And More Coming Down From the Suicide Cults

alethonews.com/2021/08/15/defending-co2-...te-and-common-sense/

Is it too late for the human species to save itself from the Big Death Cult and its popular supporters, who are in another descriptive victims in support of their own murderers: In other words their ARE OWN WORST ENEMIES!

According to such modern climate experts as Bill Gates, Greta Thunberg, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Carney, Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Prince Charles and Klaus Schwab, carbon dioxide must be stopped at all cost. Images of submerged cities, drowning polar bears and burning deserts taking over civilization flash before our eyes repeatedly in schools, mainstream media and films.

The Paris Climate Accords demand that all nations reduce their emissions to pre-industrial levels and the upcoming COP27 Summit in the UK will certainly demand that these reductions be made legally binding and enforceable by new global governance mechanisms.

But is CO2 really the existential threat it is being made out to be?

I would like to take a few moments to entertain the hypothesis that we may be drinking some poisonous Kool-Aid in a modern-day Jonestown cult and we are just minutes away from a hearty “bottoms up”.

While some of the questions and facts you are about to read are considered heretical in certain quarters, I think that history has shown that it is only by permitting the mind to question sacred cows at the risk of being denounced as “heretical” that any creative progress can made. With this thought in mind, I will venture the risk and only ask that you accompany me for this thought experiment with an open mind

Billy, earlier today you were posting articles by Paul Craig Roberts, who thinks climate change is an existential threat (eg www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/10/26/glob...e-is-on-the-horizon/), and Glen Greenwald, who thinks we are not doing enough to curb CO2.

Now you are posting material from a guy who disagrees with you, and thinks covid is a serious danger and that the vaccines are real.

What's going on Billy?

The people you trust keep seeming to disagree with you.

You making confusion where there is none. Really silly, and funny!

A self made idiocy should be easy for the creative idiot to turn around and figure it out himself. Help yourself!

alethonews.com/2021/08/15/new-climate-ch...ve-a-few-years-left/

New Climate Change Report Once Again Promises, As It First Did in 1990, We Only Have a Few Years Left

Now, as then, they warn that “extremes” are on their way. They haven’t got here yet, but they’re coming. They’re always coming.

By WILLIAM M BRIGGS | Stream | August 11, 2021
How many times can you be wrong about a matter of great importance and still be taken seriously and not be fired?

Trick question!

The answer is: you can never be fired for being wrong in the right direction.

The Experts making statements about how dire the climate is have been wrong for decades, and they are still wrong in their sparkling new IPCC Climate Assessment Report 6 released Monday.

The difference between AR6, and ARs 1-5, is not so much in the kind of errors made, for these haven’t changed at all, but in the certainty expressed in them. It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that somebody did a “Find & Replace” of every instance of “very likely” in AR5 and changed them to “virtually certain.”

The rhetoric has been amplified, but the mistakes remain. The Experts who write these reports have never lost any authority for their repeated blunders, nor will they be taken any less than seriously for making them again now.

Because they are always wrong in the direction our rulers want them to be.

alethonews.com/2021/08/15/if-net-zero-cr...themselves-to-blame/

If Net Zero crashes and burns, the press will have only themselves to blame

Global Warming Policy Forum – 13/08/21
The passengers on the global warming bandwagon are worried. With the big climate conference in Glasgow at the end of the year getting ever closer, it now looks very much as if the big emitting nations are not going to sign up to a Net Zero agreement, and that the Prime Minister will be left with a humiliating failure on his hands.

It’s not just the conference that is in jeopardy. The government’s whole Net Zero agenda looks increasingly threatened, as Conservative MPs look nervously at the costs, and wonder what it might do to their chances of reelection.

If it goes all pear-shaped, the journalists and commentators who have been promoting the decarbonisation agenda for years have only themselves to blame. It has been clear to anyone who took the time to question the narrative that the aims were impractical, the figures presented were implausible, and that it was only a matter of time before there was a public backlash.

However, questioning things seems to nowadays be only a peripheral part of journalists’ job descriptions, particularly those on the climate and energy beat. Today’s Times’ leader, and James Kirkup’s recent article in the Spectator, both on the subject of net zero, are cases in point.

alethonews.com/2021/08/15/fussing-over-o...egree-of-simulation/

Fussing Over One Degree of Simulation

By Jenifer Marohasy | August 12, 2021
I was at the Australian National University in October 2018, when the largest supercomputer in the Southern Hemisphere began running the simulations that have now been published as the IPCC’s Assessment Report No. 6 (AR6). It’s being touted as the most comprehensive climate change report ever. It is certainly based on a very complex simulation model (CMIP6).

