The UK Daily Expressed published this blog “Putin poised to spark energy horror in UK as Russia plots to sabotage Norway gas pipelines”.
The posting begins:
“Senior intelligence officials have warned that Britain could face an energy nightmare this winter, as Russia is plotting an attack on a key gas pipeline between the UK and Norway. Following the suspected sabotage of the Russian-built Nord Stream 2 pipeline in September, experts previously told Express.co.uk that Russian President Vladimir Putin could be sending Europe a chilling message, and could strike gas pipelines and electricity cables between the UK and the rest of Europe. With Britain playing a major role in supporting Ukraine’s fight against the invading Russian forces, experts fear that the Kremlin will be looking to retaliate by plunging Britons into darkness. “
This is worrisome, because it would set in motion a major loss of life in the UK. How would the UK or NATO respond? I am hoping that it is just alarmist’s conspiracy BS.
The DailyExpress posting can be reached by clicking here
cbdakota
For more Climate Change Sanity posting enter cb-dakota.com
So the UN owns science and anyone skeptical of catastrophic global warming and saying so, is wrong and must not be heard. Google has agreed to this.
The following is from a posting by Power Line titled “WHO OWNS SCIENCE?
“Science is a method that can, in principle, be practiced by anyone. So no one can “own” it. But don’t tell that to the United Nations and the World Economic Forum.
Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the United Nations at [World Economic Forum] ‘Disinformation’ event: “We partnered with Google,” said Fleming, adding, “for example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.”
I googled “climate change” to see whether it is really true that Google has altered its usual algorithm to privilege United Nations content, which historically has proved grossly unreliable. It is, sadly, true:”
My first reaction to the title question was NO. A new poll of the major issues that American citizens are concerned about, found global warming as the next to last of the list’s 12 issues. A previous poll shows almost no interest in any program to “fix” global warming that would cost the individual more than $5 per month. Considering the trillions of dollars that are estimated to do the “fix”, that hardly seems enough to get any program even started.
“At a virtual meeting earlier in June (2020) hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to “reset” the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations, and massive Green New Deal-like government programs.
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
“Schwab also said that “all aspects of our societies and economies” must be “revamped,” “from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at theInternational Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP.
Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset.
That and much more can be found on two additional postings on the idea that global warming was being used to bring down capitalism. As a follow up on those postings, I am expanding on that theme.
George Soros is an agenda setter and an advisor for the Great Reset
As an example of who are the leaders of the Great Reset, I offer George Soros.
He is quoted as saying in an interview by the NEWSWEEK magazine:
“NEWSWEEK: You say that the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States. That’s a pretty strong statement.
George Soros: Yes, but it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that’s rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a “war on terror” after September the 11th, we set the wrong agenda for the world.”
The Great Reset is neocommunism—an analysis
At the end of WWII, the people of Hungary were forced to live under USSR communism. Following the collapse of the USSR, Hungary became a democratic parliamentary republic in October 1989. The time under communism has embedded in the Hungarian’s memories how communism operates. The Visegrad Post, posted an article by the Hungarian daily outlet Magyar Nemzet titled “Davos-era neocommunism”: on March 1 2021. I am selecting some section of the Magyar Nemzet article. I recommend that your read the completed article.
“The Great Reset would usher in a new world order in the post-Covid era, which would mean political, ideological, and economic cohesion as well as a nationless world. Based on what Schwab and the lot have said, we can see that their big plans would introduce Marx and Engels’ great dream of global communism under some sort of a transnational, international ruling system. (This can’t exactly be called a proletarian dictatorship either, as the members of the world elite – from the Rothschild family to say, Bill Gates – can hardly be labelled proletarians; by replacing the word “proletarian” with elite and keeping “dictatorship” we start to get closer to the truth.)”
“First of all, let’s confirm the following: it is no longer a question that the global elite’s primary goal is to dismantle nations and nation-states and create a comprehensive, large-scale global government, which –according to their plans – will enable the handling and resolving of issues like social inequalities, climate change, unsustainable growth, migration and so on.”
