iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Nuking the anti-nuke crowd

Nuking the anti-nuke crowd

Experts agree the tide has turned in nuclear power ’ s favor , but obstacles remain How has the Trump Administration fared in meeting the multiple challenges that have slowed the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. to a near-halt ?
And what are the prospects for nuclear energy in a Biden-Harris Administration ?
It ’ s time to nuke the anti-nuke crowd , and it seems to be happening .
It is now seventy-five years since the U.S. ended the war against Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ( both currently thriving ) .
Eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his world-famous “ Atoms for Peace ” speech before the United Nations , invited citizens to the debate over using nuclear science and technology for power generation .
President Kennedy switched the nation ’ s attention from nuclear to the space program but , beginning in the Nixon Administration and augmented following the 1973 oil embargo through the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 , the U.S. authorized most of the 61 plants and 99 nuclear reactors still operating in 2017 .
As President Trump took office , the Aspen Institute issued a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. is at a moment of existential crisis .
If the present challenges are not addressed , the future of nuclear energy may be far less promising and superior U.S. nuclear expertise diminished.
” President Obama ’ s Clean Energy Plan provided funding for nuclear energy , including creating the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear ( GAIN ) .
In 2012 , despite objections by the chairman , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC ) authorized Southern Company to build and operate two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear power plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USA since 1979 .
The Aspen report boldly asserted that the U.S. needs a strong domestic nuclear program to maintain its exceptional competence to address safety , threat reduction , and nonproliferation issues .
They courted the environmental community by noting that nuclear is a necessary component in the war against climate change , if we are to also maintain an adequate supply of affordable electricity .
“ A world without nuclear power , ” the authors concluded , “ would require an incredible – and likely unrealistic – amount of renewables to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observed that Americans are generally supportive of nuclear power but concerned about nuclear waste .
Worse , far too many nuclear power plants in development have broken budgets and fallen behind schedule .
Given the lack of political will or a national energy crisis at the time , the authors placed their hopes on advanced reactors that use new types of coolants , operate at different pressures and temperatures , or are smaller and more modular .
Many now view nuclear waste as an overhyped , unscientific issue .
In a 2019 paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the fear of nuclear waste is largely unfounded – an issue “ hugely exaggerated when we were trying to scare people away from nuclear.
” The total amount of nuclear waste accumulated over the past 60 years from all U.S. nuclear power plants would fit inside a two-story building covering one city block .
Unfounded fear applies to power plant radiation , as well .
Cost overruns and delays are largely the product of anti-nuclear attitudes that have driven regulation to extremes that are inappropriate for newer reactor designs .
In April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership and competitive nuclear advantage .
The first step outlined in the plan is to revive and strengthen America ’ s uranium mining industry , support uranium conversion services , end reliance on foreign uranium enrichment , and sustain the current fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines .
Other objectives include creating a Uranium Reserve , streamlining regulatory reform and land access for uranium extraction ( cutting red tape ) , supporting the National Reactor Innovation Center and Versatile Test Reactor , demonstrating the use of Small Modular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power federal facilities , and adding protections to prevent future uranium dumping into the U.S. market .
In November , the Associated Press reported that the Idaho National Laboratory was the Energy Department ’ s first choice for constructing and operating the Versatile Test Reactor ( VTR ) .
This first new test reactor built in the U.S. in decades would give the nation a dedicated “ fast-neutron-spectrum ” testing capability .
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette explained that the VTR “ continues to be a high-priority project for DOE to ensure nuclear energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s energy portfolio.
” Meanwhile , Llewellyn King reports that an active community of entrepreneurs is promoting reactors of various designs ( including molten salt modular reactors ) , using seed money for SMRs provided through the Obama-era GAIN program .
The increase in private investment in nuclear technology and development is a strong sign that nuclear may have finally overcome the media-induced stigma resulting from Three Mile Island , Chernobyl , and Fukushima .
In reality , the Chernobyl accident happened largely because a test procedure started going wrong when senior technicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made wrong decisions that rapidly compounded the disaster , nuclear physicist Kelvin Kemm explains .
Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger notes that radiation from Chernobyl “ will kill at most 200 people , while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile will kill zero people.
” Moreover , despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of women aborted their babies after the Chernobyl incident , UCLA researchers found that children born near Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities .
Further advancing President Trump ’ s efforts to establish a U.S. national strategic uranium reserve , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently approved a bipartisan bill , the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act ( ANIA ) .
Uranium Energy Corp CEO Amir Adnani called it “ broad-reaching legislation , important for supporting the U.S. nuclear fuel industry , national security , and clean energy.
” Under ANIA , the Department of Energy may only buy uranium recovered from facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent agreement state agencies ; uranium from companies owned by , controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction of Russia or China would be excluded .
According to several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry on or even accelerate Obama and Trump efforts to revitalize and prioritize U.S. nuclear energy programs .
The primary difference between Trump and Biden nuclear policies , says progressive policy analyst James Conca , is that Biden ’ s is part of a climate change agenda , while Trump ’ s focus was on national security concerns .
“ Leading climate scientists ” say we can not address climate change without significant nuclear power , Conca contends .
So supporting nuclear power – or not – is a clear signal about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ how serious they are about supporting science over mere activism.
” He added , “ if Democrats want any clean energy plan to succeed at all , it better include nuclear.
” Washington Examiner energy reporter Josh Siegel says “ Biden ’ s support for nuclear power … promises to be one of the rare instances of energy policy continuity between the incoming and outgoing administrations.
” Democrats , he believes , finally realize that wind and solar alone are insufficient to decarbonize the power grid and are starting to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , all this will also require a new reality-based public attitude about the risks of radiation , be it from nuclear power plants , nuclear waste storage or other sources , says energy journalist Robert Bryce .
There is one more huge caveat .
Should Kamala Harris for any reason replace Biden as Commander-in-Chief , her support for nuclear power is far less assured .
Asked during the 2020 Presidential campaign whether she supported nuclear energy , she replied on multiple occasions : “ Yes , temporarily , while we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s not exactly a ringing endorsement , nor even an acknowledgment of the growing bipartisan energy reality .
And it certainly doesn ’ t explain how millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels , billions of battery modules – and massive increases in mining , metals processing and manufacturing , to build those technologies – are “ clean , green , renewable or sustainable ” alternatives to fossil fuels .
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org )

