NY Times Blames Whittle, Crowder, Shapiro, Molyneux, YouTube, for Making Alt-Right Radical

Published on Jun 11, 2019



Greenland Glacier is Growing, Not Melting

Greenland glacier reverses stunned scientists, according to the Weather Channel. This is illustrating that everything is subject to a cycle. Many argue it is only temporary. But the winters have been getting colder for the past three years. As I have stated previously, this could be just a reaction of up to three years. If we see another cold winter next year, then we should expect this colder climate change into 2024/2025.

Climate Change – the Elections Issue

In Australia, the polls said this would be  a climate change election because the voters were confronted by a drought that they were blaming on human causes. Tony Abbott, the former prime minister, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. There were a few other new candidates who used climate change and also won. Nevertheless, the people voted against the whole climate change argument and in a surprise victory, the conservatives won.

The US 2020 elections appear to be heading in the same direction. Climate change will be a major campaign issue in 2020. Climate change is the top issue among Democratic voters, according to a new national poll. A CNN poll found that 82% of registered voters who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents listed climate change as a “very important” top priority they’d like to see get the focus of a presidential candidate (see the Hill). During the 2016 general election, no journalist even asked the presidential candidates a debate question on the topic of climate change. As the 2020 race begins to take shape, it appears that the Democrats will rely on bashing Trump and climate change. What do climate-motivated voters really want? And how is the issue likely to change the race? Do they really want to end air traffic? Do they want to force people to have electric cars? Maybe — at least the USA.


Germany’s New Green Deal Has Failed – Energiewende

On March 11, 2011, when an earthquake-triggered tsunami damaged the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, Chancellor Merkel and her cabinet held that nuclear power in Germany had to come to an end. It was a historic event and a historic decision (see Der Spiegel). The new green deal of Merkel quickly became bogged down in the details of German reality and the impracticability of the whole idea. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favor of renewables, was a major project that was up there with Germany’s reunification. After eight years, it is facing complete failure. Germany’s leaders in Berlin committed themselves to a project. They introduced laws, decrees, and guidelines with a complete lack of coordination, demonstrating once again that government is incapable of proper management skills.

With all the hype about pollution and greenhouse gases, Germany is still producing electricity by burning coal. German houses are still dependent on oil and natural gas furnaces, and the streets are still packed with the cars burning diesel when once upon a time they thought it was less polluting than gasoline-powered motors.

European carmakers are rolling out electric vehicles like the ones on view this week at the Paris Motor Show to burnish their reputations as technology leaders and compete with Tesla. But they are also doing this because EU regulations don’t leave them much choice. Europe’s automotive market is slowly getting charged. The drivers of electrification are EU regulatory agencies, which are imposing ever-stricter limits on carbon and nitrogen oxide pollution. The European Parliament has voted to mandate a 20% cut in CO2 emissions from new cars and vans in 2025, and a 40% reduction in 2030. The EU’s elected chamber rejected the European Commission’s more modest proposal of a 30% cut in 2030 compared to 2021 emission levels. The Parliament’s plan includes penalties for automakers that fail to meet sales targets, a key policy instrument the Commission had dropped from its proposal after lobbying by German carmakers.

With the bulk of electricity being produced by coal furnaces, it seems the lack of coordination and this drive for a new green deal is just far from organized and may have a tremendous impact upon the European economy as a whole. Nobody is addressing the heating of homes on top of this and the wind power that has failed to provide a viable alternative.

Pumped Dry: The Global Crisis of Vanishing Groundwater | USA TODAY

Published on Aug 14, 2018

In places around the world, supplies of groundwater are rapidly vanishing. As aquifers decline and wells begin to go dry, people are being forced to confront a growing crisis.

Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts

Published on Sep 17, 2012

Spencer Michels interviews one of the nations’s most read climate skeptics Anthony Watts. Watts believes much of the data used to support global warming theories is faulty. The big problem, as Watts sees it, is that the stations were temperatures are gathered are too close to urban developments where heat is soaked up and distorts the readings. So it looks like the earth is warming though it may not be.

