute to work or school, and to visit museums or parks without ever using a car.

That's because the city built specialized roads and bike parking facilities to give bicycle riders the upper hand over cars. According to CityLab, cars make up only 15 percent of the trips into the downtown area. Sixty percent are done by cyclists.

There is a new state-of-the-art bicycle 6,000 space parking garage that is located underneath the Utrecht central train station. The spaces will double in the next two years because of demand. Commuters can ride from home directly into the parking facility and then walk just a few minutes to catch a train.

Roads that were built for cars have been redesigned to give cyclists priority and parks and public spaces are being built around the bicycle routes. The Dafne Schippersburg is a multi-use bridge/path that uses the roof of an elementary school as its foundation. The bridge connects the Leidsche Rijn area with the city center.

“You really have the idea that people are the boss of the city, not the machines,” Lott van Hooijdonk, the city’s vice mayor, said in the film.

But the city wasn't always this bicycle friendly. In the 1950s and 60s, cities in the Netherlands were as automotive friendly as cities in the rest of Europe and the US. In the 1970s, in response to a rise in the number of children getting killed in traffic accidents people started protesting against the use of the streets being prioritized for cars according to CityLab. Add the high cost of gasoline and the environmental movement and you have perfect storm conditions for change.

The Netherlands changed directions and started to change city centers into places for bicycle riding, walking and mass transit instead of private automobiles. Today, 98 percent of all households in Utrecht own at least one bicycle. The film states that half own three or more bicycles. Altogether, there are 22.5 billion bicycles in the Netherlands or 1.3 bicycles per household beating out even Denmark.

The transition didn't come cheap. According to the New York Times, the city spends over €49 million or $55 million annually to build, improve and maintain the bike-based transportation network which the city plans on doubling by 2030. There are complaints by car owners that they are being discriminated against and by cyclists that say there aren't enough parking spaces, but these are just growing pains.

The advantages of the changes far outnumber the disadvantages and include reduced air pollution, lower healthcare costs and a host of other social benefits. Plus, the number of deaths of cyclists and pedestrians in traffic accidents has plummeted according to CityLab. In Utrecht, two wheels are so much better than four.

I wish my city was as good as that. Its not terrible here either - we do have lots of bike lanes, but Utrecht seems like heaven for actual people instead of machines.

Its something that most people in the US could not even imagine without experiencig first-hand how nice it is in a city with very few cars. No noise, no pollution, no fear of getting killed by an inattentive driver, people walking and biking everywhere and hanging out in the city far more than otherwise.

[stickdog99]

LOL that it is not climate lockdown if the government tells you that are not allowed to use your car because of climate concerns.

And LOL on the doublespeak about how nobody is claiming to be infallible or to know for certain, but also if you dare to question the inflexible "temperatures always follow co2 levels by exactly 50 years" direness of any of their infallible model projections, you are contemptible anti-science climate denier who is not a critical thinker but instead an oppositional thinker.

And right after the COVID projections of what would happen within a few months were proven so false. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that nobody is claiming these dire projections are infallible while also deeming anyone who dares to question these projections or to point out any cases in which past projections have not panned out a heretical pariah.

And I am not a fucking true believer in anything except the obvious limits of the ability of humans to project the future of systems of near infinite complexity. You know, like Earthly or solar weather. Or the likely outcome of continually vaccinating billions in the middle of a raging pandemic.

[Grizzly]

Canada performing more organ transplants from MAID donors than any country in the world
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-performing-more-organ-transplants-from-maid-donors-than-any-country-in-the-world-1.6234133?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A%7B%7Bcampaignname%7D%7D%3Atwitterpost%E2%80%8B&taid=63c6e484e2457e0001a588ef&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[Gnomad]

LOL that it is not climate lockdown if the government tells you that are not allowed to use your car because of climate concerns.

And LOL on the doublespeak about how nobody is claiming to be infallible or to know for certain, but also if you dare to question the inflexible "temperatures always follow co2 levels by exactly 50 years" direness of any of their infallible model projections, you are contemptible anti-science climate denier who is not a critical thinker but instead an oppositional thinker.

And right after the COVID projections of what would happen within a few months were proven so false. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that nobody is claiming these dire projections are infallible while also deeming anyone who dares to question these projections or to point out any cases in which past projections have not panned out a heretical pariah.

And I am not a fucking true believer in anything except the obvious limits of the ability of humans to project the future of systems of near infinite complexity. You know, like Earthly or solar weather. Or the likely outcome of continually vaccinating billions in the middle of a raging pandemic.

Apples and oranges.

The mRNA vaccines were not tested for a long time, only limited short-term studies were run before mass vaccinations - climate and CO2 have been studied for over a hundred years now, with first studies in late 1800s. Comparing something studied for less than a year - and for huge profit gains for the corporations pushing them - to something studied by thousands over decades, and not for a profit motive, is not possible. They are two completely different scenarios.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-o ... 6485612575

CLAIM: The county of Oxfordshire, England, which includes the city of Oxford, is imposing a “climate lockdown” that will confine residents to their neighborhoods.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Oxfordshire has approved a plan to put “traffic filters” on some main roads, restricting drivers’ access during daytime hours and freeing up space for buses, cyclists and pedestrians. But car owners can apply for daylong permits to bypass the new rules, and many other vehicles are exempt. All parts of the county will remain accessible by car, officials said.