Experts agree the tide has turned in nuclear power’s favor, but obstacles remain
Duggan Flanakin
How has the Trump Administration fared in meeting the multiple challenges that have slowed the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. to a near-halt? And what are the prospects for nuclear energy in a Biden-Harris Administration? It’s time to nuke the anti-nuke crowd, and it seems to be happening.
It is now seventy-five years since the U.S. ended the war against Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both currently thriving). Eight years later, President Eisenhower, in his world-famous “Atoms for Peace” speech before the United Nations, invited citizens to the debate over using nuclear science and technology for power generation.
President Kennedy switched the nation’s attention from nuclear to the space program but, beginning in the Nixon Administration and augmented following the 1973 oil embargo through the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, the U.S. authorized most of the 61 plants and 99 nuclear reactors still operating in 2017. As President Trump took office, the Aspen Institute issued a report stating, “Nuclear power in the U.S. is at a moment of existential crisis. If the present challenges are not addressed, the future of nuclear energy may be far less promising and superior U.S. nuclear expertise diminished.”
President Obama’s Clean Energy Plan provided funding for nuclear energy, including creating the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN). In 2012, despite objections by the chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorized Southern Company to build and operate two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, the first in the USA since 1979.
The Aspen report boldly asserted that the U.S. needs a strong domestic nuclear program to maintain its exceptional competence to address safety, threat reduction, and nonproliferation issues. They courted the environmental community by noting that nuclear is a necessary component in the war against climate change, if we are to also maintain an adequate supply of affordable electricity. “A world without nuclear power,” the authors concluded, “would require an incredible – and likely unrealistic – amount of renewables to meet climate targets.”
The Aspen authors observed that Americans are generally supportive of nuclear power but concerned about nuclear waste. Worse, far too many nuclear power plants in development have broken budgets and fallen behind schedule. Given the lack of political will or a national energy crisis at the time, the authors placed their hopes on advanced reactors that use new types of coolants, operate at different pressures and temperatures, or are smaller and more modular.
Many now view nuclear waste as an overhyped, unscientific issue. In a 2019 paper, Aspen Institute trustee Bill Budinger argued that the fear of nuclear waste is largely unfounded – an issue “hugely exaggerated when we were trying to scare people away from nuclear.” The total amount of nuclear waste accumulated over the past 60 years from all U.S. nuclear power plants would fit inside a two-story building covering one city block. Unfounded fear applies to power plant radiation, as well.
Cost overruns and delays are largely the product of anti-nuclear attitudes that have driven regulation to extremes that are inappropriate for newer reactor designs.
In April 2020 President Trump unveiled his Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership and competitive nuclear advantage. The first step outlined in the plan is to revive and strengthen America’s uranium mining industry, support uranium conversion services, end reliance on foreign uranium enrichment, and sustain the current fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.
Other objectives include creating a Uranium Reserve, streamlining regulatory reform and land access for uranium extraction (cutting red tape), supporting the National Reactor Innovation Center and Versatile Test Reactor, demonstrating the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and micro-reactors to power federal facilities, and adding protections to prevent future uranium dumping into the U.S. market.
In November, the Associated Press reported that the Idaho National Laboratory was the Energy Department’s first choice for constructing and operating the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR). This first new test reactor built in the U.S. in decades would give the nation a dedicated “fast-neutron-spectrum” testing capability. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette explained that the VTR “continues to be a high-priority project for DOE to ensure nuclear energy plays a role in our country’s energy portfolio.”
Meanwhile, Llewellyn King reports that an active community of entrepreneurs is promoting reactors of various designs (including molten salt modular reactors), using seed money for SMRs provided through the Obama-era GAIN program. The increase in private investment in nuclear technology and development is a strong sign that nuclear may have finally overcome the media-induced stigma resulting from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
In reality, the Chernobyl accident happened largely because a test procedure started going wrong when senior technicians were off duty and less experienced technicians made wrong decisions that rapidly compounded the disaster, nuclear physicist Kelvin Kemm explains. Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger notes that radiation from Chernobyl “will kill at most 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile will kill zero people.” Moreover, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of women aborted their babies after the Chernobyl incident, UCLA researchers found that children born near Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities.
Further advancing President Trump’s efforts to establish a U.S. national strategic uranium reserve, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently approved a bipartisan bill, the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act (ANIA). Uranium Energy Corp CEO Amir Adnani called it “broad-reaching legislation, important for supporting the U.S. nuclear fuel industry, national security, and clean energy.”
Under ANIA, the Department of Energy may only buy uranium recovered from facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent agreement state agencies; uranium from companies owned by, controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction of Russia or China would be excluded.
According to several prognosticators, the presumed Biden Administration will carry on or even accelerate Obama and Trump efforts to revitalize and prioritize U.S. nuclear energy programs. The primary difference between Trump and Biden nuclear policies, says progressive policy analyst James Conca, is that Biden’s is part of a climate change agenda, while Trump’s focus was on national security concerns.
“Leading climate scientists” say we cannot address climate change without significant nuclear power, Conca contends. So supporting nuclear power – or not – is a clear signal about how serious candidates are about manmade climate change and “how serious they are about supporting science over mere activism.” He added, “if Democrats want any clean energy plan to succeed at all, it better include nuclear.”
Washington Examiner energy reporter Josh Siegel says “Biden’s support for nuclear power … promises to be one of the rare instances of energy policy continuity between the incoming and outgoing administrations.” Democrats, he believes, finally realize that wind and solar alone are insufficient to decarbonize the power grid and are starting to give up their longstanding opposition to nuclear energy.
Of course, all this will also require a new reality-based public attitude about the risks of radiation, be it from nuclear power plants, nuclear waste storage or other sources, says energy journalist Robert Bryce.
There is one more huge caveat. Should Kamala Harris for any reason replace Biden as Commander-in-Chief, her support for nuclear power is far less assured. Asked during the 2020 Presidential campaign whether she supported nuclear energy, she replied on multiple occasions:“Yes, temporarily, while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives.”
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, nor even an acknowledgment of the growing bipartisan energy reality. And it certainly doesn’t explain how millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules – and massive increases in mining, metals processing and manufacturing, to build those technologies – are “clean, green, renewable or sustainable” alternatives to fossil fuels.
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--James Woudhuysen: Net Zero will take over our lives

The new energy White Paper will force us to obsess over the minutiae of everyday energy consumption .
Surely everyone remembers Boris Johnson ’ s ‘ Green Industrial Revolution ’ , hyped in mid-November with his 10 Point Plan ?
Or maybe not .
So familiar was his shopping list of eco-initiatives that it wouldn ’ t be a surprise if many eyes glazed over .
But now more meat has been added , with the publication of a new , 170-page government White Paper : Powering our Net Zero Future .
Alok Sharma , minister for the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides a foreword and sets the tone .
Failure on the part of UK consumers to cut back on fossil fuels in their homes and cars , he says in a roundabout way , ‘ will result in natural catastrophes and changing weather patterns , as well as significant economic damage , supply chain disruption and displacement of populations ’ .
So far , so Greenpeace .
According to the White Paper , the government wants to encourage the insulation of homes , the ‘ rolling out ’ of smart meters , plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart tariffs .
There will be an end to conventional cars and vans , and , instead , a ‘ transition to clean , zero tailpipe emission vehicles ’ .
It all sounds expensive but there are a few nods to the affordability of it all for vulnerable households .
And , the government assures us , it will create new ‘ green ’ jobs .
But within four pages , a projection of ‘ up to ’ 250,000 green jobs by 2030 becomes ‘ up to 220,000 jobs per year ’ by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in perspective , Britain ’ s offshore wind sector currently supports just 7,200 direct jobs .
But apparently , we are just on the cusp of a global Green Industrial Revolution , the White Paper insists .
Powering our Net Zero Future is repetitive .
It predictably uses terrible English , replete with go-to clichés .
There are nearly 150 uses of that loaded adjective , ‘ clean ’ .
There ’ s also the usual limp jingoism , as in , ‘ We will continue to demonstrate international leadership ’ , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ‘ co-leadership of the Powering Past Coal Alliance ’ , whatever that might mean .
The problem with the White Paper , though , is not simply its surfeit of soundbites and its chaotic inconsistencies .
Tellingly , the relentless focus is on how we as members of the public need to be brought into line .
For instance , there are 300 mentions of homes and houses , but just four for factories , and three for lorries and trucks .
The main novelty of the White Paper is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ engage ’ consumers so that they can ‘ make a personal contribution to delivering a clean energy system ’ .
In other words , it demands more day-to-day involvement from us in managing our energy use .
What a bright , participative , democratic future for us all !
The post James Woudhuysen : Net Zero will take over our lives appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

The new energy White Paper will force us to obsess over the minutiae of everyday energy consumption.
Surely everyone remembers Boris Johnson’s ‘Green Industrial Revolution’, hyped in mid-November with his 10 Point Plan? Or maybe not. So familiar was his shopping list of eco-initiatives that it wouldn’t be a surprise if many eyes glazed over. But now more meat has been added, with the publication of a new, 170-page government White Paper: Powering our Net Zero Future .
Alok Sharma, minister for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, provides a foreword and sets the tone. Failure on the part of UK consumers to cut back on fossil fuels in their homes and cars, he says in a roundabout way, ‘will result in natural catastrophes and changing weather patterns, as well as significant economic damage, supply chain disruption and displacement of populations’. So far, so Greenpeace.
According to the White Paper, the government wants to encourage the insulation of homes, the ‘rolling out’ of smart meters, plus smart washing machines, smart dishwashers and smart tariffs. There will be an end to conventional cars and vans, and, instead, a ‘transition to clean, zero tailpipe emission vehicles’.
It all sounds expensive but there are a few nods to the affordability of it all for vulnerable households. And, the government assures us, it will create new ‘green’ jobs. But within four pages, a projection of ‘up to’ 250,000 green jobs by 2030 becomes ‘up to 220,000 jobs per year’ by 2030’. To put this speculation in perspective, Britain’s offshore wind sector currently supports just 7,200 direct jobs. But apparently, we are just on the cusp of a global Green Industrial Revolution, the White Paper insists.
Powering our Net Zero Future is repetitive. It predictably uses terrible English, replete with go-to clichés. There are nearly 150 uses of that loaded adjective, ‘clean’. There’s also the usual limp jingoism, as in, ‘We will continue to demonstrate international leadership’, and in a boast about the UK’s ‘co-leadership of the Powering Past Coal Alliance’, whatever that might mean.
The problem with the White Paper, though, is not simply its surfeit of soundbites and its chaotic inconsistencies. Tellingly, the relentless focus is on how we as members of the public need to be brought into line. For instance, there are 300 mentions of homes and houses, but just four for factories, and three for lorries and trucks. The main novelty of the White Paper is that it wants to use smart IT to help ‘engage’ consumers so that they can ‘make a personal contribution to delivering a clean energy system’. In other words, it demands more day-to-day involvement from us in managing our energy use. What a bright, participative, democratic future for us all!
The post James Woudhuysen: Net Zero will take over our lives appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3nAvRHh
December 19, 2020 at 04:40AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--How rich it is for privileged green politicos like Selwyn Gummer to make the poor pay for their eco-

How rich it is for privileged green politicos like Selwyn Gummer to make the poor pay for their eco-zealotry-Stephen Glover

