Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Quebec’s playbook for beating Big Oil

Video - https://breachmedia.ca/quebec-playbo...WPDXuBIFUA5Znd

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Biting the hand that feeds you! Bob A wants to beat Big Oil, which supplies him with the product he needs to use day in and day out....

[Sid Belzberg]

Biting the hand that feeds you! Bob A wants to beat Big Oil, which supplies him with the product he needs to use day in and day out....

Bob A seems to think that scientific truths are dictated by what the masses can be convinced of. Here is an interesting story about cigarettes.

History Made Today in Rayburn House Building Drs. McCullough, Milhoan, and Cole tell the terrible truth In 1950, the renowned British epidemiologists, Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill, published a landmark study titled Smoking and carcinoma of the lung; preliminary report, in the British Medical Journal. Their study of smoking related morbidity in the UK resembled studies conducted by the German internist, Dr. Fritz Lickint, in the 1920s and early thirties, linking cigarette smoking with cancer. In 1954, a group of major American tobacco companies ran a major advertising campaign titled A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers. The objective of their “frank statement” was to dispute the recent scientific studies linking smoking to lung cancer and other severe, adverse health effects. For another fifty years, the American tobacco industry knowingly and vehemently lied to the American people about the harmful effects of smoking tobacco. A shocking number of ranking academic doctors played along with this gigantic lie. A remarkably cynical advertisement that exploited the public’s trust in medical professionals was run by Reynolds Tobacco for their Camel brand. Note in the lower right corner the notorious “T Zone” concept that apparently sprung from a depraved Madman’s mind: “T for Taste, T for Throat. Camels will suit you to a ‘T.’” I can’t look at such ads without thinking about my beautiful grandmother who was horribly impaired and disfigured by oral cancer caused by cigarette smoking. This preposterous and criminal nonsense prevailed in the American public forum for decades after Sir Austin Bradford Hill published his study in 1950. I mention it because I believe that, for the last four years, we have witnessed a similar (though even greater) campaign to promote a dangerous product and to obscure its harmful effects—namely, the globally orchestrated and even mandated push to inject all of mankind with COVID-19 gene transfer shots. Today, on the invitation of Marjorie Taylor Greene (Republican-Georgia), Drs. Peter McCullough, Ryan Cole, and Kirk Milhoan testified at a Hearing on Injuries Caused By COVID-19 Vaccines in the Rayburn House Office Building. Representative Greene’s live stream was recorded and can be watched by clicking on the image below

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/special-hearing-on-injuries-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines-part-2-jan-12/mtg-covid-vaccine-injuries-hearing-part-2/

[Bob Armstrong]

Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

"When Will Electric Airliners Make Sense?

Don’t hold your breath unless you can hold it to mid-century."

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/w...t-newtab-en-us

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

"When Will Electric Airliners Make Sense?

Don’t hold your breath unless you can hold it to mid-century."

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/w...t-newtab-en-us

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Bob,
Electric cars have proven to be yet another scam "solution" to the climate scam. They are not what they are cracked up to be.


Are Electric Vehicles a Solution? Executive Summary

Let’s summarize here the key points of our analysis, which shows that there is little rationale for any massive & rapid transition towards electric vehicles.

https://covexit.substack.com/p/are-electric-vehicles-a-solution-exec-summary
AUG 20, 2023

We summarize here the key points of our analysis. The full analysis is found in the article’s Part 1 & Part 2. We have also a piece about range anxiety. A French version of this executive summary is available here.