THE FACTS:Last week, local leaders in Oxfordshire voted to try a new traffic reduction system in an effort to reduce congestion in the county’s namesake city. Some on social media have since likened the scheme to stringent government COVID-19 containment policies.

“UK. - Oxfordshire Council, part of the 15 minute city club, has passed a plan to trial a Climate lockdown,” tweeted one user, alongside a screenshot of an article warning that “residents will be confined to their local neighbourhood.”

The plan “would control movements in a gated city, allowing only 100 car journeys in & out per car & monitoring all movements,” the tweet continued. “Did you vote for this?”

“Next up: Climate lockdown trials,” wrote another Twitter user, sharing a screenshot of the article.

But Oxfordshire’s “traffic filters” will not block access to any part of the city of Oxford or the rest of the county, let alone lock people in their neighborhoods, the county government told The Associated Press.

“Everywhere in the city will still be accessible by car,” Paul Smith, spokesperson for the Oxfordshire County Council, wrote in an email. “Nobody will need permission from the county council to drive or leave their home.”

The “traffic filters” are license plate recognition cameras, not physical barriers. From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., drivers in private cars will be automatically fined if they cross through the filters without a permit. Motorists who live in Oxford will be able to apply for 100 daylong permits to drive through the filters per year.

The “15 minute city club” referenced by one of the misleading tweets is an unrelated urban planning framework under which city residents would ideally be able to reach essential services within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from their home. Officials with the city of Oxford have separately proposed pursuing these goals. But some on social media have incorrectly linked the two, suggesting the traffic rules will also bar residents from leaving their neighborhoods.

The city and county emphasized in a joint statementthat the traffic restrictions will not “be used to confine people” to a given area. “Everyone can go through all the filters at any time by bus, bike, taxi, scooter or walking,” the statement added.

That is not a "lockdown" of any kind.
That is traffic policy limiting unnecessary car use, not banning it.
That is exactly a similar thing as they did in Utrecht decades ago - and all over the Netherlands in other cities - except in the Netherlands they actually have completely prevented cars from driving in many places, to get people to use bicycles and walk. As they well should.

The Brits also have the worlds largest network of license plate readers and traffic cams all over their roads - that shit is dystopian for real though.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/17224 ... acy-theory

Oxford councillors receive deluge of death threats over climate 'lockdown' conspiracy
The council has been sent a photograph of a noose and councillors have been compared to Nazis.

It is claimed by the council's detractors that the city of Oxford was to be divided into "zones", which residents would be prevented from leaving, in order to combat climate change.

Calls, email and social media messages are flooding into the council, decrying the "lockdown" plot from local leaders.

The conspiracy emerged after Oxford County Council approved a trial scheme, costing £6.5million, preventing motorists from using particular routes at particular times.

The scheme, which will be in place for six-months during a trial period, is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary journeys in the congested city and enable buses to travel more easily.

Ok then. 10 points for you on critical thinking.
Driving a private car in a city is not a right, it is a privilege and causes harm to other users of the roads when there are too many of those cars driven around by a single occupant, and creating a deadly danger to pedestrians and cyclists.

[Gnomad]

Canada performing more organ transplants from MAID donors than any country in the world
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-performing-more-organ-transplants-from-maid-donors-than-any-country-in-the-world-1.6234133?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A%7B%7Bcampaignname%7D%7D%3Atwitterpost%E2%80%8B&taid=63c6e484e2457e0001a588ef&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

That is pretty damning shit.
When did they first start doing assisted death? Is this a new development?

[PufPuf93]

.

It's a constant source of bafflement to me how people, often the ones who claim to think for themselves and routinely call others sheep, have gobbled up the oil industry propaganda so thoroughly. Even now, when climate change is glaringly obvious, they're desperately clinging to their narratives.

King of misrepresentation/mischaracterization.

No one here is swallowing 'oil industry propaganda'. I can understand how you can see it that way, of course, but needless to say it doesn't make it true.

You also continue to conflate questioning the extent of climate change with questioning the actual causes for climage change -- perhaps you're dense, perhaps you're too caught up in your own curated intake.

Climate change is not the key contention here. The questions raised repeatedly by me over the past year or so on this thread are (to repeat) primarily as follows:

What are the primary drivers of the current cycle of any climate change, and to what extent is everyday human consumption (of various forms of fuel/energy) truly a primary factor (as opposed to large-scale industry/elite-level consumption of gas/oil as a primary driver) for whatever change is actually occurring? What else, besides anthropogenic factors, can be contributing to any change (and are these non-human factors more involved than advertised in any change occurring over time), and are the solutions proposed by dominant narratives, such as solar, wind, and electricity, truly as 'clean' as advertised, and can they be efficient at scale and developed without significant use of gas and oil?