“Therefore, the solution they see is that companies and governments “effectively communicate with each other”. I believe this means nothing more than that the global market leaders will gradually take over these “difficult tasks” from national governments”.
“If we dig just a little deeper, I’m immediately struck by the fact that these big shots want to replace democracy with complex governance, prioritize technocracy over elections and MPs, and emphasize “expertise” that the general public doesn’t understand instead of transparency”
“Schwab wrote, already in 2016, in his opus, Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution, that the techniques used by new tech giants allow governments to penetrate the private sphere of our minds, read our thoughts, and influence our behavior – and thus becoming part of our physical world as well. Schwab predicts that today’s external devices like laptops and virtual reality headsets, will eventually “most likely be able to be implanted in our bodies and minds”. And Schwab concludes, “By the time the Fourth Industrial Revolution is leading, it is the unification of our physical, digital, and biological identities.
As the article says it will be a corporation/government running thing, I don’t expect you would have much say on how you live if the Great Reset is adopted globally.
Covid 19 is minor and it is not even remotely an equal to WWI or WWII
The Great Reset is trying to put COVID 19 as an equal with WWI in order to make it seem urgent. Gross exaggeration that it is. WWII resulted in 60 to 85 million deaths when world population was about2.5 billion. COVID deaths might be several million with a world population of 7.8billion. Even the highly exaggerated forecast of deaths due to future global warming do not even come close to WW II.
After WWII, the nations using the current form of capitalism made an enormous recovery. Why would you think that it needs to be changed?
Other attempts at global governance have been failures.
The League of Nations was going to make World War I the last war. It failed in 19 years. It ended when the NAZI invaded Poland. There was really nothing distinguished that League of Nations did in the intervening years.
The United Nations was founded right after WWII was over. It was planned to be able to prevent future wars, and other catastrophes. Wiki says that 64 wars having 25,000 or more deaths have happened since WWII. Politically caused famines occur regularly, too. No success at all.
Is there co-operation in the UN.? Well, yes occasionally. Think of how many nations share a common objective, swearing to destroy Israel. Iran, daily chants “Death to America,” and I am certain that there are followers.
When socialist are challenged that no socialist nation has ever improved their citizens lot, and most of those nations failed to survive, they just say that is because the right people had not run any of those nations. Their presumption is that only they are so brilliant and compassionate that it will not happen on their watch. Someone said that insanity is continuing to try something that always fails over and over again and expecting a change.
It is feeble to try to say that the COVID 19 is epic when you compare it to WWI and WW II.
Two thirds of Americans rate the UN as a poor performer.
So, what are the American’s view about the UN’s job approval? Gallup may have newer polls, but I have not found any. The peoples view of the UN has probably little changed. UN approval has only been above 50% several times in the 60 years — 1957 until 2017.
We do not want a neo-UN to govern us. Remember, some of the most dangerous words are, “I’m from the government and I am here to help you.”
Look at what the promised land of the Great Reset is like.
I am not sure how the leaders are going to get people to believe what this woman , a Member of the Denmark Parliament, has to say:
She writes an essay placing herself in the year 2030. The essay describes how life will be thanks to the Great Reset. She says: “We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much”. She says robots and AI have taken over most of the work.
Have you read the H G Wells novel “The Time Machine”? An inventor makes a time machine and travels into the future. He encounters the Eloi, a society of small, elegant, childlike adults. They live in small communities within large and futuristic yet slowly deteriorating buildings,. . Their food is provided. His efforts to communicate with them are hampered by their lack of curiosity or discipline, Maybe in 2030 we will be on our way to becoming Elois.
If you have read the book or seen one of the several movies based upon the book, you know about the Morlocks and their interaction with the Eloi. Beware of a new breed of Morlocks—they may be wearing suits.
“But the Great Reset is not OK. It really doesn’t matter whether you want to cast its masterplan — which remember, ultimately includes the abolition of private property — as communist or fascist or technocratic. The much more important point is that it represents a totalitarian takeover by a small, powerful, oppressive, unelected elite which will leave the rest of us impoverished, immiserated, and deprived of our liberty.”
