Featured post

Why can't everyone condemn Hamas?

Following Hamas' atrocities in Israel, the media are awash with commentary, so I will keep my comments short. I am shocked by the willin...

Wednesday 12 June 2024

Climate Emergency claims debunked

 I recently came across a paper that admittedly was published some years ago in 2019, but it is well worth a review as it directly addresses many of the claims made by climate zealots.

The paper  "The True and False of Climate Change" was authored by M.Ray Thomasson and Lee C. Gerhard. 

 It covers a range of claims by climate change advocates and provides evidence to refute them. The paper is not too long and worth a read but here is a summary.

Climate change advocates' claims;-

  • temperatures are higher than they have been in the last 200 years: TRUE.
  • temperatures are higher than they have ever been. FALSE.   
  • there are more hurricanes FALSE
  • there have been more droughts: FALSE
  • there have been more wet seasons: FALSE
  • the strength of hurricanes has increased: FALSE
  • the number of violent hurricanes has increased: FALSE
  • CO2 is the major Greenhouse Gas: FALSE
  • CO2 increases will drive temperatures to catastrophic levels: FALSE
  • CO2 is the main driver of temperature increases: FALSE
  • CO2 levels today are higher than they have ever been: FALSE
  • sea level is rising: TRUE
  • the rate of sea level rise is increasing: FALSE
  • changes in solar irradiance can be ignored: FALSE
  • we can ignore the effects of the sun: FALSE
  • we can ignore sun spots: FALSE
  • CO2 is a pollutant: FALSE
  • Temperature and CO2 go up together: FALSE
  • Models can be used to predict climate: FALSE
  • the pause in temperature increases is not real.FALSE
  • there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing the climate to change: FALSE

I won't reproduce all the arguments they provide but here are a couple of the diagrams supporting their case. They also provide a comprehensive list of references. 

After reading this paper it becomes very difficult to sustain the "climate emergency" mantra of many a climate zealot.  Consider the possibility that the Climate Change theory is just wrong. That there is no climate emergency. That the current warming has been a totally natural increase due to the earth coming out of a cold period due to solar cycles. That the temperature will level off and decrease as the next cold cycle kicks in. Consider the upheaval the Climate Change theory has created. Massive changes in infrastructure, the transformation of manufacturing industries, destructive mining for rare minerals for solar panels, and massive increases in the cost of living by swapping low-cost FF energy sources for expensive intermittent renewables. It could have been all for naught. A sobering thought.

Sunday 9 June 2024

Excess deaths due to vaccination

It began as a mere trickle. Actuaries noticed an uptick in deaths—deaths that didn’t align with the typical COVID profile. Funeral parlors reported increased profits, yet the demographics of these deaths didn’t correlate with COVID fatalities. Young people were suddenly dying. Subsequent studies revealed excess deaths unrelated to COVID, including a rise in cardiac arrests, particularly among athletes. There were subtle hints that vaccines might play a role. Adverse event statistics were far higher than anticipated, and embalmers discovered unusual clots. Across various regions worldwide, there emerged a correlation between vaccination rates and the surge in deaths. What started as a trickle has now become a flood. In the past week, I’ve posted several articles in On the Grapevine

And most recently Dr John Campbell has posted under the title "Proof" another study concluding that excess deaths are due to mRNA vaccination.

If this is indeed true—and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny—we, and by ‘we’ I mean the global collective, have inadvertently but negligently caused the deaths of millions of people. We compelled hundreds of millions to receive multiple doses of a novel vaccine in what can only be described as a panicked response to a new virus. In doing so, we disregarded our own pandemic management protocols, undermined our vaccine testing procedures, and compromised our democratic rights to informed decision-making. If this turns out to be accurate, it will stand as one of the greatest self-inflicted tragedies of modern times. Perhaps even more concerning is the lack of curiosity exhibited by our institutions. We urgently need transparent investigations to assess our missteps—not only to hold individuals accountable for these choices but also to prevent their recurrence.

Sunday 2 June 2024

Move over SMRs , here comes the Micro Reactor

For over 70 years, nuclear energy has been a reliable and efficient source of power. It boasts safety, cost-effectiveness, and minimal emissions. In fact, it stands as the sole scalable low-emission energy option capable of providing continuous operation 24/7. While wind and solar energy are also scalable, their intermittent nature poses challenges. Hydro energy, unfortunately, lacks scalability—it’s either available or not.