And: to what extent are the same/similar vile operators responsible for the egregious affronts over the last 2 years in particular (and far longer, historically) utilizing current mainstream programming on 'climate change' for their own greedy/power-hungry/ill-intentioned gains at the expense of the many rubes and plebes that go right along with the narratives with minimal, if any, discernment (not to mention all those that get pulled down with all the rubes and are negatively impacted by disastrous policy changes or 'initiatives')?

Notice there are no absolutes above.

These questions have yet to receive compelling replies, or have been simply ignored.

This blindly accepted notion that carbon dioxide is absolutely a key contributor to whatever climate change may actually be occurring is simply foolish. Even in mainstream circles this is in contention.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chi ... ruitt.html

>>Edward Scott Pruitt (born May 9, 1968) is an American lawyer, lobbyist and Republican politician from the state of Oklahoma. He served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from February 17, 2017, to July 9, 2018, during the Donald Trump presidency, resigning while under at least 14 federal investigations.[2] Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[3]

Pruitt represented Tulsa and Wagoner counties in the Oklahoma Senate from 1998 until 2006. In 2010, Pruitt was elected Attorney General of Oklahoma. In that role, he opposed abortion, same-sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act, and environmental regulations as a self-described "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda."[4] He sued the EPA at least 14 times in the role. Pruitt was elected as chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association in 2012 and was re-elected for a second term in February 2013. He received major corporate and employee campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, taking in at least $215,574 between 2010 and 2014 even though he ran unopposed in the latter year.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pruitt

You have no shame.

[DrEvil]

Yup. Pruitt was brought in to wreck the EPA and make things easier for polluters everywhere. The guy was a disgrace throughout his entire tenure at the EPA. It's like appointing a flat-Earther to run NASA.

[DrEvil]

Canada performing more organ transplants from MAID donors than any country in the world
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-performing-more-organ-transplants-from-maid-donors-than-any-country-in-the-world-1.6234133?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A%7B%7Bcampaignname%7D%7D%3Atwitterpost%E2%80%8B&taid=63c6e484e2457e0001a588ef&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

I don't see the problem. If someone has decided on assisted suicide, why not let them donate their organs?

Legal assisted suicide is a good thing (at least I think so), and organ donation is a good thing, so why not do both? Obviously it needs to be treated carefully with strict oversight so the decision to donate isn't a driving factor in the decision to suicide, but from the article it sounds like that's what they're already doing, and that they're aware of the pitfalls.

[Elvis]

As pointed out, Pruitt is a huge whore for the fossil fuel industry and big banks. Not "mainstream" anything. A total joke.

What were you thinking?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Quite pathetic displays here. A number of you have become tragic cartoon characters, desperate to prop up strawmen rather than consider that, perhaps, the bullshit narratives about C02 and "climate change" are not all exactly as advertised by your preferred mouthpieces. Mouthpieces that, by the way, are JUST AS COMPROMISED as the SHILLS for 'fossil fuels', but since they're shills operating within your preferred political leanings, you remain tragically (but no less shamefully) duped.

In a prior post I shared and bolded a single quote by a former EPA admin, Pruitt, as an example that even in mainstream 'news articles' -- and yes, CNBC is fucking mainstream, Elvis -- there are open questions about the role of C02 and the related storyline that humans are the primary source of any warming. That's it. Sharing a quote by Pruitt, as I did, as part of a larger point was in no way advocacy for him as a spokesperson or individual, needless to fucking say. So you twits choose to take that single excerpt and practically step over yourselves in your efforts to call out how compromised he is. What a fucking revelation. A fucking golf clap to each of you. News flash: Compromise abounds on both sides of the dominant narratives on this topic, while earnest and practical solutions to worthwhile topics like pollution have been largely drowned out from more prominent 'air time' in recent years amid the sheer white noise of "imminent climate change" as depicted by the egregiously well-funded media, govt and "science"-based entities you tools choose to blindly follow w/minimal discernment. Again: pathetic.

Pruitt is not alone in his quoted sentiment, uncommon as it may be in the mainstream, but guess what: not all those making similar claims are shills for gas and oil by default. There was nothing overtly controversial about his comment, either:

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

But of course those in echo chambers can't conceive of such a notion.

I believe it was Gnomad that, earlier, referenced or alluded to the promotion/investment in utilizing bicycle-focused infrastructure/planning in urban areas to incentivize clean methods of transport and offset pollution/excessive use of cars in dense population areas. This is one of numerous practical and efficient approaches to the pollution problems we face due to excessive industry and waste. Unfortunately, worthwhile Environmental Activism has been largely DISCARDED by this excessive focus on the dubious science behind climate ALARMISM, and even worse, this aggressive push for faulty so-called 'solutions', which -- as mentioned numerous times in my prior postings -- are a NET negative to the environment and are NOT sustainable on their own as an effective means to generate energy at SCALE.