1. There is presently a massive push in many countries, in the EU, North America and elsewhere, to increase the number of electric vehicles (EVs) and to progressively phase out internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. This massive push relies on massive subsidies, stringent regulations and sometimes protectionist measures, as EVs presently are not cost competitive and are far from offering the same convenience and driving qualities as ICE vehicles, such as long range, rapid fueling time, good affordability, to name just those.
2. This analysis was done with an open mind, independently, not trying at the start to reach a particular conclusion. The analysis by Mark Mills in his recent study, that led him to conclude that EVs are essentially an “impossible dream,” needed to be looked at very seriously, as his conclusions are so much at odds with what governments, spending / wasting billions and billions of taxpayers money, are now doing in so many countries to push EVs.
3. The core argument used to justify a transition to electric vehicles is that it will have a positive effect regarding climate change. In a nutshell, their logic is as follows. ICE powered vehicles generate CO2 emissions, which contribute to warm up the climate, and limiting those CO2 emissions will help mitigate such warming. For those who don’t believe in that theory, the transition to EVs does not make any sense. What is found in the article is that, even if one assumes anthropogenic carbon emissions play an important role regarding climate change, the findings of the analysis are the same as if you are a climate change skeptic. So please keep on reading, whatever your stance is on the link between CO2 and climate change.
4. Despite all the rhetoric, EVs are NOT zero CO2 emissions vehicles. This naïve, myopic, perspective is found a bit everywhere to justify a transition to EVs, but it is plain false. The only honest way to look at EVs is to take a cradle to grave approach, and look at the emissions required for their manufacturing, for minerals extraction, for generating the electricity required to power them, etc. And to do the same with ICE vehicles, and then compare. With such approach, it’s immediately clear that EVs offer at best a small advantage. But with highly efficient ICE vehicles, this small advantage vanishes, as the EVs are then found to emit more CO2, not less.
5. Today, there are very low emission vehicles that are already produced, with diesel, gasoline and hybrid engines. Most car manufacturers already have the technology for such highly efficient ICE vehicles. If adopted much more widely, such highly efficient ICE powered vehicles can dramatically reduce emissions without any need to transition towards EVs, and without any need for immense and extremely costly changes in the transportation, automotive and energy sectors. It becomes then absolutely unnecessary to operate a transition to EVs.
6. There are several comparisons between EVs and ICE vehicles that have been made, and Part 2 of the article looks at some of them closely. These comparisons are very instructive to understand the major problems associated with electric vehicles, both at the individual and the public policy levels. First, when you get your new EV, there are considerable CO2 emissions that already have been generated to produce your vehicle, and they are much higher than those associated with the production of a comparable ICE vehicle. The idea that buying an EV is a kind of ecological act, from a CO2 / climate perspective, is plain false. The virtue signalling, by some, when they purchase an EV is accordingly plain ridiculous.
7. Second, the studies show that it will take at least several years, typically at the very minimum 4 or 5 years, for the EV to have net lower emissions than a comparable ICE powered vehicle. In some instances, it will take much longer, or it may actually never happen. Yes, depending on key factors, which we will review, your EV may or may not generate any net CO2 emission savings. For example, when the car is not driven a lot, or when the EV is compared to a highly efficient ICE vehicle, there is then no scenario where any significant net CO2 emissions savings can realistically be achieved.
8. Third, the energy mix of the electricity used to power the EV is critically important to assess the CO2 emissions it generates while driving. Energy mixes vary throughout the world, yet remain largely dependent on coal and fossil fuels in general. Some European countries, notably Germany, are dropping nuclear, thereby increasing the CO2 emissions from their energy mix. In most cases (Northern Europe, Northern USA, Canada, etc.) solar and wind are and will remain incapable to meet the increased electricity demand linked to EVs. In countries with coal representing a high share of the energy mix, such as Poland, China and India, it’s virtually impossible for EVs to induce any benefits in terms of CO2 emissions.
9. Fourth, your annual driven mileage is important. If you don’t drive your EV a lot, which can actually be very normal, for example for a second car in a household, then you will never breakeven and achieve any CO2 savings. Why? It’s simply because of the large excess CO2 emissions associated with the manufacturing of the EV, particularly its battery. From an incentives perspective, this means that your natural inclination to avoid driving too long distances, if you can avoid it, will actually go against the whole idea of your EV to generate net CO2 emissions savings over the vehicle’s life.
10. Fifth, the three comparisons reviewed in the article, even if very instructive, share a common, major, flaw. They compare in each case an EV with a comparable ICE powered car that actually is not the most efficient one available. In the VW Golf comparison, for example, a Golf EV model is compared to a Golf gasoline model, with a consumption of 5.2 litres / 100 km. But if the comparaison had been made instead with the Golf 8 2.0 TDI diesel model, with a 3.5 litres / 100 km consumption, achieving 67 MPG, the results would have been much much worse for the EV. If you drive one of the most efficient ICE powered vehicles, it’s virtually impossible for any EV to beat it in terms of low CO2 emissions