As the world grapples with the threat of catastrophic climate change, many turn to renewables like wind and solar. However, their low energy density and intermittent supply prevent them from serving as baseload power for modern societies. Intermittency necessitates backup, which typically comes from fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Although energy storage solutions are improving, they remain inefficient and costly, unable to fully address the variability of wind and solar power. After all, we can’t simply ask industries or individuals to go without energy during intermittent periods.

Nuclear energy offers a promising solution, yet inexplicably, some of the loudest voices advocating for fossil fuel elimination also push for nuclear shutdowns. Fortunately, recent developments have shifted this narrative. Factors like war, severe winters, and consumer pressure due to high energy costs have forced green groups to reconsider nuclear energy.

Enter Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These innovative designs promise reduced construction costs and implementation times, making nuclear energy more accessible worldwide.

But that’s not all. Micro nuclear reactors take miniaturization to the next level, offering power capacities of 1 to 5 MW—small enough to fit into shipping containers. Imagine the transformative impact on global energy distribution, making affordable energy widely available.

For a deeper dive, check out the video below, which provides essential background information

Thursday 30 May 2024

Minor surcharge, major irritation!

Like many of you, I sometimes find myself disproportionately annoyed by the little things. They might seem small in the grand scheme of life, the universe, and everything, but they’re more than just a minor nuisance in our daily lives. You might chuckle at the buildup, but bear with me.

I’m referring to the seemingly trivial surcharges and charity requests that have become far too common in our financial transactions. Take the credit card surcharge, for example. It might appear fair for a business to recoup an additional expense. However, businesses already set their prices to cover such costs, so why isn’t the credit card fee included in the product price? We don’t see separate charges for employee overtime or weekend rates, nor for maternity leave or late tax filings. Businesses typically calculate their product prices by tallying up their costs and adding a profit margin. So, why tack on a surcharge?

Some might argue that the payment method incurs this cost, and customers could choose another method, like cash, to avoid the fee. But that’s not entirely accurate. Many businesses don’t offer a cash option, especially for online purchases. More importantly, credit card payments are often less costly for retailers than cash, which requires more handling, stringent shrinkage checks, frequent bank visits, and extensive reconciliations. The only real advantage of cash for a retailer is the potential for tax evasion by underreporting income. But offering a discount for tax avoidance isn’t something you can advertise without raising eyebrows. So, why impose a credit card surcharge? It’s not for the reasons you might think. The practice began with large government entities that could enforce it and has since spread everywhere.

Then there’s its younger sibling, soon to be encountered at a supermarket near you: the request to round up your total or make a donation. What a service! The retailer takes a bit extra from you and donates on your behalf—no receipt, no tax deduction, no trace. While I’m sure the donations do reach charities, they may not go to organizations you’d choose to support. Everyone has their own criteria for charitable giving. Personally, I decline to support charities where administrative costs exceed 20% of their donations, which is often the case. It’s always a ‘no’ from me, but being asked is irritating. We don’t want to be solicited for money as we walk down the street, as happens in many less affluent parts of the world, so why should we tolerate it while shopping? The request feels like a nagging reminder to do the right thing. So please, retailers, stop pestering your customers.

Maybe I’m overgeneralizing. Perhaps you love it, but I have my doubts.

I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Monday 27 May 2024

Is the AEMO also lying to us ?

In an earlier post, I asked the question Why is the CSIRO lying to us? It covered the very significant shortcomings fothe CSIRO's Gencost report, especially it bias against Nuclear in favour of renewables. 

Today I am asking a similar question; Is the AEMO (Australia's Energy Market Operator) also lying to us?

It seems so.  In a rather detailed YouTube presentation, Aiden Morrison explores  AEMO's Integrated System Plan (ISP) for transforming Australia's energy grid towards Net Zero. The video titled "Unravelling AEMO's Integrated System Plan: World-class, incompetent, or corrupt? is well worth it, if you have the time and a fair amount of technical savvy. 

If not, spoiler alert, Yes it seems the ISP has serious flaws which all work to underestimate the costs of renewables and substantially overstate the cost of nuclear. 

So both the CSIRO and AEMO are producing biased reports to support the government's chosen options. This is a betrayal of their role as independent bodies whose role is to provide the best solutions for Australia.