And yet, many that claim to be -- or like to believe they are -- "informed" continue to swallow the dominant narratives on most of these 'climate change' mainstream talking points without any indication of scrutiny. Instead, the climate change dogmatists choose to conflate, misrepresent, and/or apply broad brush criticisms to earnest inquiry or scrutiny. Among other logical fallacies.

Your posts will not age well.

(many of you were the same rubes lashing out at the few of us that called out -- back in 2020/2021 -- the non-science of mask use to curb aerosol spread, or for raising concerns about mRNA technology as 'salvation' for a highly survivable disease; please be aware these mRNA products will NOT solve or remedy any "long covid" issues, either, in the event some of you may still be holding on to that final canard. It seems few, if any of you, learned any lessons from the last couple years. And yes: there are absolutely parallels between covid propaganda and this latest climate change propaganda, not to mention the looming currency-related propaganda which will lead to a stronger push for CBDC and social credit systems, but these are all topics for other threads).

There remain open questions about a number of the key claims in the current dominant "climate change" storylines. None of the zealots in this thread have yet to address them head-on (or at all). A non-exhaustive summary of some of the questions posed can be found in my posting from a couple pages ago, here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42029&start=240#p706509

Expanding a bit on some of these themes, there were recent findings by NOAA that indicate that "shutdowns"/lockdowns from Covid policies, as implemented across most first world nations, had practically NO impact on curbing C02, which suggests human activity is NOT as closely tied to C02 levels as fervently insisted by much of current 'climate change' dogma. More info on this can be found in the following pieces, which of course will also include attempts to wave away/explain these findings while maintaining the status quo talking points. A number of you will find these explanations compelling. I continue to keep my eyebrow raised, regardless. I remain skeptical of the role of everyday humans in causing imminent and/or near-term climate change. Sorry -- that's my position right now, subject to change, and nothing I've seen recently has changed this position. To the contrary, it's only added more bricks to the foundation that so much of what we're told to believe these days is outright BULLSHIT.

Time will tell, as always. And thus far, time has caused just about every climate doomer to look utterly foolish. Let's see if that trendline continues in the years ahead. On to a sampling of links, which y'all are welcome to deconstruct and interpret through your own cloudy lens:

Despite pandemic shutdowns, carbon dioxide and methane surged in 2020

Levels of the two most important anthropogenic greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, continued their unrelenting rise in 2020 despite the economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus pandemic response, NOAA announced today.

The global surface average for carbon dioxide (CO2), calculated from measurements collected at NOAA’s remote sampling locations, was 412.5 parts per million (ppm) in 2020, rising by 2.6 ppm during the year. The global rate of increase was the fifth-highest in NOAA’s 63-year record, following 1987, 1998, 2015 and 2016. The annual mean at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii was 414.4 ppm during 2020.

...

Analysis of samples from 2020 also showed a significant jump in the atmospheric burden of methane, which is far less abundant but 28 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year time frame. NOAA’s preliminary analysis showed the annual increase in atmospheric methane for 2020 was 14.7 parts per billion (ppb), which is the largest annual increase recorded since systematic measurements began in 1983. The global average burden of methane for December 2020, the last month for which data has been analyzed, was 1892.3 ppb. That would represent an increase of about 119 ppb, or 6 percent, since 2000.

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMI ... ed-in-2020

Yes, I skipped past the explanation proffered by the "Assistant Deputy Director", as I disagree with his contention for reasons well beyond the confines of the above-linked article. Others are welcome to believe otherwise -- fine by me.

Here's another related piece from CalTech:

A Climate Conundrum: Why Didn’t Atmospheric CO2 Fall During the Pandemic?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, carbon dioxide increased at the same rate in the atmosphere despite lower emissions, say researchers from campus and JPL; plus, what is good for ozone reduction is bad for methane removal.

A comprehensive new survey of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on the atmosphere that uses satellite data from NASA and other international space agencies offers insights into addressing the dual threats of climate warming and air pollution.

“We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” says Joshua Laughner, lead author of the study and a former postdoctoral fellow in the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences who now works at JPL, which Caltech manages for NASA. “To understand what is driving changes to the atmosphere, we must consider how air quality and climate influence each other.”

Published in November 2021 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper developed out of a workshop sponsored by the W. M. Keck Institute for Space Studies and led by scientists on campus and at JPL. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting limitations put on travel and other economic sectors by countries around the globe drastically decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within just a few weeks. However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. While the drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean did not absorb as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has in recent years, probably due to the reduced pressure of carbon dioxide in the air at the ocean’s surface.

https://magazine.caltech.edu/post/atmos ... d-pandemic

And here's another snippet, also from NOAA:

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/covid2.html

Whatever the take-away may be from the above 3 samples, one thing is clear: LOCKDOWNS WON'T FUCKING HELP THE CLIMATE.

So any fucking climate-related lockdown proposals that may be raised soon or at any time in the future are ANTI-SCIENCE and FASCIST.