Stephen Glover hots the nail on the head !
How easy it is for high-minded rich people to lay down the law for poorer folk .
They often haven ’ t the faintest idea of the effect of their expensive recommendations on ordinary lives .
The most recent example comes from the Committee on Climate Change ( CCC ) , a quango which advises the Government on measures to tackle climate change .
Yesterday it called for oil-fired boilers to be phased out by 2028 , and gas boilers by 2033 .
If you factor in insulation , which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ installing heat pumps as alternatives to boilers could work out at a minimum of £8,000 per household .
That is several times the price of a boiler .
Chris Stark , chief executive of the committee , whose handsome annual remuneration is £205,000 , says that ‘ a large proportion ’ of the expense ‘ should be met by households ’ , though he holds out the hope that the Treasury might help poorer people .
Mr Stark recently asserted that the costs of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050 — the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CCC ’ s advice — will be much less than previously thought .
Not , it seems , when it comes to splashing out on new heat pumps .
But I suppose that if you are scraping by on £205,000 a year , an outlay of £8,000 must seem a pretty derisory figure .
Another person who won ’ t be fretting about the cost of installing a heat pump is the CCC ’ s chairman , Lord Deben .
Readers may remember him as John Selwyn Gummer , who as Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990 made his four-year-old daughter eat a beef burger in front of the media .
Lord Deben is not short of a bob or two .
Last year it was revealed that he and his family own Sancroft International , a sustainability consultancy which has received more than £600,000 from ‘ green ’ businesses .
Perhaps surprisingly , the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards exonerated him of any conflict of interest .
His lordship is fortunate to own a sprawling country house in Suffolk , with a garden that was landscaped for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the expense of taxpayers , and partly as a gift from a food company .
Selwyn Gummer ( as he still was ) justified this unusual arrangement on the basis that his garden was visited by EU farm ministers .
Though his sizeable mansion may well require a constellation of heat pumps to power it , and double-glazing on an industrial scale to retain heat , I think we can safely say that Lord Deben will be able to meet the costs without too much difficulty .
But will millions of others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthy climate change zealots ( there are others besides Lord Deben and Mr Stark on the CCC who aptly fit that description ) loading substantial extra costs on them ?
How , indeed , would these hard-pressed people feel if they knew that the climate change committee cheerfully despatches staff on taxpayer-funded flights rather than choosing greener alternatives ?
A freedom of information request last year uncovered almost £10,000 worth of flights including a first-class return trip to Beijing costing £5,081 .
That particular jaunt produced an estimated carbon footprint of 9.2 tons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the equivalent journey in economy .
Most people , I believe , are prepared to take climate change seriously , though they need to be reminded that the UK accounts for less than one per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions , and that this country ’ s painful sacrifices won ’ t make much impact globally .
What they do not appreciate is being instructed to spend large sums in an uncertain cause by rich people working for a shadowy and unaccountable quango which is guilty of rank hypocrisy .
Oh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand by the CCC is that we should cut our consumption of meat by 20 per cent over the next nine years to help reduce emissions from cows and sheep .
Lord Deben , having virtually shoved a burger down his daughter ’ s throat , will be telling his grandchildren to lay off beef .
It actually seems to be Chris Stark who wields the real power these days .
It was him who was largely responsible for writing the Climate Assembly Report last month .
Yet he has little experience of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various civil service roles since 2002 .
It is quite astonishing that a nonentity like Stark has been given so much power to determine the course of people ’ s lives .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
Stephen Glover hots the nail on the head!
How easy it is for high-minded rich people to lay down the law for poorer folk. They often haven’t the faintest idea of the effect of their expensive recommendations on ordinary lives.
The most recent example comes from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), a quango which advises the Government on measures to tackle climate change. Yesterday it called for oil-fired boilers to be phased out by 2028, and gas boilers by 2033.
If you factor in insulation, which the CCC also champions, the cost of installing heat pumps as alternatives to boilers could work out at a minimum of £8,000 per household. That is several times the price of a boiler.
Chris Stark, chief executive of the committee, whose handsome annual remuneration is £205,000, says that ‘a large proportion’ of the expense ‘should be met by households’, though he holds out the hope that the Treasury might help poorer people.
Mr Stark recently asserted that the costs of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050 — the Government’s existing target, based on the CCC’s advice — will be much less than previously thought.
Not, it seems, when it comes to splashing out on new heat pumps. But I suppose that if you are scraping by on £205,000 a year, an outlay of £8,000 must seem a pretty derisory figure.
Another person who won’t be fretting about the cost of installing a heat pump is the CCC’s chairman, Lord Deben. Readers may remember him as John Selwyn Gummer, who as Minister of Agriculture during the BSE crisis in 1990 made his four-year-old daughter eat a beef burger in front of the media.
Lord Deben is not short of a bob or two. Last year it was revealed that he and his family own Sancroft International, a sustainability consultancy which has received more than £600,000 from ‘green’ businesses. Perhaps surprisingly, the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards exonerated him of any conflict of interest.
His lordship is fortunate to own a sprawling country house in Suffolk, with a garden that was landscaped for free in the early 1990s, partly at the expense of taxpayers, and partly as a gift from a food company.
Selwyn Gummer (as he still was) justified this unusual arrangement on the basis that his garden was visited by EU farm ministers.
Though his sizeable mansion may well require a constellation of heat pumps to power it, and double-glazing on an industrial scale to retain heat, I think we can safely say that Lord Deben will be able to meet the costs without too much difficulty.
But will millions of others? And how will they feel about wealthy climate change zealots (there are others besides Lord Deben and Mr Stark on the CCC who aptly fit that description) loading substantial extra costs on them?
How, indeed, would these hard-pressed people feel if they knew that the climate change committee cheerfully despatches staff on taxpayer-funded flights rather than choosing greener alternatives?
A freedom of information request last year uncovered almost £10,000 worth of flights including a first-class return trip to Beijing costing £5,081. That particular jaunt produced an estimated carbon footprint of 9.2 tons of CO2 — some 6.1 tons more than the equivalent journey in economy.
Most people, I believe, are prepared to take climate change seriously, though they need to be reminded that the UK accounts for less than one per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and that this country’s painful sacrifices won’t make much impact globally.
What they do not appreciate is being instructed to spend large sums in an uncertain cause by rich people working for a shadowy and unaccountable quango which is guilty of rank hypocrisy.
Oh — I nearly forgot. Another impertinent demand by the CCC is that we should cut our consumption of meat by 20 per cent over the next nine years to help reduce emissions from cows and sheep. Lord Deben, having virtually shoved a burger down his daughter’s throat, will be telling his grandchildren to lay off beef.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9036607/STEPHEN-GLOVER-rich-privileged-politicos-make-poor-pay-eco-zealotry.html
It actually seems to be Chris Stark who wields the real power these days. It was him who was largely responsible for writing the Climate Assembly Report last month.
Yet he has little experience of the real world, having worked in various civil service roles since 2002.
It is quite astonishing that a nonentity like Stark has been given so much power to determine the course of people’s lives.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/2J6LB5O
December 19, 2020 at 04:18AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Eastern Alps may have been ice-free 5000 years ago

New research suggests that some Alpine glaciers were ice-free during the mid-Holocene warm period , when Earth ’ s climate was warmer than it is now .
Glaciers in the Ötztal Alps in Austria are currently melting and may be lost within two decades , but this might not be the first time humans have seen this kind of change .
A new analysis reveals that glaciers in this region formed just before or perhaps even within the lifetime of Ötzi the Iceman , a mummified body found just 12 kilometres away in 1991 .
Pascal Bohleber at the Austrian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues drilled 11 metres into the Weißseespitze summit glacier , down to the bedrock , at 3500 metres altitude and collected two ice cores .
They then used radiocarbon dating to analyse microscopic bits of organic material extracted from the ice cores and found that the glacier is 5200 to 6600 years old .
Ötzi is thought to have lived between 5100 and 5300 years ago , and his body was found preserved in ice .
The glacier ’ s age means it formed during a time called the mid-Holocene warm period , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it is now .
It is also dome-shaped , which Bohleber says is rare in the Alps and means that the ice has seen very little movement over time , meaning we can use it to study the climate when it formed .
The post Eastern Alps may have been ice-free 5000 years ago appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

New research suggests that some Alpine glaciers were ice-free during the mid-Holocene warm period, when Earth’s climate was warmer than it is now.
Glaciers in the Ötztal Alps in Austria are currently melting and may be lost within two decades, but this might not be the first time humans have seen this kind of change. A new analysis reveals that glaciers in this region formed just before or perhaps even within the lifetime of Ötzi the Iceman, a mummified body found just 12 kilometres away in 1991.
Pascal Bohleber at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna and his colleagues drilled 11 metres into the Weißseespitze summit glacier, down to the bedrock, at 3500 metres altitude and collected two ice cores. They then used radiocarbon dating to analyse microscopic bits of organic material extracted from the ice cores and found that the glacier is 5200 to 6600 years old. Ötzi is thought to have lived between 5100 and 5300 years ago, and his body was found preserved in ice.
The glacier’s age means it formed during a time called the mid-Holocene warm period, when Earth’s climate was warmer than it is now. It is also dome-shaped, which Bohleber says is rare in the Alps and means that the ice has seen very little movement over time, meaning we can use it to study the climate when it formed.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2263399-eastern-alps-may-have-been-ice-free-in-the-time-of-otzi-the-iceman/#ixzz6h3l18215
The post Eastern Alps may have been ice-free 5000 years ago appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2WwBOJb
December 19, 2020 at 03:21AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Global coal demand to rebound as economy recovers