California’s Renewable Energy Problem

Published on May 25, 2019

Be one of the first 500 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! https://brilliant.org/realengineering/ New vlog channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMet… Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=282505… Facebook: http://facebook.com/realengineering1 Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/RealEngineer… Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brianjamesm… Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fiosracht Discord: https://discord.gg/s8BhkmN Get your Real Engineering shirts at: https://standard.tv/collections/real-…

Global Warming – Just Follow the Money

I just returned from New York City, the armpit of the world since I never saw an apple tree there yet, and I had a very interesting meeting behind the curtain. I thought I would share this subject which they agreed I could go public on without names of course. Besides the fact that there is an understanding that this entire Global Warming scenario is acknowledged nonsense for in real science you debate whereas this agenda seeks to shut down any debate whatsoever, there has been a geopolitical agenda that has been going on which is also why Trump has refused to join the club.

There are those who were using this movement for geopolitical reasons trying to oppress emerging markets which included China. When I was in Beijing back in 1997, 95% of the people were on bicycles. Today, perhaps 5% use bicycles that notice on the streets. There were far more people riding bicycles in Amsterdam than in Beijing based on just my observations on my last trip to both places. In just 5 years, China had poured more concrete in their infrastructure than the United States had poured since the Great Depression. Trying to ban coal was perhaps a covert move to try to keep China from expanding. But it had other problems. Angela Merkel banned nuclear power after the Japan nuclear disaster yet this meant that Germany would still be in a position to produce energy by coal. In Sweden, they used the Global Warming agenda to move to nuclear power.

The other covert agenda only required the simple task of following the money. From the very beginning, the movement to create nuclear power plants funded the agenda of Global Warming to clear the resistance to move to what they were calling a “cleaner” form of energy. The Trump administration has repeatedly vowed to help revitalize the nation’s nuclear power industry, which has struggled to compete with cheap renewables and natural gas. However, he has been unable to get that through Congress.

Meanwhile, the U.S. did agree to build six nuclear reactors in India, which has plans to massively scale up its nuclear-power program to meet the country’s growing energy demands as it reduces emissions. There is no doubt that the Global Warming agenda has also begun as a means to further the nuclear power industry in international markets.

The compelling argument used to convince that the world must turn to nuclear power plants centers on the fact that it is carbon-free energy to stave off global warming. It’s not at all clear that renewables can do the job alone and the dream of electric cars will never materialize without nuclear power on any grand scale. Nuclear is a proven technology, which already provides 11% of all electricity globally. They need the Global Warming propaganda to justify building nuclear power plants which are far more costly to construct – $5 billion to $10 billion a pop. Sometimes, it just helps to follow the money.

Al Gore to Hold Australian Climate Change Event to Discourage Australians From Mining Coal

Al Gore is still at it. At the expense to Australian taxpayers of $142,000, Gore will lead a three-day climate change lecture in Queensland. Gore will push his global warming theory, speaking at the Minister’s Climate Change event in Brisbane from June 5 to 7, 2019. The three-day climate change conference was supposed to include Labour leader Bill Shorten. The polls said Shorten would win the Federal Election, but in a surprise, he lost. The entire election was built on climate change and it did not go over very well at the voting booths. He intends to train between 800 and 1000 business and community leaders from across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region during the climate change event to adopt his theory, even though the analysis is linear and has failed with both of his movies.

As a side note, Queensland is experiencing bitter cold – perfect timing!

A Technical Study in the Relationships of Solar Flux, Water, Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperatures, April 2019 Data

From the attached report on climate change for April 2019 we have the two charts showing how much has the global temperature actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere? To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up about 30.0% from 1958 to April of 2019. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 40 % on the left and 4% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .30%; while CO2 has increased by 30.0% which is 100 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem? The numbers tell us no there isn’t.

The next chart is Chart 8a which is the same as Chart 8 except for the scales which are the same for both CO2 and Temperature. As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for the previous chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2. Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius. This is what the data shows no matter what the reasons are, so I have no idea how the IPCC gets to predict that the world will end in ten or even twenty years.

The full 37 page report explains how these charts were developed and why using NASA and NOAA data are used with out change to prove that The New Green Deal is not required and any attempt to compliment that plan will be a world wide disaster.

Click on the link below for the full report that you can download.