Then there's a recent finding published last year in the Nature journal Climate and Atmospheric Science -- largely ignored by the press -- by six top international scientists led by Nour-Eddine Omrani of the Norwegian Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research. The scientists say that the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, an important sea current that has been pumping warmer water into the Arctic, is weakening and that’s leading to a cooler North Atlantic area and lower temperatures, as was observed in the period 1950-1970.

Published: 13 July 2022
Coupled stratosphere-troposphere-Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its importance for near-future climate projection
Nour-Eddine Omrani, Noel Keenlyside, Katja Matthes, Lina Boljka, Davide Zanchettin, Johann H. Jungclaus & Sandro W. Lubis
npj

Climate and Atmospheric Science volume 5, Article number: 59 (2022)

Abstract

Northern Hemisphere (NH) climate has experienced various coherent wintertime multidecadal climate trends in stratosphere, troposphere, ocean, and cryosphere. However, the overall mechanistic framework linking these trends is not well established. Here we show, using long-term transient forced coupled climate simulation, that large parts of the coherent NH-multidecadal changes can be understood within a damped coupled stratosphere/troposphere/ocean-oscillation framework. Wave-induced downward propagating positive stratosphere/troposphere-coupled Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and associated stratospheric cooling initiate delayed thermohaline strengthening of Atlantic overturning circulation and extratropical Atlantic-gyres. These increase the poleward oceanic heat transport leading to Arctic sea-ice melting, Arctic warming amplification, and large-scale Atlantic warming, which in turn initiates wave-induced downward propagating negative NAM and stratospheric warming and therefore reverse the oscillation phase. This coupled variability improves the performance of statistical models, which project further weakening of North Atlantic Oscillation, North Atlantic cooling and hiatus in wintertime North Atlantic-Arctic sea-ice and global surface temperature just like the 1950s–1970s.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00275-1

Of note:
The six scientists still attribute some global warming to human causes. The Northern hemisphere is characterised by “several multidecadal climate trends that have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change”. But producing work that predicts 30 years of global cooling puts them outside the ‘settled’ narrative that claims human-produced carbon dioxide is the main – possibly the only – determinant of global and local temperatures. At the very least, it tamps down the hysteria pushing for almost immediate and punitive 'net-zero' measures.

(Relevant side-note: Arctic summer sea ice stopped declining about a decade ago and has shown recent growth. The Greenland surface ice sheet grew by almost 500 billion tonnes in the year to August 2022, and this was nearly equivalent to its estimated annual loss. despite comments by Sir David Attenborough telling his BBC Frozen Planet II audience that the summer sea ice could all be gone within 12 years)

Before moving on, one more link specific to C02. I don't claim any strong position on the findings of this piece -- I share it here only for added consideration.

https://rclutz.com/2022/03/20/temps-cau ... 22-update/

First, for those that will likely be more interested in attacking the messenger rather than the content, about the author:

Ron Clutz
Montreal, Canada

Ron Clutz has more than 30 years experience leading projects analyzing and transforming organizational processes and structures. Ron has designed and administered change management programs involving small groups of executives, as well as organizational interventions involving several hundred people. He has given seminars and lectures and has written manuals and articles on task-group leadership and on strategic planning. As a KPMG partner until 1997 he led that firm's work in Organizational Effectiveness

On to the intro excerpt to the lengthy piece:

Temps Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse.
2022 Update

Update March 23, 2022

For a possible explanation of natural warming and CO2 emissions see: Little Ice Age Warming Recovery May be Over

This post is about proving that CO2 changes in response to temperature changes, not the other way around, as is often claimed. In order to do that we need two datasets: one for measurements of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time and one for estimates of Global Mean Temperature changes over time.

Climate science is unsettling because past data are not fixed, but change later on. I ran into this previously and now again in 2021 and 2022 when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers (discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end). Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up. The two sources of data were:

Temperature anomalies from RSS here: http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu

CO2 monthly levels from NOAA (Mauna Loa): https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html

Changes in CO2 (ΔCO2)
Uploading the CO2 dataset showed that many numbers had changed (why?).



The blue line shows annual observed differences in monthly values year over year, e.g. June 2020 minus June 2019 etc. The first 12 months (1979) provide the observed starting values from which differentials are calculated. The orange line shows those CO2 values changed slightly in the 2020 dataset vs. the 2014 dataset, on average +0.035 ppm. But there is no pattern or trend added, and deviations vary randomly between + and -. So last year I took the 2020 dataset to replace the older one for updating the analysis.

Now I find the NOAA dataset in 2021 has almost completely new values due to a method shift in February 2021, requiring a recalibration of all previous measurements. The new picture of ΔCO2 is graphed below.



The method shift is reported at a NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory webpage, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) WMO Scale, with a justification for the difference between X2007 results and the new results from X2019 now in force. The orange line shows that the shift has resulted in higher values, especially early on and a general slightly increasing trend over time. However, these are small variations at the decimal level on values 340 and above. Further, the graph shows that yearly differentials month by month are virtually the same as before. Thus I redid the analysis with the new values.