Global coal demand is poised to rebound next year as the economy recovers and the U.S. and Europe may see the first increase in consumption in several years , the International Energy Agency said .
Despite the global shift toward economies based on renewable energy , the dirtiest fossil fuel looks set to keep its role as the world ’ s biggest power source although its share will slip to 35 % in 2021 from 36.5 % last year .
Coal use in power generation globally is expected to increase by as much as 2.8 % next year as electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IEA said in its 2020 coal report .
Demand for the fuel will return in 2021 but won ’ t reach 2019 levels Over the next 5 years , global demand is forecast to “ flatten out ” at around 7.4 billion tons , as declines in Europe and the U.S. will offset any increased use in Asia .
The main drivers of demand for the fuel will continue to be China and India , which both rely heavily on the fuel in their energy mix .
While there are few signs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away any time soon , the IEA said that unless there are unforeseen developments that would significantly boost demand , it ’ s likely that consumption peaked in 2013 .
EU coal demand is expected to increase marginally for the first time since 2012 , rising 3.5 % .
The U.S. rebound will be the first since 2014 , increasing consumption by 11.1 % next year .
The post Global coal demand to rebound as economy recovers appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Global coal demand is poised to rebound next year as the economy recovers and the U.S. and Europe may see the first increase in consumption in several years, the International Energy Agency said.
Despite the global shift toward economies based on renewable energy, the dirtiest fossil fuel looks set to keep its role as the world’s biggest power source although its share will slip to 35% in 2021 from 36.5% last year.
Coal use in power generation globally is expected to increase by as much as 2.8% next year as electricity demand rebounds particularly in Asia, the IEA said in its 2020 coal report.
Global Coal Demand to Rebound
Demand for the fuel will return in 2021 but won’t reach 2019 levels
Over the next 5 years, global demand is forecast to “flatten out” at around 7.4 billion tons, as declines in Europe and the U.S. will offset any increased use in Asia. The main drivers of demand for the fuel will continue to be China and India, which both rely heavily on the fuel in their energy mix.
While there are few signs that use of the fossil fuel will fade away any time soon, the IEA said that unless there are unforeseen developments that would significantly boost demand, it’s likely that consumption peaked in 2013.
EU coal demand is expected to increase marginally for the first time since 2012, rising 3.5%. The U.S. rebound will be the first since 2014, increasing consumption by 11.1% next year.
The post Global coal demand to rebound as economy recovers appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3mz9BMk
December 19, 2020 at 03:14AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Electric car turmoil will make Brexit a comparative breeze for auto makers

Unless the price of electric cars falls drastically , Europeans on average salaries are unlikely to be able to afford new cars .
Automakers are having hysterics about the impact on their sales and profits if the European Union ( EU ) and Britain fail to agree a free trade deal , but the ramifications of that look minor compared with the long-term existential threat to the automotive world from electrification and the demise of the internal combustion engine ( ICE ) .
If Britain is forced after Brexit to switch from tariff-free auto trade with the EU to World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will soon sort itself out even if it leaves some competitors a bit bruised .
After all , getting on for half of Britain ’ s auto production is already sold through WTO tariffs .
But according to Peter Wells , Professor of Business and Sustainability at Cardiff Business School , there are more massive threats looming and only the strongest will survive .
The U.K industry faces Brexit upheavals , but the global industry will have to handle a decade of disruption as electric cars and maybe computer driven ones gradually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of individual car ownership is being questioned “ There ’ s a huge watershed moment building up for the global industry .
The pace of change is frighteningly fast because of pressure to cut carbon ( dioxide CO2 ) emissions and fight climate change .
There will soon be a huge demand for low ( CO2 ) emissions vehicles and those companies able to act quickly , like Volkswagen , will be in a position to benefit , ” Wells said in an interview .
Volkswagen plans to spend about $ 86 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the next 5 years .
VW , which sold about 11 million vehicles world-wide in 2019 , has already launched its ID.3 battery electric , the first iteration of a new generation of electric vehicles .
VW hopes this will allow it to overtake Tesla Inc as the world ’ s leading maker of electric cars and SUVs .
The coming turmoil will force companies which lag in the race to seek safety with more partnerships and mergers or they will be swallowed up by successful ones , according to Wells .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ led in Europe by politicians , and therein lies a concern because currently , the only way to sell an electric car is to either persuade waverers with big taxpayer subsidies , or by making ICE cars unattractive with onerous environmental demands like allowing electric cars access to cities and denying that right to the rest .
Oil rich , socialist Norway has already shown the way .
The post Electric car turmoil will make Brexit a comparative breeze for auto makers appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) @

Unless the price of electric cars falls drastically, Europeans on average salaries are unlikely to be able to afford new cars.
Automakers are having hysterics about the impact on their sales and profits if the European Union (EU) and Britain fail to agree a free trade deal, but the ramifications of that look minor compared with the long-term existential threat to the automotive world from electrification and the demise of the internal combustion engine (ICE).
If Britain is forced after Brexit to switch from tariff-free auto trade with the EU to World Trade Organization (WTO) terms, that will soon sort itself out even if it leaves some competitors a bit bruised. After all, getting on for half of Britain’s auto production is already sold through WTO tariffs.
But according to Peter Wells, Professor of Business and Sustainability at Cardiff Business School, there are more massive threats looming and only the strongest will survive. The U.K industry faces Brexit upheavals, but the global industry will have to handle a decade of disruption as electric cars and maybe computer driven ones gradually replace conventional vehicles. The whole idea of individual car ownership is being questioned
“There’s a huge watershed moment building up for the global industry. The pace of change is frighteningly fast because of pressure to cut carbon (dioxide CO2) emissions and fight climate change. There will soon be a huge demand for low (CO2) emissions vehicles and those companies able to act quickly, like Volkswagen, will be in a position to benefit,” Wells said in an interview.
Volkswagen plans to spend about $86 billion developing electric cars and the latest technology over the next 5 years. VW, which sold about 11 million vehicles world-wide in 2019, has already launched its ID.3 battery electric, the first iteration of a new generation of electric vehicles. VW hopes this will allow it to overtake Tesla Inc as the world’s leading maker of electric cars and SUVs.
The coming turmoil will force companies which lag in the race to seek safety with more partnerships and mergers or they will be swallowed up by successful ones, according to Wells.
The push for electric cars is being led in Europe by politicians, and therein lies a concern because currently, the only way to sell an electric car is to either persuade waverers with big taxpayer subsidies, or by making ICE cars unattractive with onerous environmental demands like allowing electric cars access to cities and denying that right to the rest. Oil rich, socialist Norway has already shown the way.
The post Electric car turmoil will make Brexit a comparative breeze for auto makers appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2KEjTxA
December 19, 2020 at 03:00AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Green economy: $580 million wind farm off Fukushima to be dismantled

FUKUSHIMA – The government said Thursday it will remove the two remaining wind power turbines it installed off Fukushima Prefecture citing lack of profit in the project , which cost ¥60 billion ( $ 580 million ) .
The project was widely seen as a symbol of the reconstruction of the northeastern prefecture following the 2011 earthquake , tsunami and nuclear disasters .
The decision came despite Japan ’ s goal of raising its offshore wind power generation to up to 45 gigawatts in 2040 from a mere 20,000 kilowatts at present as part of efforts to fight climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 .
At a meeting in Fukushima , industry ministry officials briefed fishermen and other participants about the plan , with local people saying the government had wasted taxpayers ’ money and should conduct a thorough study of why the project had failed .
In June , the government removed one of the three turbines installed 20 kilometers off the town of Naraha .
It has decided to remove the remaining two in the fiscal year starting April .
The post Green economy : $ 580 million wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

FUKUSHIMA – The government said Thursday it will remove the two remaining wind power turbines it installed off Fukushima Prefecture citing lack of profit in the project, which cost ¥60 billion ($580 million).
The government will remove the two remaining wind power turbines it installed off Fukushima Prefecture due to inadequate profitability of the project, which cost ¥60 billion. | KYODO
The project was widely seen as a symbol of the reconstruction of the northeastern prefecture following the 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters.
The decision came despite Japan’s goal of raising its offshore wind power generation to up to 45 gigawatts in 2040 from a mere 20,000 kilowatts at present as part of efforts to fight climate change. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
At a meeting in Fukushima, industry ministry officials briefed fishermen and other participants about the plan, with local people saying the government had wasted taxpayers’ money and should conduct a thorough study of why the project had failed.
In June, the government removed one of the three turbines installed 20 kilometers off the town of Naraha. It has decided to remove the remaining two in the fiscal year starting April.
The post Green economy: $580 million wind farm off Fukushima to be dismantled appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3p7zRiU
December 19, 2020 at 02:46AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Michael Flynn: Trump could rerun elections in states with fraud

Things MSNBBCNN won ’ t mention that Michael Flynn suggests are possible : President Trump could seize all the Dominion machines — on his order .
Trump could rerun the elections in swing states , Martial law is one option , but by no means the only one , and has been instigated 64 times already in US history .
There are only two ways the Great Divide in politics can be resolved peacefully : One : the media do their job and report both sides of the political landscape .
Honest Democrat voters have no idea why half the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There will be little public sympathy for rioting to protect postal workers rights to backdate fake votes etc — but we are more likely to find life on the Moon .
Two : Rerun the election with paper ballots and Voter ID .
Trump should not have to rerun an election he appears to have won , but fake votes were mixed with real ones , and the egg can not be unscrambled .
Even proper audits can not count only legal votes and discard illegal ones , they can only show the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ends with free and fair elections .