[Sid Belzberg]

Other Points

1. The article does not delve into the details of the negative environmental and social impacts of such mining, but they are immense. For example, in the Congo, which is the world’s main cobalt producer, there is a horrific reality of mines where very young children and adults work, in miserable and unsafe conditions, for some 2 dollars per day. The environmental impacts of mining are also considerable. For example, with lithium, huge amounts of water are needed, with devastating impacts on ecosystems and on local agricultural producers. Things may get much worse, as the richest mines get progressively depleted and the newer ones are typically less rich and require even more ore to be extracted for producing the same quantity of refined mineral. Also stressed in the Mills report is that the mining industry is unable to respond to this considerable rapid increase in demand for minerals associated with EVs, which will likely mean shortages and higher prices for the key minerals needed to manufacture EV batteries.
2. One of the most important, yet most problematic, ingredients of EV batteries is lithium. Why? Not only because its cost and relative rarity, but because it is associated with the spontaneous fires that EVs are, maybe rarely, but too regularly, subject to. These fires, which also occur with e-bikes for example, are typically impossible to extinguish, lead to a complete loss of the vehicle, and can also inflame other vehicles or nearby buildings. Parking an EV in a building is increasingly seen as a hazard. The situation is so serious that there are calls, for example by the Commissioner of the NY Fire Department, for making the batteries, from EVs, e-bikes, etc. much safer. But it’s not clear if that is technically possible with lithium based batteries.
3. Transitioning to electric vehicles poses an immense industrial problem. Many industrialized countries have very well established, efficient, ICE car industries. Transitioning to more efficient ICE vehicles is easily feasible and has actually already been achieved by most manufacturers, at least for some of their models. But transitioning to EVs is much more problematic. Why? EVs are more expensive, which brings people to seek smaller cars. High labor cost countries are typically unable to compete with low cost producers, especially China, for such smaller vehicles. With countries like France, the UK, Germany, Italy and the USA less able to compete, this leads to a de-industrialization in the automotive sector. This is especially the case in Europe, that has been hit by sharp energy prices increases in the past years and is facing gloomy years to come as far as industrial energy prices are concerned.
4. Of course, industrialized, high labor cost, countries want to participate in the new EV economy. It sounds so great. It looks so popular, so ecological. What do governments then decide to do? They introduce regulations, subsidies and even protectionist measures to promote the EV sector. This is of course anathema with good economic practices. An example of a massive yet very questionable governmental intervention is a C$ 13.2 billion public aid to be provided in Canada to an EV battery factory by VW to be built in Ontario. As an estimated 80% of the cost of EV batteries is typically constituted by the needed minerals (cobalt, lithium, etc.), such factory only generates some 20% of the added value, which is low and offers little interest from an economic development perspective. Yet, the offered subsidies are massive and represent a whopping C$ 4.4 million per job created. This does not make any sense, yet such low value added investments can be expected to flourish in many jurisdictions pushing this transition to EVs, even if they are very costly and a terrible use of taxpayers money.
5. Moreover, several manufacturers in industrialized countries are now betting on heavy, luxury, electric SUVs, trucks, etc. Why? Because these are much more expensive models, that can justify higher labor costs. These vehicles require however massive energy to be produced and to be powered, with typically massive batteries. This is not a positive trend from an environmental, CO2 emissions, electricity availability, angle. Again, opting for the most fuel efficient versions of such vehicles will likely be a much better option, and avoid all the issues associated with the EV versions, such as high cost, limited range, long charging time, insufficient power available from the grid, etc.
6. Are the low fuel consumption, high MPG, internal combustion engine vehicles clean enough to be promoted as alternatives to the EVs? Absolutely yes. The Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) already implemented in London and other UK cities do accept a variety of vehicles: electric, hybrid, gas or diesel powered. The ULEZ rely on European standards that set limits for air polluting Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and particulate matters from engines. Most recent car models do meet the standard. Only older models are problematic. The ULEZ standard does not deal with CO2 emissions, but among the models that meet the ULEZ standards, there are already many low consumption, high MPG vehicles, with very low CO2 emissions. To be noted is that recent research has shown that the particulates originating from tyres are much higher than those emitted from exhausts. So, EVs also produce lots of particulates from their tyres, much more than those originating from a diesel or gasoline powered car exhaust.
7. Generally speaking, even if there has been considerable improvement since the first electric vehicles in the 19th century, electric vehicles remain much less convenient; have much lower range; require much longer times to fuel them, are way more expensive, do last less both in terms of driven distances and years (if the battery life is taken into account), and have an increasingly recognized serious fire hazard. EVs only have a few, minor, qualities over ICE powered vehicles, such as lower noise and usually better accelerations. As far as the lower electricity price to charge them, compared to gas or diesel, this is typically artificial, as resulting from different levels of taxes on electricity, gasoline and diesel. In many countries, electricity prices are sharply on the rise. And this rise can only be accelerated by the increasing power demand on the electric grid created by the growing number of EVs.
8. As we have seen, there are already options, other than EVs, to get passenger vehicles to have a much lower footprint and emit less CO2 than today. And contrary to EVs, there are no significant hurdles for the automotive industry to increase the production of highly efficient ICE models. That so many governments choose opting for the EV route is baffling, as there are so many issues associated with them, and as they are not even effective at reducing CO2 emissions. Governments, however, seem to be all in this non-solution, and proceed with generous subsidies, stringent (unrealistic) regulations and sometimes protectionist measures. The prohibition to sell non-electric vehicles in the EU by 2035 is an example of such absurd regulation, as the most efficient ICE cars, emitting much less CO2 than their EV counterpart, will be prohibited. This is bad, uninformed, public policy, which will have immense negative consequences for the population, and requires urgent correction.
9. From this analysis, there is a pretty simple conclusion. With the technology available today, absolutely nothing justifies a massive, rapid, transition to electric vehicles. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, there are much more efficient and cheaper ways to achieve this, simply by incentivizing low CO2 emitting vehicles and disincentivizing high CO2 emitting vehicles. This can be done easily, with negligible public expenditures, without creating unnecessary and irreparable havoc in the transportation, automotive and energy sectors for the decades to come.