Global Temperature Anomalies (ΔTemp)

The other time series was the record of global temperature anomalies according to RSS. The current RSS dataset is not at all the same as the past.

....

(Continued at link)

Finally -

A couple links on the proposed "green solutions" -- I shared other related pieces like this in earlier pages of this thread, but these 2 are worth adding here:

https://stopthesethings.com/2023/01/20/ ... -near-you/

Tonnes of Toxic Solar Panels Already Headed For A Landfill Near You
January 20, 2023 by stopthesethings



Solar panels were meant to be all sunshine and lollipops, with nothing but tingly virtuous feelings for their subsidised owners. With an effective economic lifespan of little more than a decade – after 12 years in service their output is nothing like their original capacity and at the 15-year mark, it becomes a pointless fraction, especially if they’re not cleaned on a very regular basis. Which is the reason why millions of panels are already being crushed and dumped in landfills, with millions more to follow.

Got a landfill in your neighbourhood? Well it’s probably time to do some homework on what is being dumped there.

Solar panels are a veritable toxic cocktail of gallium arsenide, tellurium, silver, crystalline silicon, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals. Ground up and dumped in their millions into landfills, it’s not difficult to imagine the effect on water supplies, the environment and human health as their poisonous entrails leach into the water table over the coming centuries.

John Droz helps rain on the ‘solar can do no wrong’ parade, below.

Solar Realities
Election Integrity
John Droz
13 December 2022

Part 1 – Summary of Solar Energy Concerns

Let’s step back, put aside the marketing hype, and look at some of the key consequences of promoting and subsidizing industrial solar energy:

Solar projects rarely have meaningful state rules or regulations to abide by (note: a similar situation also exists for another current political favorite: wind energy);
Solar lobbyists often attempt to further handicap local communities from enacting meaningful regulations, by advocating an expedited approval process;
Solar projects require 100% backup, so we must pay for twice the energy sources;
Solar projects require 100% backup, which is typically from gas, so that needs to be factored in when discussing cost, environmental impact, CO2 reduction, etc.;
Solar facilities are likely a net energy sink (e.g., see this study);
When a comprehensive and objective financial analysis is done, solar is 5x± the cost of conventional electrical energy sources (e.g., here, here, here, here & here);
Despite states shelling out Billions of dollars to benefit the solar industry, no scientific, thorough, objective studies have shown that solar is a net benefit. See this 2021 Study: Built Solar Facilities are Chronically Underperforming;
Solar has a high potential for substantial environmental harm, like polluting
aquifers with carcinogens (e.g., here, here, here, here and here) [also see Part 2];
Solar will likely reduce nearby home values (e.g., here, here, and here);
Solar can take prime farmland out of production (e.g., here), which results in loss of jobs, loss of farm equipment & supplies sold, and a loss of consumer produce;
Solar facilities with batteries can be a major hazard (e.g., here and here);
Solar facilities can be problematic to nearby airports (e.g., FAA, study and study);
Solar results in an enormous toxic disposal problem for the state (e.g., here, here, here, and here) — who will pay for that and where are the state rules about this?
Solar has no scientifically-proven consequential net reduction of climate change! In fact, some studies (e.g., here, here, here, here, here and here) conclude that there’s good evidence that solar facilities make climate change worse; and
Going solar likely benefits Communist China (e.g., here here, and here).’
Some additional sample relevant information about solar energy:

Uncle Sam’s Solar Racket — a Cesspool of Waste and Corruption
Wind and Solar Are Intermittent and Incapable of Meeting Our Needs
Why Wind and Solar Energy are Doomed to Failure
Surprising Disadvantages of Using Solar Energy
Leaders Hopelessly Misguided on Wind and Solar Power
Study: The More Solar on the Grid, the Less Value it Has
Cost Comparison: Actual Nuclear vs Solar Facilities
Part 2 – Solar Panel Toxicity Overview

When potential solar project host communities ask solar developers what toxic materials are in their solar panels, they typically say that they are not aware of any.

Although that may seem evasive, it may be an accurate response as:

most solar panels come from China,
China does not have anywhere near the environmental concern that we do, and
Chinese suppliers are unlikely to divulge negative information about their products.
The takeaway is: buyer beware. In other words, potential host communities for industrial solar facilities should be aware of what we do know — and then act accordingly to fully protect their community.

So what DO we know? We know that these are some of the toxic (some carcinogenic) chemicals that have been identified as likely being in solar panels (click on the links to get an idea of what some of the adverse health consequences are):

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAs) (also see here and here)
Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS)
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
Fluorinated Ethylene (FEP)
Cadmium Telluride
Copper Indium Selenide
Cadmium Gallium diselenide
Copper Indium Gallium diselenide
Silicon Tetrachloride
Hexafluoroethane
Polyvinyl Fluoride

Also, here is a basic explanation of the silicon manufacturing part of solar panels. The following are some additional toxic chemicals that have been identified as possibly being involved in the fabrication of solar panels, which might end up in the finished product:

Hydrogen chloride
Silicon tetrachloride
Hydrochloric acid
Sulfuric acid
Nitric acid
Sulfuric acid
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Formaldehyde
Arsine gas
Trichlorosilane gas
Silane gas
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur hexaflouride
Sodium hydroxide
Potassium hydroxide
Lead

Now that they have been alerted to the severity of the solar panel toxicity issue, what do conscientious states and communities do to protect their citizens and eco-systems from these life-threatening chemicals?