Things MSNBBCNN won’t mention that Michael Flynn suggests are possible:
President Trump could seize all the Dominion machines — on his order. Trump could rerun the elections in swing states, Martial law is one option, but by no means the only one, and has been instigated 64 times already in US history.
There are only two ways the Great Divide in politics can be resolved peacefully:
One: the media do their job and report both sides of the political landscape. Honest Democrat voters have no idea why half the nation thinks the election was stolen. There will be little public sympathy for rioting to protect postal workers rights to backdate fake votes etc — but we are more likely to find life on the Moon.
Two: Rerun the election with paper ballots and Voter ID.
Trump should not have to rerun an election he appears to have won, but fake votes were mixed with real ones, and the egg cannot be unscrambled. Even proper audits cannot count only legal votes and discard illegal ones, they can only show the scale of the fraud.
Democracy starts and ends with free and fair elections.
Michael Flynn to Newsmax TV: […]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3apqjLS
December 19, 2020 at 01:32AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--China Suffering Mass Blackouts Following Aussie Coal Embargo

h/t mwhite , GWPF ; Millions of Chinese are suffering severe power supply problems , brownouts and blackouts .
According to media reports the problems have been caused by fuel shortages , following Chinese President Xi Jinping ’ s embargo of Australian coal imports .
Beijing ’ s trade war with Australia spectacularly backfires as China is plagued by electricity woes plunging millions into darkness – after it refused delivery of $ 1billion of Aussie coal • Beijing blacklisted imports of Australian coal as part of the trade war last month • Some 80 ships carrying $ 1.1b worth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Coal prices have skyrocketed in China as domestic supply struggles to keep up • Now provincial governments are imposing restrictions on electricity usage • There are power outages and limits of heating and AC use during the cold winter Millions of Chinese residents have been left without heating in the middle of winter as cities ration electricity amid a blockade on Australian coal .
Australia provided 57 per cent of China ‘ s thermal coal imports in 2019 , which is used to generate electricity in power stations .
But last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has resulted in 80 ships carrying more than $ 1.1billion in blacklisted cargo being stranded off the Chinese coast .
Chinese coal prices were 500 yuan ( $ 100 ) last month but increased 760 yuan ( $ 153 ) per tonne on Wednesday , which has now resulted in restrictions on power use for millions of residents , according to South China Morning Post .
Some 57 million people live in Zhejiang province , south of Shanghai , on China ’ s east coast , and have been besieged by power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Zhejiang provincial government has now ordered offices to only use heating when the temperature drops below 3C and restaurant to only use air conditioning for diners , rather than staff , in the city of Wenzhou from December 11 to 20 .
Small to medium sized factories have reportedly been ordered to halt production for one to two days after operating for two days between December 13 and 30 .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t mwhite, GWPF; Millions of Chinese are suffering severe power supply problems, brownouts and blackouts. According to media reports the problems have been caused by fuel shortages, following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s embargo of Australian coal imports.
Beijing’s trade war with Australia spectacularly backfires as China is plagued by electricity woes plunging millions into darkness – after it refused delivery of $1billion of Aussie coal
Beijing blacklisted imports of Australian coal as part of the trade war last month
Some 80 ships carrying $1.1b worth of coal are sitting off the Australian coast
Coal prices have skyrocketed in China as domestic supply struggles to keep up
Now provincial governments are imposing restrictions on electricity usage
There are power outages and limits of heating and AC use during the cold winter
By SHIVE PREMA FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
PUBLISHED: 02:31 AEDT, 18 December 2020 | UPDATED: 12:06 AEDT, 18 December 2020
Millions of Chinese residents have been left without heating in the middle of winter as cities ration electricity amid a blockade on Australian coal.
Australia provided 57 per cent of China‘s thermal coal imports in 2019, which is used to generate electricity in power stations.
But last month, Beijing blocked Australian coal imports, which has resulted in 80 ships carrying more than $1.1billion in blacklisted cargo being stranded off the Chinese coast.
Chinese coal prices were 500 yuan ($100) last month but increased 760 yuan ($153) per tonne on Wednesday, which has now resulted in restrictions on power use for millions of residents, according to South China Morning Post.
Some 57 million people live in Zhejiang province, south of Shanghai, on China’s east coast, and have been besieged by power shortages resulting in electricity being shut off.
The Zhejiang provincial government has now ordered offices to only use heating when the temperature drops below 3C and restaurant to only use air conditioning for diners, rather than staff, in the city of Wenzhou from December 11 to 20.
Small to medium sized factories have reportedly been ordered to halt production for one to two days after operating for two days between December 13 and 30.
…


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-20--Reef Heresy? And the Importance of Asking Questions

I am so privileged to have written the introduction to Peter Ridd ’ s new book , ‘ Reef Heresy ?
’ .
In it I explain that it is of great concern to both Peter , and myself , that those who claim the Great Barrier Reef to be in terminal decline are so unwilling to engage in any form of debate .
Sometimes the quickest way to the truth is through argument , by which I mean disagreement between two or more people with each side given opportunity to present their case and their perspective .
The word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ title of Peter ’ s book , means ‘ opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted ’ .
The heresy is that Peter is not committed to the right political dogma .
It is not that he is wrong .
It is interesting that the ‘ other side ’ won ’ t debate .
They would prefer everyone just believed that the reef is in terminal decline , and that we have catastrophic global warming .
And how profoundly sad would that be , if it were true !
The establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers at James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science ( AIMS ) , know that it might not be quite so straightforward , and that there could be some issues with some of the science .
But , in general , they are convinced that they are right – or at least on the side of right , even if that means being ‘ left ’ .
( Ha ha . )
They certainly don ’ t want to have to get into the detail – or have to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which an overall coral growth rate for the Great Barrier Reef used to be calculated .
Some of this is explained in a discussion I had with Peter when we were last together in Townsville – a discussion hosted by John Roskam and that included some 400 members of the Institute of Public Affairs ( IPA ) via Zoom .
In this discussion , and more generally , I suggest we should all ( both sides ) be less quick to lecture and more interested in asking questions .
Peter Ridd suggests towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 184 ) that asking questions in science could be made more legitimate through the establishment of explicit ‘ Red Teams ’ at organisations like AIMS .
Yale University professor , Irving Janis , was detailing the inherent problems with working towards a consensus – and labelled this Group Think – back in the 1950s .
Professor Janis explained in his important book by the same name , how this will inevitably generate systematic errors .
The conclusion of that long book is that it is critical groups encourage scepticism in order to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or plan .
I would have thought this to be a no-brainer in a civilization as sophisticated as our own , and one in which being able to forecast the weather day-to-day , month-to-month , and year-to-year is so important especially for the proper management of water infrastructure and water allocations for hydro-electricity as well as growing food crops .
Despite a plethora of history and data suggesting that ideas should always be tested , we live during a time when it is so unfashionable to ask the hard questions .
John Roskam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new book ‘ Climate Change : The Facts 2020 ’ : It is so much better to have questions that can not be answered , than to live and do science according to answers that can not be questioned .
Here are a few questions I have , from flipping through the page of Peter ’ s new book : 1 .
When was the last major event that caused catastrophic global climate disruption ?
( see page 200 of ‘ Reef Heresy ?
’ ) 2 .
What does Peter think is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australia ?
( see page 201 of ‘ Reef Heresy ?
’ ) 3 .
Which are the two sources of ‘ new nitrogen ’ into the Great Barrier Reef ?
( see page 84 of ‘ Reef Heresy ?
’ ) 4 .
When have major outbreaks of Crown-of-Thorn starfish ( COTS ) occurred on the Great Barrier Reef ?
( see page 35 of ‘ Reef Heresy ?
’ ) 5 .
When did AIMS last publish a Great Barrier Reef average coral growth rate ?
( see page 7 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The feature image at the very top of this blog post is of Cheryl Ridd , Bill Lindquist , Anne Carter , me and Peter ( left to right ) on the back verandah in Townsville , one Sunday , just a couple of weeks ago .