Many are frightened by the official analysis of the model’s results, which claims global warming is unprecedented in more than 2000 years. Yet the same modelling is only claiming the Earth is warming by some fractions of a degree Celsius! Specifically, the claim is that we humans have caused 1.06 °C of the claimed 1.07 °C rise in temperatures since 1850, which is not very much. The real-world temperature trends that I have observed at Australian locations with long temperature records would suggest a much greater rate of temperature rise since 1960, and cooling before that.

Allowing some historical perspective shows that the IPCC is wrong to label the recent temperature changes ‘unprecedented’. They are not unusual in magnitude, direction or rate of change, which should diminish fears that recent climate change is somehow catastrophic.

To understand how climate has varied over much longer periods, over hundreds and thousands of years, various types of proxy records can be assembled derived from the annual rings of long-lived tree species, corals and stalagmites. These types of records provide evidence for periods of time over the past several thousand years (the late Holocene) that were either colder, or experienced similar temperatures, to the present, for example the Little Ice Age (1309 to 1814) and the Medieval Warm Period (985 to 1200), respectively. These records show global temperatures have cycled within a range of up to 1.8 °C over the last thousand years.

Defending CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate And Common Sense

alethonews.com/2021/08/15/defending-co2-...te-and-common-sense/

By Matthew Ehret | Principia Scientific | August 12, 2021

According to such modern climate experts as Bill Gates, Greta Thunberg, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Carney, Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Prince Charles and Klaus Schwab, carbon dioxide must be stopped at all cost. Images of submerged cities, drowning polar bears and burning deserts taking over civilization flash before our eyes repeatedly in schools, mainstream media and films.

The Paris Climate Accords demand that all nations reduce their emissions to pre-industrial levels and the upcoming COP27 Summit in the UK will certainly demand that these reductions be made legally binding and enforceable by new global governance mechanisms.

But is CO2 really the existential threat it is being made out to be?

I would like to take a few moments to entertain the hypothesis that we may be drinking some poisonous Kool-Aid in a modern-day Jonestown cult and we are just minutes away from a hearty “bottoms up”.

While some of the questions and facts you are about to read are considered heretical in certain quarters, I think that history has shown that it is only by permitting the mind to question sacred cows at the risk of being denounced as “heretical” that any creative progress can made. With this thought in mind, I will venture the risk and only ask that you accompany me for this thought experiment with an open mind.

alethonews.com/2021/07/31/a-little-arith...fossil-fuel-back-up/

alethonews.com/2021/08/15/dr-richard-fle...ne-is-the-bioweapon/

By Francis Menton – Manhattan Contrarian – July 29, 2021

Yesterday’s post made the point that states or countries seeking to march toward 100% “renewable” electricity don’t seem to be able to get past about the 50% mark, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels they build. The reason is that, in practical operation, due to what is called “intermittency,” no output is available from the solar and wind sources at many times of high demand; therefore, during those times, other sources must supply the juice. This practical problem is presented most starkly in California, where the “renewable” strategy is based almost entirely on solar panels, with only a very small wind component. Daily graphs published by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) show a clear and obvious pattern, where the solar generation drops right to zero every evening just as the peak demand period kicks in from about 6 to 9 PM.

Commenter Sean thinks he has the answer: “Given the predictable daily power generation cycle of solar in sunny places like California and the predictable daily demand which peaks in the evening perhaps solar generators should be required to have electricity storage equivalent to the daily generation of their PV system.”

I thought it might be instructive to play out Sean’s idea to see just how much solar generation capacity and storage it would take to make a system out of just those two elements that would be sufficient to fulfill California’s current electricity requirements. Note: this is an exercise in arithmetic. It is not complicated arithmetic. There is nothing here that goes beyond what you learned in elementary school. On the other hand, few seem to be willing to undertake the effort to do these calculations, or to recognize the consequences

alethonews.com/2021/08/17/cattle-dont-ca...re-already-net-zero/

THE Green Wreckers who destroyed Australia’s cheap, reliable electricity are now targeting our cattle industry. They use fake science and false advertising to threaten our right to produce and consume real meat.

This stupidity relies on a totally false argument that grazing animals cause global warming by releasing carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere.

However, grazing animals have already reached ‘Net Zero’. They add NET ZERO carbon to the environment – they just help to recycle the same carbon products faster, endlessly.