Again, I quote Dr. Roy Spencer’s statement that there really is not a crisis that needs the great reset:
“Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us. Why does it matter? It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency. Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist). But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life. Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.“
When President Trump walked away from the Paris Agreement in 2017, Democrats, principally, around the US, were enraged. They decided they would show the world that even without the support of the Trump Administration they were “woke” and would do the job without him. Mayors, Governors and Corporate Executives rallied one another and began setting carbon dioxide reductions goals. Most of these goals contained the CO2 amounts and timelines. I am reasonably confident that most of this crowd does not understand the real-world consequences of their actions. I think they were motivated by politics.
The Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, surveyed the top 100 cites to see how they were doing. On 22 October 2020, E&E News posted their take on the Brookings Institute survey titled “U.S. cities struggling to meet lofty climate goals”. They began by saying:
“Most major U.S. cities that have signed on to the climate fight with pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions are failing to meet their goals or haven’t even started to track local progress, according to a survey by the Brookings Institution.
The report, “Pledges and Progress,” looked for climate policy and actions in the nation’s 100 most populous cities, finding that two-thirds have made commitments to address citywide emissions.”
The E&E News continues:
But the Brookings analysis found that actions taken by cities aren’t matching up with their pledges to address climate change.
Among the 100 largest cities, only 45 set specific targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions during the past decade and inventoried emissions levels within city boundaries as baselines for measuring progress.
Twenty-two more cities have made general pledges to address emissions. But the Brookings analysis found they haven’t set emissions targets or inventoried current emissions levels.
“Half the cities aren’t doing anything,” said David Victor, co-chair of the Brookings Initiative on Energy and Climate.
Ok, you may be thinking that the corona virus is the reason. E&E reports that Brookings does not think that is the major reason:
“But roadblocks facing mayors in the climate campaign were obvious even before the coronavirus pushed the nation’s economy into a dramatic downturn.
The Brookings results point to the challenges faced by cities whose climate commitments diverge from policies at the state level. Another challenge for cities is the limits within which they operate. City governments can’t control everything that happens within their borders.
For example, when Pittsburgh inventoried greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, it estimated an annual citywide total of 4.8 million metric tons. Emissions from operations directly under City Hall control came to just 115,069 metric tons. The city government plans more reductions in part by buying refuse trucks that run on lower emission compressed natural gas. Its Parking Authority is teaming with Duquesne Light Co. to bring 16 new electric vehicle chargers to city parking lots.
These are marginal changes in a city and county with nearly 694,000 registered passenger vehicles. Most of them run on gasoline engines that pump out carbon emissions.”
The Paris Agreement is the Green’s framework for reducing CO2 and the timeline for reaching their goal of preventing the global temperature from ever rising more than 0.5C over the current global temperature, I sure you have heard that the world is all in step with this goal, except for the US, of course. Well they are not. First of all, the nation that leads in emissions of CO2 is China. And by agreement with then President Obama, they do not need to start to reduce their emissions before 2030. By then they will probably be emitting twice as much CO2 as the US. Further, India, the number 3 CO2 emitter has no plans to stop increasing their emissions.
China has a political move going called the Belt and Road Initiative. The less developed nations in south east Asia, for example want to improve their citizens lives by providing electricity. The World Bank bans making loans to these countries as the Bank, taking guidance from the UN does not want them to put in coal plants. But China is loaning them the money. This raises China’s political standing in these nations. More than 1,600 coal plants are scheduled to be built by Chinese corporations in over 62 countries and that will make China the world’s primary provider of high-efficiency, low-emission technology.
But Japan is not exactly twiddling its thumbs, either. Since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Tokyo has ramped up coal use and has raced ahead in clean coal technology development. Japan now boasts the world’s most efficient coal-fired plant, which uses less coal to produce more electricity. Seizing on this competitive advantage, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has tried to capitalize on these capabilities in a bid to increase Japan’s reach across Southeast Asia – and in China’s backyard. Through the Japan-led Asian Development Bank, Tokyo has pledged US$6.1 billion for projects throughout the Mekong as well as for various other projects from Vietnam to Myanmar, providing an alternative to China’s regional designs.