Oh, I forgot … “let that sink in” !! :

[Bob Armstrong]

Climate is a Justice Issue

"Neoliberalism is the disease which keeps on killing. But did you know the neoliberal economic gospel we live under today is a deliberate misinterpretation of the original theory?"

https://www.facebook.com/robert.gill...y_me&ref=notif

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Climate is a Justice Issue

"Neoliberalism is the disease which keeps on killing. But did you know the neoliberal economic gospel we live under today is a deliberate misinterpretation of the original theory?"

https://www.facebook.com/robert.gill...y_me&ref=notif

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Bob, thank you so much for posting that link and also to Mr. Gillanders for posting his link to the Naomi Oreskes interview.

It lead me to an even BETTER interview with Naomi Oreskes, here:

The Big Myth: The Civic Religion of Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b47L0q6jMr4

Let me tell all of you: Naomi Oreskes would absolutely DESTROY Dollop Panhandle -- er, Dilip Panjwani -- in any debate on Libertarianism!!!!!

Just listen to this interview, and compare her educated and referenced points to the free market gibberish coming to us here on ChessTalk from Dilly Dollop.

Oh my God, would I LOVE to see such a debate! Dilly Dolly would run from the room with his weasel tail between his legs!

It's always good to see a false guru OBLITERATED AND HUMILIATED!