With solar, there are two major concerns with these toxic materials:

Over the 20± year estimated life of solar panels, how do states and local communities make sure that these chemicals will not migrate from solar panels into soils and local aquifers? and
How will solar panels with these materials be safely disposed of at the end of their useful life, and who will pay for it?(Note: these panels will not biodegrade, plus it is extremely difficult to recycle very much of these panels.)
The answers to both questions should primarily be found in state laws, and secondarily in local ordinances.

It is unconscionable to have state legislators mandate solar projects (e.g., via Renewable Portfolio Standards [RPS] legislation), yet not likewise pass accompanying appropriate legislation to protect their citizens (and environment) from the well-documented toxic threats that can result from their RPS.

Additionally, for state legislators to throw the responsibility of protecting citizens and the environment onto the backs of local representatives, is beyond unreasonable. In North Carolina, for example, what sense does it make to require that a hundred counties must get educated on the impacts of these toxic materials, and then write (and pass) a hundred local ordinances that try to address that threat to their communities?
Election Integrity

And this, on Electric Vehicles (EVs) and related mining required for the batteries.

https://bfrandall.substack.com/p/anothe ... medium=web

Another Mining Truth Bomb from John Lee Pettimore - EVs Are Anything But "Green"

EV Mandates Are Absurd

Ok, lets talk about EVs. How much mining is required to make an EV battery? Lithium brines typically contain less than 0.1% lithium, so that entails some 25,000 pounds of brines to get the 25 pounds of pure lithium needed to fabricate a single battery. #GreenEnergy

Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore.

Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore.

Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery.

Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery.

In total then, acquiring just these five elements to produce the 1,000-pound EV battery requires mining about 90,000 pounds of ore.

But before we get to any of that ore we must remove the overburden. What is overburden? Its the dirt/rock we must remove to get to the ore body.


Overburden ranges from about 3 to 20 tons of earth removed to access each ton of ore. This means that accessing about 90,000 pounds of ore requires digging and moving between 200,000 and over 1,500,000 pounds of earth or about 500,000 pounds per battery.

Great now that we are into the ore body now what? Now we have to haul it, crush it, run it through ball mills and chemicals in order to get the final product. This is a picture of typical ball mills used to further crush the rock.

Before we begin the mining process we need drills, shovels, haul trucks, support equipment explosives and manpower. Millions of gallons of fuel, oils and coolants, because without these there is no #GreenEnergy mining.



Analyses show that manufacturing a single battery, one capable of holding energy that is equivalent to one barrel of oil, entails processes that use the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil.

And if the batteries are manufactured in Asia (as 60% of the world’s batteries are now), more than 60% of the electricity to do so is coal-fired. In 2022, China produced a record amount of coal at 4.496 billion tonnes, which is nine percent more than the year before.

Non-battery, electrical systems in an EV use some 300% more overall copper compared with a conventional automobile. How much more mining do we have to do for that?

John Lee Pettimore
@JohnLeePettim13

I get a lot of replies on my tweets, "Make mining Green" Energy consumption of mining is 6.2% of the total global energy consumption. The annual global energy consumption is 580 million terajoules or the energy equivalent of a Hiroshima nuclear bomb going off every four seconds.

@JohnLeePettim13

Renewable energy is expected to grow from 2-6% of global primary energy use by 2030, but in order for that to happen we must mine more, a lot more.

7:23 PM · Jan 19, 2023

@JohnLeePettim13

48,500 active haul trucks (over 90 tons) at surface mines worldwide. The cost to run each truck on average is $500 per hr. $582,000,000 spent every 24 hours worldwide to operate these trucks. Each truck gets approx. 1/2 a mile per gal. You cant make #GreenEnergy without mining.

Linda Marie Lovison
@lilo623

Replying to @DameScorpio and @JBillLevy

"A single Tesla battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. At this rate, over the next thirty years we will need to mine more mineral ores than humans have extracted over the last 70,000 years."
@JohnLeePettim13



#GreenEnergy

Wake up, sheep. Or stay asleep.

[Gnomad]

Canada performing more organ transplants from MAID donors than any country in the world
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-performing-more-organ-transplants-from-maid-donors-than-any-country-in-the-world-1.6234133?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A%7B%7Bcampaignname%7D%7D%3Atwitterpost%E2%80%8B&taid=63c6e484e2457e0001a588ef&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

That is pretty damning shit.
When did they first start doing assisted death? Is this a new development?

Edit: To clarify - is assisted death pushed on people in Canada?
Personally I would like to have an option for a painless death when I am in a condition where I no longer see prospects for good life - I have actually discussed this with a MD friend of mine.
Its a problem if people are not making the choice purely out of their own will.