A coal plant can be made more efficient, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that this makes them close to the much lower CO2 emissions created by a natural gas-based facility.
And do not think the European Nations are still on board with the Paris Agreement. The EU leadership in Brussels are deeply into this the Paris Agreement, but most of the Nations have not even met their meager 2020 commitments. Each year the required commitments become much greater, too. And the nominal leader of the EU, German politicos are not getting much support from their industries. They see themselves becoming non-competitive with China and all these developing nations. Their auto industry sees themselves even becoming non-competitive in the US market.
Former President Obama also committed to be the big sugar-daddy for the Paris Agreement fund to give money to the underdeveloped nations to hold down production of CO2 Each year the developed nations are to pay $100 billion to the fund. This as I have noted is not a once and done fund, it is to be refunded each year. So, assuming that the Trump administration are not playing nice with the Paris Agreement, those Mayors and Governors and Corporate Exes are going to have pay at least $5 billion every year. And get this, China is not obligation to put money into this fund because they are said to be a developing nation. Meaning China can draw money from the fund for their own use.
The previous posting shows that the warmer’s forecast “average global temperature” is way off from the actual measurements. These alarmists use that erroneous forecast as the basis for their pronouncement of future global catastrophes that will come about if we don’t join their quest to remove CO2 emissions and switch to renewable energy.
The alarmist’s forecasts of catastrophes get maximum coverage in the media. It is obvious that the media never checks to see if the previous forecast have proven correct. And the following will demonstrate that the media never ever question an alarmist prediction and never ever goes back to check out the previous predictions.
There all kinds of alarmist’s forecasts, some of which I covered in an earlier posting titled” CAGW PREDICTIONS—ZOMBIE AND OTHER”. Almost all of them are embarrassingly wrong. I encourage you to click on the link and have some good laughs.
The awful forecasts that follow are from scientists, science organizations and many from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)— a UN organization. This assembly of failure was posted by Javier on The Blog WattsUpWithThat with an intro by Andy May. Andy takes a little liberty with Javier’s posting by adding on a section that highlights obvious predictions that the alarmists should have made.
An outline of the failed predictions are as follows:
·Warming rate predictions
·Temperature predictions
·Winter predictions
·Snow predictions
·Precipitation predictions
·Extreme weather predictions
·Wildfire predictions
·Rotation of the Earth predictions
·Arctic sea predictions
·Polar bear predictions
·Glacier predictions
·Sea level predictions
·Sinking nation predictions
·Climate refugee predictions
·Climate change predictions
–and Andy May’s failure to predict list—
·Greener planet
·Increase in forest biomass
·Carbon sinks increase
·Slowdown in warming
All the above list can be read by clicking on the WattsUpWithThat posting
State will defy Trump, double down on renewables and CO2 reductions – and hurt poor families. By Paul Driessen
Democrat Ralph Northam had barely won the Virginia governor’s race when his party announced it would impose a price on greenhouse gases emissions, require a 3% per year reduction in GHG emissions, and develop a cap-and-trade scheme requiring polluters to buy credits for emitting carbon dioxide.
Meanwhile, liberal governors from California, Oregon and Washington showed up at the COP23 climate confab in Bonn, Germany to pledge that their states will remain obligated to the Paris climate treaty, and push ahead with even more stringent emission, electric vehicle, wind, solar and other programs. Leaving aside the unconstitutional character of states signing onto an international agreement that has been repudiated by President Trump (and the absurdity of trying to blame every slight temperature change and extreme weather event on fossil fuels), there are major practical problems with all of this.
Germany-to-miss-co2-reduction-targets By P Gosselin on 6. December 2017
The latest forecast shows snow and cold moving across much Germany this weekend, again. Despite Germany ‘s ruddy CO2 emissions, winter keeps coming.