I am so privileged to have written the introduction to Peter Ridd’s new book, ‘Reef Heresy?’. In it I explain that it is of great concern to both Peter, and myself, that those who claim the Great Barrier Reef to be in terminal decline are so unwilling to engage in any form of debate.
Sometimes the quickest way to the truth is through argument, by which I mean disagreement between two or more people with each side given opportunity to present their case and their perspective.
The word ‘heresy’, which is the title of Peter’s book, means ‘opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted’. The heresy is that Peter is not committed to the right political dogma. It is not that he is wrong.
It is interesting that the ‘other side’ won’t debate. They would prefer everyone just believed that the reef is in terminal decline, and that we have catastrophic global warming. And how profoundly sad would that be, if it were true!
The establishment, by which I mean the science managers at James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), know that it might not be quite so straightforward, and that there could be some issues with some of the science. But, in general, they are convinced that they are right – or at least on the side of right, even if that means being ‘left’. (Ha ha.) They certainly don’t want to have to get into the detail – or have to keep coring the massive old Porites corals from which an overall coral growth rate for the Great Barrier Reef used to be calculated.
Some of this is explained in a discussion I had with Peter when we were last together in Townsville – a discussion hosted by John Roskam and that included some 400 members of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) via Zoom.
In this discussion, and more generally, I suggest we should all (both sides) be less quick to lecture and more interested in asking questions.
Peter Ridd suggests towards the end of his book (page 184) that asking questions in science could be made more legitimate through the establishment of explicit ‘Red Teams’ at organisations like AIMS. Yale University professor, Irving Janis, was detailing the inherent problems with working towards a consensus – and labelled this Group Think – back in the 1950s. Professor Janis explained in his important book by the same name, how this will inevitably generate systematic errors. The conclusion of that long book is that it is critical groups encourage scepticism in order to find the possible errors in their favourite theory or plan. I would have thought this to be a no-brainer in a civilization as sophisticated as our own, and one in which being able to forecast the weather day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year is so important especially for the proper management of water infrastructure and water allocations for hydro-electricity as well as growing food crops.
Despite a plethora of history and data suggesting that ideas should always be tested, we live during a time when it is so unfashionable to ask the hard questions. John Roskam ends the YouTube discussion quoting from my new book ‘Climate Change: The Facts 2020’: It is so much better to have questions that cannot be answered, than to live and do science according to answers that cannot be questioned.
Here are a few questions I have, from flipping through the page of Peter’s new book:
1. When was the last major event that caused catastrophic global climate disruption? (see page 200 of ‘Reef Heresy?’)
2. What does Peter think is the second most important environmental issue in Australia? (see page 201 of ‘Reef Heresy?’)
3. Which are the two sources of ‘new nitrogen’ into the Great Barrier Reef? (see page 84 of ‘Reef Heresy?’)
4. When have major outbreaks of Crown-of-Thorn starfish (COTS) occurred on the Great Barrier Reef? (see page 35 of ‘Reef Heresy?’)
5. When did AIMS last publish a Great Barrier Reef average coral growth rate? (see page 7 of ‘Reef Heresy?’)
****
The feature image at the very top of this blog post is of Cheryl Ridd, Bill Lindquist, Anne Carter, me and Peter (left to right) on the back verandah in Townsville, one Sunday, just a couple of weeks ago.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Dominion Election Fraud Redacted

Dominion Election Fraud Redacted

Article at Epoch Times Excerpts in italics with my bolds : The analyst who led the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems in Michigan said on Friday the information state officials pushed to redact shows that the outcomes of races were changed .
“ The original report had log evidence that we published in the report to show exactly what we did and exactly the findings .
Now , those did ultimately get redacted .
And so now , the complaint is ‘ well , but there ’ s no real proof and Dominion says ‘ no , these things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Russell Ramsland Jr. said during a virtual appearance on Newsmax ’ s “ Greg Kelly Reports.
” “ But at that point , Dominion ’ s argument is no longer with us .
Dominion ’ s argument is with their own user ’ s manual and their own logs , because the logs—had they been able to be published—show very clearly that the RCV [ ranked-choice voting ] algorithm was enacted .
It shows very clearly that the error messages were massive .
It was very clearly [ sic ] that races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ramsland on Newsmax predicted the emergence of more explosive information soon .
“ I think that there ’ s going to be some information [ to ] come forth in the next few days , that is going to drastically change the playing field , ” he said .
“ And the real question is , will people report on it ?
We ’ ll see.
” Context from Shocking History of Dominion Voting Excerpts in italics with my bolds .
Dominion Voting Systems Corp. is the Canadian company behind the ballot switching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a mission to provide electronic voting systems friendly for progressives .
Because of such partisanship , it languished with almost no customers for the next 5-6 years , until the Obama administration came to power .
In 2010 , the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets ( software , intellectual property , manufacturing tools , customer base , etc . )
from two established American companies , and gave them to Dominion .
At the same time , Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been used by some 40 % of the voters in this election , mostly by Democrat-controlled states and election commissions .
Apparently , no protections were put in place against ballot switching , deletion , or creation .
According to Dominion ’ s own website , it software was used in “ battleground ” states and the largest Democrat states , including MI , GA , AZ , NV , NM , CO , AK , UT , NJ , CA , NY .
From Fraudspotters Statistical Evidence of Dominion Election Fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Excerpts in italics with my bolds .
Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020 , in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed , the voting outcomes were on average ( nationwide ) approximately 1.5 % higher for Joe Biden and 1.5 % lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences .
Upon running hundreds of models , I would say the national average effect appears to be somewhere between 1.0 % and 1.6 % .
For Dominion to have switched the election from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to have increased Biden outcomes ( with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes ) by 0.3 % in Georgia , 0.6 % in Arizona , 2.1 % in Wisconsin , and 2.5 % in Nevada .
The apparent average “ Dominion Effect ” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia , and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada .
It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ Dominion Effect ” is real , it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election .
These results are scientifically valid and typically have a p-value of less than 1 % , meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100 .
This article , and its FAQ , shows many ways to model the “ Dominion Effect.
” The best way to restore faith in the system is to audit the Dominion voting machines in Arizona , Georgia , Nevada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will link results from 2008 to 2020 by each county , parish , or in some cases city .
Since this is usually based on county , we will refer to it as county in this article .
By comparing the county to itself , we are constructing the test similar to how a drug company would test the effects of its proposed therapy .
In this case , we have 3,050 counties that do not have Dominion in 2008 .
In 2020 , 657 of the counties have Dominion while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the same societal forces are acting upon all of these counties equally , then in comparing the average change from 2008 to 2020 for Dominion counties versus non Dominion counties , we should have a similar change in voter share .
In this regard , it is as if Dominion is the proposed treatment , and non-Dominion is the placebo .
When doing this analysis , we do NOT see a change that is constant across counties .
In fact , below are the results comparing 2008 to 2020 .
A verbal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s percentage of vote for the Democrat presidential candidate was 8.4 percentage points less Democrat in 2020 ( Biden vs. Trump ) than in 2008 .
( Obama vs. McCain ) .
However , despite this 8.4 % -point decrease , Dominion counties only decreased 6.4 % points , while the non-Dominion counties decreased 9.0 % points.
” Unlike a drug company ’ s test of a new treatment , our counties were not randomly selected to be “ treated ” by Dominion .
These counties chose to install Dominion .
Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for other factors to see if the presence of Dominion still significantly affects results .
We can obtain demographic data on a county level basis from the U.S. department of agriculture .
By attaching this data on a county basis to our already existing dataset , and running multiple linear regression , we obtain the following results .
You ’ ll notice that Dominion ’ s p-value became more significant as we controlled for other variables .
In some cases Dominion is more significant than the control variables .
To provide a basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coefficient .
It is telling you whether the demographic factor increased or decreased Democratic presidential voter percentage .
So , from 2008 to 2020 : • The more rural , the less the Democratic share • The more manufacturing dependent , the less the Democratic share • The more a county is considered a “ high natural amenity , ” the more the Democratic share if we consider counties equally weighted but not if we give larger counties more weight .
Note this variable has a less significant p-value than some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county is considered “ high creative class , ” the more the Democratic share • The more a county is considered “ low education , ” the more the Democratic share • The more the population increased , the more the Democratic share • The more international immigration , the more the Democratic share , although one measure had this value with a questionable p-value .
• And most importantly , if Dominion was installed , there was approximately a 1.5 % -point increase in Democratic share which also corresponds to a 1.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total swing of 3 % points .
If the “ Dominion Effect ” is real , would it have affected the election ?
This article showed a range of estimates for the “ Dominion Effect , ” the more persuasive being from the multiple linear regression analysis : I find the weighted least square model the most persuasive and refer to it often in the FAQ .
If there is a Dominion Effect , it adds that percentage to Democrat presidential vote and subtracts from Republican .
If the Dominion Effect is real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden , it would have had to increase Democratic presidential outcomes by 0.3 % and reduced Republican outcomes by 0.3 % in Georgia .
The factors for the other states are 0.6 % in Arizona , 2.1 % in Wisconsin , and 2.5 % in Nevada .
Click here to see the math .
If you believe the Dominion Effect is real , it is not hard to believe that this effect would be greater in swing states and could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s column , putting the electoral college in his favor .
Are there really enough machines in Wisconsin to have changed the outcome there ?
If you go to verifiedvoting.org , and selection Dominion , 2020 , Wisconsin , and download the data , you ’ ll see that they are saying 527 precincts , 640,215 registered voters are on Dominion machines .
The state only has a 20k vote difference among Biden and Trump .
And , in my paper , the Dominion effect was calculated on a county basis , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are split on which machine they used , then my paper is underestimating the Dominion effect : the effect is likely bigger on a precinct by precinct basis ; I don ’ t have the data to go to that detail .
But to answer the question : yes , based on published , public information , there are enough machines to change the election in Wisconsin .
Have you really accounted for very large and very small counties ?
In our model , we are already using these adjustments : These should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to address concerns of readers , I ran the model with two new flags : • 657 counties with highest number of voters in 2008 • 657 counties with lowest number of voters in 2008 The Dominion Effect is still 1.55 % and the p-values are 0.00 % ( traditional ) 0.09 % ( robust ) .
These p-values are suggesting less than 1 in 1000 chance of randomly occurring .
To further address this , I ran an additional model which also includes a field for the population per square mile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dominion Effect of 1.55 % and a p-value of 0.00 % and 0.09 % .