Grasses and crops extract CO2 from the atmosphere and add minerals, water and nutrients from the soil. They then use solar energy to create plant sugars and release oxygen.

All grasses are either eaten by grazing animals and termites, or burnt in grass fires lit by humans or lightning. Then comes the rain, the grasses re-grow, and the cycle starts again. Cattle harvest these crops and grasses, creating meat, milk, fats and bones (that’s real carbon farming).

Some of the carbon products that cattle eat are expelled from both ends as CO2 and methane, but not one atom of new carbon is introduced to the atmosphere by grasses, crops or cattle. They are just cogs in the endless carbon cycle that supports all life on Earth.

Moreover, contrary to the usual alarms, the atmospheric warming impact of methane (CH4) from cattle is negligible, since the few radiation absorption lines of methane are swamped by the absorption bands of the much more abundant water vapour. The same heat cannot be trapped twice.

You are very silly, Billy.

You are now posting articles by William M Briggs, a member of the Heartland Institute (which is bankrolled by Exxon Mobile and Big Oil), a conservative and libertarian organization funded by the biggest banks, oil companies and corporations on the planet.

Don't you see that you are always linking to libertarians, Billy?

Do you understand what libertarianism is?

Do you agree with this brand of free market fundamentalism? If not, why do all your websites always link back to the biggest libertarian groups on the planet, Billy?

Now use your brain for a moment Billy. Think real hard. I'm trying to make this simple for you.

Capitalism's grow-or-die imperative needs constant market expansion to avoid collapse, and so demands a constant increase in fuel and energy. And so more growth = more profit = requires more and more oil = causes more CO2 = the wealthy having a vested interest in running anti-climate change propaganda.

This is why studies show climate deniers (www.desmog.com/2021/01/08/climate-denier...ation-trump-capitol/) - and William Briggs is included in this – spend an inordinate amount of time shilling for the Republican Party, and even defending things like the January 6th Capitol Riots (which William Briggs does). The Republican Party primarily exists to lower corporate tax, and deregulate the energy sector, and so conservative think tanks and dummy groups pump billions of dollars into “climate experts” who are paid to shill for conservatives and big oil. That's the real conspiracy which you are being distracted from.

You next post an article by Matthew Ehret. Ehret is an agent paid by Putin, and has been investigated by the CIA (www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08...osystem_08-04-20.pdf). He is part of a, quote, “Russian disinformation and propaganda ecosystem” which functions as a “collection of official, proxy, and unattributed communication channels and platforms that Russia uses to create and amplify false narratives”. He is a paid member of the “Strategic Culture Foundation” (SCF), a fake journal used by Russia to, quote, “conceal direct state involvement in disinformation and propaganda outlets, and to cultivate local voices to serve as surrogate messengers.”

The SCF is directed by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service and closely affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It's president is Yuri Prokofiev, who was Moscow Party Chief from 1989 to 1991 and a Soviet Politburo Member. Prokofiev is also one of the founders of the “Russian Organization for Assistance to Special Services and Law Enforcement Authorities” (ROSSPO), which works closely with Russian security services to spread the policies of the Russian state. GECSCF’s Director General is Vladimir Maximenko, who is also the director of the Russian Unity Foundation, which spreads Russian propaganda abroad. The SCF's tactic is to create websites and “journals” which look independent, or have an air of academic respectability, and pay its authors to disseminate material useful for sowing dissent and splitting societies.

Do you see how you've yet again been duped, Billy?

Next you post an article by Francis Menton. Menton is a member of the Federalist Society – a libertarian/conservative group bankrolled by the mega rich, who also works for RealClearEnergy, which is a propaganda outlet bankrolled by Big Oil, the Kochs, Donor’s Trust and Donors Capital Fund, the Mercer’s Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and other far-right and/or Republican organizations.

So once again I ask you, Billy, why do your views always align with LIBERTARIANS, racists and the wealthiest groups on the planet, and why do your views always come from news outlets explicitly set up and funded by right wing think tanks to spread free-market propaganda?

Which is more likely, Billy, that truth and justice depends on us taking the views and values of these people at face value? Or that you are a massively gullible person who is being duped, and has fallen into the echo chamber of billionaire-funded brainwashers?

Unfortunately the human brain has all kinds of ego-defense mechanisms standing in the way of you actually recognizing your delusions. More likely, you double down and cling more misguidedly to your conspiracy theories.