Hey Dilly Dally, if you've never heard of Naomi Oreskes, start trembling in your marching boots! And the interviewer, Sam Seder, also seems to know his stuff. Here is a few choice excerpts from the interview which I took the time to transcribe from the video:

Naomi Oreskes:
"There are 2 important components of market fundamentalism.

The first is the idea of "the free market". So we call this a myth, because it's not supported by good scientific or historical evidence, and part of the myth is simply the notion of "the free market", the idea that there could even BE such a thing as markets that exist apart from the rest of society. In reality, markets are human institutions, they go back to ancient Greece and Rome and Assyria, and there have ALWAYS been rules and regulations for how markets operate, just as ALL human institutions, whether it's universities or radio and television or marriage -- we have rules and regulations about marriage, and we have rules and regulations about markets. But the market fundamentalists deny this. They construct "the free market" as something that exists outside of society, culture and governance and that has a kind of "wisdom" that's almost God-like. So that if we simply trust "the market", have faith in "the market", everything will go fine.

And then the second part of it is the role of government. So these are sort of two sides of the same coin, the market fundamentalists are also anti-government. They construct a story that government "intervention" or government "encroachment" -- that's a word they like to use a lot -- undermines the wisdom of the marketplace, therefore is a BAD thing, and therefore government intervention even to address a crisis, like the climate crisis, or an obvious ill like child labour, they would argue is putting us on the wrong path, it's putting us on the road to what they would call "serfdom".

Market Fundamentalism is tied to Libertarianism, and Libertarianism is based on a radically individualistic notion of human activities, behavior. And so it privileges the individual, and it really GLORIFIES the individual to such an extreme extent that if the government proposes ... to regulate something, like let's say smoking, these folks will say, "No, it's up to ME to decide whether I smoke. It's not up to the government, and I don't want the government TELLING me whether I can smoke, because that leads to tyranny."

Sam Seder:
"It's so post-hoc, it seems to me, in terms of justifying no government intrusion because ... you can't say, "It's my individual choice to smoke a cigarette" because cigarettes would not exist without, sort of, the structure of society. Like, this is like, you can't say "It is for me to do what I want with my property" because property is a legal definition that needs a society to determine that. .... It is non-sensical on some level to start with an individual relying on a social construct. But they sort of skip that part always. And it's interesting the way they do that."

Later on in the video is also interesting, where Naomi exposes the invention in the 1930's by the NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) of the term "free enterprise". It had always been called "private enterprise" before this time, but NAM in their propaganda campaign wanted to associate business with freedom, and so coined the term "free enterprise" and proposed it was a leg of a tripod, without which the entire American society would collapse.

The term "free enterprise" as Naomi elucidates never appears in the U.S. Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence -- and in fact NAM in the 19th century was in FAVOR OF government protective tariffs. "Free enterprise" was purely invented by the NAM in the 1930s for propaganda purposes and has been elevated since to grandiose stature in the American lexicon.

We are all being misled by false gurus just as we always have been. We are being told ad nauseum by right-wing freedom fanatics that government is the problem. But even the people who are expounding this idea are in FAVOR of government! They have to be, their very existence and survival is BECAUSE OF government! And the worst part is, like Dilly Dally and his crony Sid Ballsbag, they DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT!

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, thank you so much for posting that link and also to Mr. Gillanders for posting his link to the Naomi Oreskes interview.

It lead me to an even BETTER interview with Naomi Oreskes, here:

The Big Myth: The Civic Religion of Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b47L0q6jMr4

I think you will like this one as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L028...hannel=Skeptic

[Bob Armstrong]

Reducing Rate of Negative Climate Change

Cars as spewers of Greenhouse Gases

EV's

"preventing their [EV] car purchase: ‘I think we are very far behind’


“They argue that I will want to put an outlet at my place.”"


https://www.thecooldown.com/green-ho...-rules-reddit/

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Climate Change’ is nothing but a Psychological Operation meant to hijack us emotionally…so Private-Jet Flying Politicians can launder your Tax Dollars under the guise of ‘Saving the Planet’. ‘Climate Change’ will be one of the Greatest Scams ever known to Mankind.