Article at Epoch Times Excerpts in italics with my bolds:
The analyst who led the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems in Michigan said on Friday the information state officials pushed to redact shows that the outcomes of races were changed.
“The original report had log evidence that we published in the report to show exactly what we did and exactly the findings. Now, those did ultimately get redacted. And so now, the complaint is ‘well, but there’s no real proof and Dominion says ‘no, these things can’t be done,’” Russell Ramsland Jr. said during a virtual appearance on Newsmax’s “Greg Kelly Reports.”
“But at that point, Dominion’s argument is no longer with us. Dominion’s argument is with their own user’s manual and their own logs, because the logs—had they been able to be published—show very clearly that the RCV [ranked-choice voting] algorithm was enacted. It shows very clearly that the error messages were massive. It was very clearly [sic] that races were flipped,” he added.
Ramsland on Newsmax predicted the emergence of more explosive information soon.
“I think that there’s going to be some information [to] come forth in the next few days, that is going to drastically change the playing field,” he said.
“And the real question is, will people report on it? We’ll see.”
Biden’s Great Leaps Upward
The Georgia Leap in detail:
Background from previous post Rise of Dominion Effect
Context from Shocking History of Dominion Voting Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Dominion Voting Systems Corp. is the Canadian company behind the ballot switching software.
Dominion was founded in 2003, with a mission to provide electronic voting systems friendly for progressives. Because of such partisanship, it languished with almost no customers for the next 5-6 years, until the Obama administration came to power. In 2010, the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets (software, intellectual property, manufacturing tools, customer base, etc.) from two established American companies, and gave them to Dominion. At the same time, Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company, tied to Hugo Chavez.
Its software has been used by some 40% of the voters in this election, mostly by Democrat-controlled states and election commissions. Apparently, no protections were put in place against ballot switching, deletion, or creation. According to Dominion’s own website, it software was used in “battleground” states and the largest Democrat states, including MI, GA, AZ, NV, NM, CO, AK, UT, NJ, CA, NY.
The Dominion Effect on Vote Counting
From Fraudspotters Statistical Evidence of Dominion Election Fraud? Time to Audit the Machines. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Overview
Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) approximately 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences. Upon running hundreds of models, I would say the national average effect appears to be somewhere between 1.0% and 1.6%.
For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.
Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.
These results are scientifically valid and typically have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100. This article, and its FAQ, shows many ways to model the “Dominion Effect.”
The best way to restore faith in the system is to audit the Dominion voting machines in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.
Discussion
To do this study, we will link results from 2008 to 2020 by each county, parish, or in some cases city. Since this is usually based on county, we will refer to it as county in this article.
By comparing the county to itself, we are constructing the test similar to how a drug company would test the effects of its proposed therapy. In this case, we have 3,050 counties that do not have Dominion in 2008. In 2020, 657 of the counties have Dominion while 2,388 do not. If we assume that the same societal forces are acting upon all of these counties equally, then in comparing the average change from 2008 to 2020 for Dominion counties versus non Dominion counties, we should have a similar change in voter share. In this regard, it is as if Dominion is the proposed treatment, and non-Dominion is the placebo.
When doing this analysis, we do NOT see a change that is constant across counties. In fact, below are the results comparing 2008 to 2020. A verbal description is “the average US county’s percentage of vote for the Democrat presidential candidate was 8.4 percentage points less Democrat in 2020 (Biden vs. Trump) than in 2008. (Obama vs. McCain). However, despite this 8.4%-point decrease, Dominion counties only decreased 6.4% points, while the non-Dominion counties decreased 9.0% points.”
Unlike a drug company’s test of a new treatment, our counties were not randomly selected to be “treated” by Dominion. These counties chose to install Dominion. Was there selection bias? We should control for other factors to see if the presence of Dominion still significantly affects results.
We can obtain demographic data on a county level basis from the U.S. department of agriculture. By attaching this data on a county basis to our already existing dataset, and running multiple linear regression, we obtain the following results. You’ll notice that Dominion’s p-value became more significant as we controlled for other variables. In some cases Dominion is more significant than the control variables.
To provide a basic interpretation, look at the sign of the coefficient. It is telling you whether the demographic factor increased or decreased Democratic presidential voter percentage. So, from 2008 to 2020:
The more rural, the less the Democratic share
The more manufacturing dependent, the less the Democratic share
The more a county is considered a “high natural amenity,” the more the Democratic share if we consider counties equally weighted but not if we give larger counties more weight. Note this variable has a less significant p-value than some of the others.
The more a county is considered “high creative class,” the more the Democratic share
The more a county is considered “low education,” the more the Democratic share
The more the population increased, the more the Democratic share
The more international immigration, the more the Democratic share, although one measure had this value with a questionable p-value.
And most importantly, if Dominion was installed, there was approximately a 1.5%-point increase in Democratic share which also corresponds to a 1.5%-point Republican decrease, so a total swing of 3% points.
If the “Dominion Effect” is real, would it have affected the election?
This article showed a range of estimates for the “Dominion Effect,” the more persuasive being from the multiple linear regression analysis:
Multiple Linear Regress: Ordinary Least Squares: 1.65%
Multiple Linear Regress: Weighted Least Squares: 1.55%
I find the weighted least square model the most persuasive and refer to it often in the FAQ.
If there is a Dominion Effect, it adds that percentage to Democrat presidential vote and subtracts from Republican. If the Dominion Effect is real, it may have affected this close election. For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to increase Democratic presidential outcomes by 0.3% and reduced Republican outcomes by 0.3% in Georgia. The factors for the other states are 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. Click here to see the math.
If you believe the Dominion Effect is real, it is not hard to believe that this effect would be greater in swing states and could have swung these four states into Biden’s column, putting the electoral college in his favor.
Are there really enough machines in Wisconsin to have changed the outcome there?
If you go to verifiedvoting.org, and selection Dominion, 2020, Wisconsin, and download the data, you’ll see that they are saying 527 precincts, 640,215 registered voters are on Dominion machines. The state only has a 20k vote difference among Biden and Trump. And, in my paper, the Dominion effect was calculated on a county basis, not precinct basis. To the extent counties are split on which machine they used, then my paper is underestimating the Dominion effect: the effect is likely bigger on a precinct by precinct basis; I don’t have the data to go to that detail.
But to answer the question: yes, based on published, public information, there are enough machines to change the election in Wisconsin.
Have you really accounted for very large and very small counties?
In our model, we are already using these adjustments:
weighting by county size
a field called “RuralUrbanContinuumCode2013”
These should adjust for county size, but in effort to address concerns of readers, I ran the model with two new flags:
657 counties with highest number of voters in 2008
657 counties with lowest number of voters in 2008
The Dominion Effect is still 1.55% and the p-values are 0.00% (traditional) 0.09% (robust). These p-values are suggesting less than 1 in 1000 chance of randomly occurring.
To further address this, I ran an additional model which also includes a field for the population per square mile. This model produces identical results of Dominion Effect of 1.55% and a p-value of 0.00% and 0.09%.
via Science Matters
https://ift.tt/3mBcJHR
December 19, 2020 at 04:55PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Claim: Climate Change is Causing Skin Disease in Dolphins

Buy an EV or the Dolphins will get it ?
Activists now hope our love of dolphins will induce us to accept their wild climate claims .
Devastating skin disease covering up to 70 % of a dolphin ’ s body tied to climate change Scientists at The Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito , CA—the largest marine mammal hospital in the world—and international colleagues have identified a novel skin disease in dolphins that is linked to climate change .
The study is a groundbreaking discovery , as it is the first time since the disease first appeared in 2005 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause to the condition that affects coastal dolphin communities worldwide .
Due to the decreased water salinity brought upon by climate change , the dolphins develop patchy and raised skin lesions across their bodies—sometimes covering upwards of 70 percent of their skin .
In all of these locations , a sudden and drastic decrease in salinity in the waters was the common factor .
Coastal dolphins are accustomed to seasonal changes in salinity levels in their marine habitat , but they do not live in freshwater .
The increasing severity and frequency of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly if they are preceded by drought conditions , are dumping unusual volumes of rain that turn coastal waters to freshwater .
Freshwater conditions can persist for months , particularly after intense storms such as hurricanes Harvey and Katrina .
With the increasing climate temperatures , climate scientists have predicted extreme storms like these will occur more frequently and , consequently , will result in more frequent and severe disease outbreaks in dolphins .
The deadly skin disease was first noted by researchers on approximately 40 bottlenose dolphins near New Orleans after Hurricane @ @ @ @

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Buy an EV or the Dolphins will get it? Activists now hope our love of dolphins will induce us to accept their wild climate claims.
Devastating skin disease covering up to 70% of a dolphin’s body tied to climate change
by The Marine Mammal Center
DECEMBER 18, 2020
Scientists at The Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito, CA—the largest marine mammal hospital in the world—and international colleagues have identified a novel skin disease in dolphins that is linked to climate change. The study is a groundbreaking discovery, as it is the first time since the disease first appeared in 2005 that scientists have been able to link a cause to the condition that affects coastal dolphin communities worldwide. Due to the decreased water salinity brought upon by climate change, the dolphins develop patchy and raised skin lesions across their bodies—sometimes covering upwards of 70 percent of their skin.
…
In all of these locations, a sudden and drastic decrease in salinity in the waters was the common factor. Coastal dolphins are accustomed to seasonal changes in salinity levels in their marine habitat, but they do not live in freshwater. The increasing severity and frequency of storm events like hurricanes and cyclones, particularly if they are preceded by drought conditions, are dumping unusual volumes of rain that turn coastal waters to freshwater. Freshwater conditions can persist for months, particularly after intense storms such as hurricanes Harvey and Katrina. With the increasing climate temperatures, climate scientists have predicted extreme storms like these will occur more frequently and, consequently, will result in more frequent and severe disease outbreaks in dolphins.
…
The deadly skin disease was first noted by researchers on approximately 40 bottlenose dolphins near New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
…


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Exposing the EV Fantasy: The Real Cost of EV’s

Exposing the Electric Vehicle Fantasy , Part 1 The Real Cost of EV ’ s Whatever your position on subsidies @ @ @ @ @ hard to make the case that taxpayers should foot … Continue reading The post Exposing @ @ @ @ @ Real Cost of EV ’ s first appeared on Friends of Science Calgary .