[stickdog99]

SHAME, SHAME!

You quoted the disgusting views of a disgusting "human activity is destroying the climate denying" Republican!

SHAME, SHAME!

What were you thinking?

SHAME, SHAME!

I mean, come on. Is this what now passes for reasoned discussion about anything among the true true believers?

[Gnomad]

BelligerentSavant, where did you get the claim that Greenland ice sheet would have recovered?
https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2022/11/

The 2022 melt season in Greenland overall (April 1 to October 31) had a cumulative total of 22.1 million square kilometers (8.53 million square miles) of melt, placing it at nineteenth highest in the 43-year satellite record (Figure 1b). While this is 18.1 million square kilometers (6.99 million square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average, it is below the average for the twenty-first century years of 2001 to 2022 by 26.3 million square kilometers (10.2 million square miles). Though recent years have not reached or exceeded the extreme melting totals of 2010, 2012, or 2016, the past two decades continue to have consistently more melting than earlier years.

This set record warm conditions and unprecedented surface melt extents through the month relative to the 40+ year satellite record. In most years, the September cumulative melt area totals do not exceed 1 million square kilometers (386,000 square miles). The 1981 to 2010 average is 486,000 square kilometers (188,000 square miles). By contrast, the 2022 cumulative melt area total was 3.9 million square kilometers (1.51 million square miles), more than doubling the previous record September melt. The record September prior to 2022 was 2010, with 1.6 million square kilometers (618,000 square miles).

As well as https://www.livescience.com/greenland-i ... ted-states

According to new satellite data compiled by Polar Portal (opens in new tab), a collection of four Danish government research institutions, Greenland has lost more than 5,100 billion tons (4,700 billion metric tons) of ice in the past 20 years — or roughly enough to flood the entire United States in 1.6 feet (0.5 meters) of water.

(meaning the amount of water lost from the ice would cover that area - aka banana for scale)

Antarctic:
https://phys.org/news/2023-01-runaway-a ... lapse.html

The runaway collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet—which would trigger catastrophic sea level rise—is not "inevitable", scientists said Monday following research that tracked the region's recent response to climate change.

As global temperatures rise, there is mounting concern that warming could trigger so-called tipping points that set off irreversible melting of the world's massive ice sheets and ultimately lift oceans enough to drastically redraw the world map.

New research published Monday suggests a complex interaction of factors affecting the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is home to the enormous and unstable Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers—nicknamed the "Doomsday glacier"—that together could raise global sea levels by more than three meters (10 feet).

Using satellite imagery as well as ocean and climate records between 2003 and 2015, an international team of researchers found that while the West Antarctic Ice Sheet continued to retreat, the pace of ice loss slowed across a vulnerable region of the coastline.

Their study, published in the journal Nature Communications, concluded that this slowdown was caused by changes in ocean temperatures that were caused by offshore winds, with pronounced differences in the impact depending on the region.

Researchers said that this raises questions about how rising temperatures will affect the Antarctic, with ocean and atmospheric conditions playing a key role.

"That means that ice-sheet collapse is not inevitable," said co-author Professor Eric Steig from the University of Washington in Seattle.

"It depends on how climate changes over the next few decades, which we could influence in a positive way by reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

The researchers observed that while in one region, in the Bellingshausen Sea, the pace of ice retreat accelerated after 2003, it slowed in the Amundsen Sea.
'Blink of an eye'

They concluded that this was down to changes in the strength and direction of offshore surface winds, which can change the ocean currents and disturb the layer of cold water around Antarctica and flush relatively warmer water towards the ice.

Both the North and South pole regions have warmed by roughly three degrees Celsius compared to late 19th-century levels, nearly three times the global average.

As well as this https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/31 ... 2002-2020/ A graphical presentation of the data included

Regarding electric cars and such, I am strongly of the opinion that they are not a solution of any kind. Our main problem is that we use way too much of all kinds of resources, and the solution is to use less, not try to invent some kind of non-existent "sustainable growth" - there is no such thing. The visualizations I posted on the previous page point exactly at this - even if we ignore the whole climate issue, we are left with a huge problem of ecosystems being harmed all over the planet, because we just consume, consume and consume. And what we produce and consume ends up all around the place, and is made from such materials and chemicals that do not degrade biologically, so they stay around for long periods of time, and accumulate.

We are not being offered any real solutions to this, because a real solution would be addressing the whole capitalist system and growth-based economy - the very basis of our economic systems at the moment. The guys at WEF and Davos are only looking for band-aids so they could go on as they always have. Any real solution would require a total change away from this system.

We need to consume less, conserve ecological diversity, get rid of cars and airplanes as the main mode of transport, build our cities so they have large green spaces - and cycling, walking and public transport as main modes, and trains for long-distance travel and freight. And reduce all unnecessary consumption. Prefreably including stopping farming of animals for food, because you need to feed an animal 80-90% more food than would be needed when eating plants directly. So a huge reduction in resource use and farmland needed, as well as fertilizers.