[Sid Belzberg]

The Echoes of History: From Buffalo Decimation to Modern Food Control



As we step into January 2024, a disturbing trend continues. Amish farmers face ongoing raids, while Bill Gates expands his farmland holdings, raising questions about the intent behind these actions. The Tenpenny Report has been vocal for nearly a year about what seems to be a Deep State agenda to control the food supply, citing incidents like food plant fires and avian flu as tools in this scheme.

This strategy isn't new. Recall the 1800s, when the US government indirectly decimated buffalo herds to control Native Americans by cutting off their primary food source. From an estimated 30-60 million, the buffalo population plummeted to about 300 by 1899, a staggering loss that facilitated the forced relocation of Native Americans to reservations.

This historical precedent mirrors today's concerns about controlling food sources. The current push for 15-minute cities and global elites' hypocritical stance on climate change and meat consumption are contemporary parallels. While preaching sustainability and reduced meat consumption, these leaders indulge in the very practices they condemn.

The Native American experience under the US government - marked by unfulfilled promises and oppressive control - serves as a grim reminder. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' claims of promoting prosperity starkly contrast with the reality of poverty, lack of basic amenities, and high rates of alcoholism and violence on reservations.

Our history of exploiting and controlling indigenous populations through food supply control is uncomfortably close to today's attempts to dictate dietary choices and lifestyles. Just as the US government allowed the buffalo slaughter while standing aside, modern policies and double standards by the global elite on climate and consumption reflect a similar pattern of covert control and hypocrisy.

The echoes of history are loud and clear. The buffalo killers of the past find their counterparts in today's world, where control over food and lifestyle choices seems to be an ever-present theme. As we consider these parallels, let's remain vigilant about the narratives we're fed and the historical lessons they bear.

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

A Consequence - Weather Extremes

Drought



Americas - Texas, USA.


"Texas Is Already Running Out of Water

Parts of the state are starting the year with low reserves. With light winter rains failing to replenish supply, and a scorching summer predicted, key areas may be pushed to the brink."


https://www.wired.com/story/texas-wa...nl&utm_term=P3

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Negative Climate Change

A Consequence - Weather Extremes

Drought



Americas - Texas, USA.


"Texas Is Already Running Out of Water

Parts of the state are starting the year with low reserves. With light winter rains failing to replenish supply, and a scorching summer predicted, key areas may be pushed to the brink."


https://www.wired.com/story/texas-wa...nl&utm_term=P3

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

And next, you will tell us that solar activity on the sun did not cause that.

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change - Step # 1



Solar activity on the sun IS the source of heat in the Earth's atmosphere/soil. It always has been thus. Temperature is one of the component parts of Earth's "Climate".

The issue is why is this solar activity/heat generation on and around Earth RECENTLY/NOW causing a rise in the temperature of Earth's atmosphere and soil and seas?

The first issue of common agreement is on the following 6 Statements; without common agreement on facts, discussion is really only "debate about facts".

Statements

#1. It is a scientific "fact" that the Earth's temperature was stable for some long length of time. There were periods of both cold and hot in the distant past, but they were generally quite long periods. The last one has been a very, very slow warming phase and has lasted a long time to the time of the "Change".

#2. At some point, for some reason/cause, the temperature began to rise more, and the slow stable warming was lost.

#3. At the beginning of the "Change", the temperature rose slowly and incrementally (Though faster than at the start of the most recent warming phase).

#4. The temperature continued to rise generally, though there may have been some short fall-back periods..

#5. Then at some point, for some reason/cause, the rate of increase in temperature rose, and warming occurred more quickly than before.Each year was record-breaking in terms of temperature rise.

#6. With a rising rate of change during the more recent period, Earth is coming into "high temperatures" - called "high" because the climate is now turning hostile to man's current way of living.

1st Step in "Dialogue"

So let's see which CT'ers agree with which Statements - In your comment just list the Statement # and "agree", "partly agree", "disagree".

The goal is to see whether any of the Statements are "generally accepted" by the CT viewers of this thread (Get a majority).

Step # 2 will then be a discussion on each statement

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]