Exposing the Electric Vehicle Fantasy, Part 1 The Real Cost of EV’s
Whatever your position on subsidies in general, it is hard to make the case that taxpayers should foot … Continue reading
The post Exposing the EV Fantasy: The Real Cost of EV’s first appeared on Friends of Science Calgary.
via Friends of Science Calgary
https://ift.tt/3h4juAE
December 19, 2020 at 03:01PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-19--Serbian citizen tearing his hair out at our sheep-like attitude – Video

“ You know that they stole the elections !
You know !
It ’ s obvious to everyone with two brain cells !
” “ We knew what happened .
You know what happened .
Now it ’ s a question of , “ What are you going to do ?
” In case YouTube shuts down this video , here ’ s some of what this Serbian citizen has to say .
Serbian Warning : What Happened When Their Elections Were Stolen in 2000 .
Milosavljevic stole the elections .
And people took to the streets .
Started with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a million people .
Basically , everyone who could walk took to protest .
A sea of people .
Milosavljevic ’ s generals said no .
His police chiefs said no .
There was even someone who took a bulldozer .
He used that bulldozer to destroy state television .
Now the question is , “ Do you have the guts ?
Do you have the guts to reclaim what is yours ?
You know that they stole the elections .
You know .
It ’ s obvious to everyone with two brain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elections !
You know !
It ’ s obvious to everyone with two brain cells !
And up to this point you were smart .
They wanted to incite racial war , but you were smart .
Thanks God you were smart .
You didn ’ t bite .
Black Americans decided to be Americans .
Black Americans decided that , guess what ?
Black Americans are also Americans .
I ’ m proud of you .
But now you have far more battle .
They are never going to be as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re never going to be as strong as now .
If you lose now , it will be game over !
Once installed , Socialism will never leave .
Never !
Not a single country in Eastern Europe was able to get rid of it .
Not even after decades .
Not even after two generations .
The Russians couldn ’ t , Ukrainians couldn ’ t , Baltics couldn ’ t , Czechs , Slavs , Poles , Serbs , Croats , Sovenes , all Yugoslavia , Bulgarians , Romanians , Albanians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overthrow them .
All across those countries now mediocre lives working for $ 500 per month .
With nothing else to lose , their Olympic champions lost their lives to get out of there .
They brought in the Russian tanks .
Even today you can see bullet holes in the facades in Budapest .
They lost .
All of them .
Now it ’ s your turn .
If you don ’ t like freedom , you don ’ t like it .
That ’ s it .
Nobody ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Can you save yourself from yourselves ?
Not a single honest man can live this life .
It will not be about merit .
It will not be about skill sets .
Or knowledge .
It will not be about any good quality of a human being .
It will just be about collecting points .
Are you Serb enough ?
Are you Croat enough ?
Are you black enough ?
Or white enough ?
Have you been loyal to the party ?
There will be no more two parties any more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ names .
Everything just one .
We don ’ t vote any more .
It ’ s pointless .
There is no reason any more .
Look what happened to you during the lockdowns .
They had no authority over you , and you just obeyed .
And destroyed your businesses .
You obeyed .
They took your streets and looted everything .
You obeyed .
They came to your neighborhoods .
You ’ ve done nothing !
They ’ ve come to your house !
You ’ ve done nothing !
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You have done nothing , you idiots !
And what are you going to do now ?
Are you going to take that goddamn bulldozer and bulldoze everything ?
Or are you just going to stay obedient sheep until you get slaughtered ?
My people got slaughtered !
Women and children slaughtered !
Thrown alive !
That ’ s what Marxism is doing , you sheep !
Learn from history !
What the hell ?
You ’ ve got three or four more days to decide your life , you idiots !
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or go ahead and join the enemy .
Survive .
Survive like a maggot .
You want to be in permanent lockdown ?
Go ahead .
Choose your side .
You want to be undervalued because of the color of your skin ?
Go ahead .
Choose your side .
What are you waiting for ?
Aliens to save you ?
Sasquatch ?
You don ’ t believe in history ?
What is your belief ?
It ’ s your life !
It ’ s your liberty !
It ’ s your happiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , ask a billion people !
From Kamchatka to Cuba !
Ask them !
A billion people have experienced this .
And now you just want to surrender !
?
!
?
The post Serbian citizen tearing his hair out at our sheep-like attitude – Video appeared first on Ice Age Now .

“You know that they stole the elections! You know! It’s obvious to everyone with two brain cells!”
“We knew what happened. You know what happened. Now it’s a question of, “What are you going to do?”
____________
In case YouTube shuts down this video,
here’s some of what this Serbian citizen has to say.
Serbian Warning: What Happened When Their Elections Were Stolen in 2000.
Milosavljevic stole the elections. And people took to the streets. Started with strikes. Civil disobedience. More than a million people. Basically, everyone who could walk took to protest. A sea of people. Milosavljevic’s generals said no. His police chiefs said no. There was even someone who took a bulldozer. He used that bulldozer to destroy state television.
Now the question is, “Do you have the guts? Do you have the guts to reclaim what is yours?
You know that they stole the elections. You know. It’s obvious to everyone with two brain cells.
You know that they stole the elections! You know! It’s obvious to everyone with two brain cells!
And up to this point you were smart. They wanted to incite racial war, but you were smart. Thanks God you were smart. You didn’t bite. Black Americans decided to be Americans. Black Americans decided that, guess what? Black Americans are also Americans. I’m proud of you. But now you have far more battle.
They are never going to be as weak as now, and you’re never going to be as strong as now. If you lose now, it will be game over! Once installed, Socialism will never leave. Never! Not a single country in Eastern Europe was able to get rid of it. Not even after decades. Not even after two generations.
The Russians couldn’t, Ukrainians couldn’t, Baltics couldn’t, Czechs, Slavs, Poles, Serbs, Croats, Sovenes, all Yugoslavia, Bulgarians, Romanians, Albanians, not a single one was able to overthrow them.
All across those countries now mediocre lives working for $500 per month.
With nothing else to lose, their Olympic champions lost their lives to get out of there.
They brought in the Russian tanks. Even today you can see bullet holes in the facades in Budapest.
They lost. All of them. Now it’s your turn. If you don’t like freedom, you don’t like it. That’s it. Nobody’s going to help you. Nobody.
Can you save yourself from yourselves?
Not a single honest man can live this life. It will not be about merit. It will not be about skill sets. Or knowledge. It will not be about any good quality of a human being.
It will just be about collecting points. Are you Serb enough? Are you Croat enough? Are you black enough? Or white enough? Have you been loyal to the party?
There will be no more two parties any more. We have one party with ten different names. Everything just one. We don’t vote any more. It’s pointless. There is no reason any more.
Look what happened to you during the lockdowns. They had no authority over you, and you just obeyed.
And destroyed your businesses. You obeyed.
They took your streets and looted everything. You obeyed.
They came to your neighborhoods. You’ve done nothing!
They’ve come to your house! You’ve done nothing!
What the hell is wrong with you?
You have done nothing, you idiots!
And what are you going to do now? Are you going to take that goddamn bulldozer and bulldoze everything? Or are you just going to stay obedient sheep until you get slaughtered?
My people got slaughtered! Women and children slaughtered! Thrown alive! That’s what Marxism is doing, you sheep!
Learn from history! What the hell? You’ve got three or four more days to decide your life, you idiots! After that it will be game over!
Or go ahead and join the enemy. Survive. Survive like a maggot.
You want to be in permanent lockdown? Go ahead. Choose your side.
You want to be undervalued because of the color of your skin? Go ahead. Choose your side.
What are you waiting for? Aliens to save you? Sasquatch?
You don’t believe in history? What is your belief?
It’s your life! It’s your liberty! It’s your happiness! If you don’t believe me, ask a billion people! From Kamchatka to Cuba! Ask them! A billion people have experienced this.
And now you just want to surrender!?!?
The post Serbian citizen tearing his hair out at our sheep-like attitude – Video appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/2LJrcEG
December 19, 2020 at 02:09PM