Some collected links about global warming

Watch “Lord Christopher Monckton – Global Warming is a Hoax” on YouTube

To silence the opposition on climate change, warmists like to wave the incense of peer review.
This podcast explains why peer review is a joke: http://tomwoods.com/1254
In short: in politicized subjects, self-proclaimed scientists are not to be trusted, because they are not objectively seeking out the truth.
And yes, Big Oil funded research is more credible, because it has less to lose than politics, which uses global warming as a baton (a hockeystick, if you will) to beat the people into submission. Oil companies are merely energy companies, that also deal in the raw material, for building Electric vehicles, for the electrical insulation particularly necessary for electric vehicles.

Advertisements

Welke les leren we dankzij de klimaattafel?

Waar een bende partijdige activisten wel even in hun eentje de toekomst van miljoenen Nederlanders gaan bepalen? Dat de “politieke oplossing” een gotspe is; de politiek vertegenwoordigt alleen maar de eigen belangen, niet de onze. Rechts verkwanselt onze belangen aan het grote geld; links aan hun eigen pretjes. Dus is het aan het volk om voor de volksbelangen op te komen. Niemand anders doet het, ofwel uit onwil, of uit onkunde. Het is aan het volk om energie te kopen van bv thoriumcentrales e.d. (Den Junta heeft niet het lef te hebben om de aanleg van thoriumcentrales tegen te ghouden) Degene die wil, kan energie uit windmolens kopen. Maar in vredesnaam, geen centrale planning meer! Dat ging al fout in de VSSR en blijft ook fout gaan in Den Hagistan.
Den Haag wil gewoon dat mensen niet meer reizen, want je elektrische auto kan niet opgeladen worden zonder stroom, en je elektrische trein staat ook stil. Dan maar paard en wagen? Vertel dat maar niet aan de PvdD.
(Ps de les is dus: democratie ipv dictatuur)

Tax reduction instead of stimulus

Stimulus packages fail. It’s wealth that gets spent by the government, on projects that don’t yield result, meaning the money evaporates and is lost forever (so it’s not invested). The government spends money that’s not theirs to spend, on boondoggles like bridges from nowhere to nowhere, meaning that all the effort (& money, energy) put into extracting/creating the resources put into the bridge, like mining iron ore, growing food for the workers etc. is wasted. Surely, the responses to the crises of 1929 and 2008 have sufficiently demonstrated that. Not only is Keynesianism bad for the economy, but also for the environment.
Also, it’s spent on projects that do not serve the people, but only serve government, like when Obama subsidized a bunch of businesses that claimed to work on CO2-reduction, which yields exactly what this world doesn’t need: less food, more thirst (and now, thanks to Obama’s stmulus waste, also less wealth). Governments can only put money into exvestments (I just invented that word; I don’t intend to copyright it), which is the exact opposite of investing; investments yield return, by e.g. allowing people cross a river, on a bridge, and meet people on the other side, have a chat with them, have a drink, maybe they’ll even have sex with each other. Or they’ll exchange goods, services, and have trade with each other, meaning it’s economically beneficial.
It would be better to reduce taxes by the amount of the stimulus. No way can someone like #PaulKrugman, who said that “tax reduction has never, I mean NEVER worked” complain about that,. Since the money isn’t even reserved for government policy, instead of throwing it away on stuff the people don’t want money spent on. Instead of dumping all the bank notes into a volcano (which is what stimulus spending comes down to) don’t steal them in the first place, be a bit democratic and let the people spend their own money their way.
On top of which, people can’t complain that other taxes will go up to compensate for the loss of revenue, since that money is earmarked for destruction. Even politicians can’t think they’ll spend it that money when it’s gone.

Interpretation of data on Carbon Dioxide

On this blog, I’ve written a Dutch post ( https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/180604-interpretatie-van-grafieken-ipcc-data/ ) about my interpretation of these data: http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html (English), the graphics seem to indicate that before, during and after the Kyoto treaty, CO2 kept rising increasingly sharp. Keep in mind that (apart from perhaps Liechtenstein and Bhutan), all governments aee totalitatlrian, meaning that they busybody the total collection of aspects of the life of all citizens. So, at the very least the people could have expected a reduction in the speed of CO2 increase. Didn’t happen.
Meaning either one of these:

  1. Humanity has no discernible impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so none of the economic terror committed by politicians can be justified.
  2. Politicians have made every effort to maximize CO2-levels, ie by means of increasing traffic jams (example: Dutch politicians for the last over half a century), or by sending expeditionary armies all over the globe (example:#4thReich). Modern wars are fought using tanks, planes, ships, etc that emit enormous amounts of CO2 (not counting Echelon, the computers of which need water cooling, that’s how much energy they burn, just to listen in on Merckel’s phone calls – Merckel was an ally of Obama! And Obama was one of Gore’s high preachers, and responsible for 7 wars in 8 years. Both had a Nobel prize for peace). Politicians are committing climate terrorism.

Either way, the economic terror is unjustifiable (as an aside, neither is the military).

Is Tesla a cult?

I responded this in the comments section of this video https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c :

[Name removed] That means the hysteria used to force people into similarly harmful (but much more expensive) EVs is entirely misplaced; causes environmental & economic & psychological harm.
A much better idea to continue using cheap internal combustion engines, to produce more wealth, so that people will be able to afford to switch to EVs when the time comes. Renewability is no argument: there is so much oil in the ground: banning current geberations from using it, will keep it there, for even further future generations to not use it, because even further future generations will have to leave it there for ad infinitum.
Oil is probably not even a fossil fuel, but the product of bacterial processes.
[Name removed] will you please stop ridiculing yourself with the worn paranoid slander of “big oil is afraid people will stop using oil, is behind ads like this” because first of all, the electrical cables (insulation) and modern plastic car chassis, are MADE OF oil, so people will continue to buy oil.
And even then: big oil wil eventually reinvent itself as big hydro, big windpower, big solar, big whatever it is your conspiracist mind wishes to accuse of being big and mean.
I’ve written about this earlier:
https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/sigh-conspiracists-drive-me-nuts-an-elaborate-treatise-on-big-oil/

About ships switching to nuclear power:

[Name removed] What a soothing solution: having potential 3mile island disasters floating all over the world’s oceans, and ships never sink, do they? #Greenpeace became famous for their protests against #nuclear #waste #dumping in the ocean, Medoubts they ought to support, the posible sinking of nuclear pre-waste fuels.

Why are hybrid cars bad for the environment?

You can’t add lots of weight to a vehicle, ie make the engine perform more work (pulling in motion the batteries, or braking them to a stop), and expect it to consume less energy.
The only reason hybrid cars SEEM more frugal, is because they lose less energy on the typical state-operated road (with lots of stoplights, traffic jams, and similar obstructions) well, actually, they lose the same amout of energyas regular cars, but they are able to recoup some of that energy. Newton teaches us, that that is no energy gain (otherwise hybrids would be perpetal motion machines). So in order to reduce CO2 output, the state needs to do something itself, make the sacrifice of repealling the decades old policy of causing traffic problems. Or it must cease to exist, what everyone who truly cares for the climate (and believes that there’s a manmade climate crisis going on) has no other option but to wish for.

Schoolbus

For the sake of protecting the climate, the government should encourage homeschooling.

Running a schoolbus (or children making their own way, whether

  • on foot,
  • on pushbike,
  • by car
  • Or motorbike/moped)

to: a big building that’s heated throughout including the halls / empty classrooms is a horrible waste of energy

and causes vast amounts of CO2 to be emitted.

Let’s see where the priorities lie:

  1. Protecting climate, or
  2. influencing the children.