German public broadcasting, here for example, reports today that despite all the green, climate-preaching, Germany will miss its 2020 CO2 reductions by a mile. More embarrassingly, the country has not reduced its CO2 equivalent emissions in 9 years when 2017 is counted in the statistics.
From the New York Time: “What Happened (and Didn’t) at the Bonn Climate Talks
The New York Times puts a happy face on the Bonn meeting on the Paris agreement, it is clear that virtually none of the parties are meeting their commitments:”
Even Without Paris Agreement, U.S. Leads World in Declining Carbon Dioxide Emissions: “While the decision to pull out of the deal had diplomatic consequences, the U.S. has dramatically lowered its carbon emissions in the last year, largely without government mandates. These emissions reductions came as the result of price drops for both natural gas and solar panels. How significant this reduction is, however, demonstrates the challenges of gauging emissions on a global scale.
Somehow, I am on Climate Home’s email list. The news in this edition is several months old, but a couple of its postings bother me a lot. While the postings do not address repeal of the Endangerment Finding, they do leave me wondering how committed are the Congressional Republicans to the draining of the EPA swamp”?
Several years ago, a hearing before the Supreme Court was being conducted, that wanted CO2 to be added, as a pollutant, in the Clear Air Act. Congress had passed and the President had signed the Clear Air Act into law a number of years prior to the case in question. Despite the fact that the legislative body of the US Government had considered CO2 and had rejected it being included, the Supreme court said that the EPA should determine if CO2 was a danger to the nation. The EPA cherry picked the science from the IPCC, in particular, and announced that indeed CO2 was endangering the nation. So, the Supremes, ignoring the separation of powers, said ok, it’s now the law of the land that CO2 is a pollutant. From that moment, the EPA has been writing the laws about CO2. They have carte blanc to do whatever they want.
By now the Trump Administration should have acted to repeal this inclusion of CO2 on several bases. One: the science is bogus and two: the Supremes overstepped their Constitutional authority.
The Manhattan Contrarian posted “Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead by Frances Menton. There is not much in the posting that I have not already covered. However, there are two things that do standout that I want to pass on. Menton’s posting is relative to the members of the G 20, that have just reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement in the Summary statement at the end of the G 20* meeting. The US did not join in the reaffirmation.
Menton notes that Russia’s intended reduction is based upon their CO2 emissions in 1990 before they collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union.
“Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry. According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since.”
That was their ploy back in the days of the Kyoto Pact, too.
Last week, the Eastern European steel manufacturers said that the Paris Agreement would make them non-competitive. The nations of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary are “mounting a behind-the-scenes revolt against the Paris Agreement, blocking key measures needed to deliver the pledge that they signed up to 18 months ago.”
WattsUpWithThat posted “East European States Mount Revolt Against Paris Agreement” and quotes from that are as follows:
“Energy efficiency is supposed to make up around half of Europe’s emissions reductions by 2030, but a Czech proposal could cut energy saving obligations from a headline 1.5% a year figure to just 0.35% in practice.
The EU’s various wings will eventually thrash out a compromise between the commission’s original proposal – which was calibrated to meet the Paris pledge – and the counter-proposals designed to weaken this.
The effect this could have on the EU’s overall emissions has raised concerns among those in Brussels who wish to see the EU maintain its leadership on climate.
“We cannot allow backward-looking east EU states to destroy the EU’s credibility on the Paris agreement,” said Claude Turmes, the European parliament’s lead negotiator on climate governance.
“A successful and ambitious energy transition is one of the few remaining positive stories for Europe. If we allow that to be drained by vested old interests from east Europe, our international credibility – and the last remaining trust of our citizens – will be smashed,” said Turmes.”
“Germany’s powerful auto industry said Europe would need to reassess its environmental standards to remain competitive after the United States said it would withdraw from the Paris climate pact.
The VDA said electricity and energy prices are already higher in Germany than in the United States, putting Germany at a disadvantage.
The VDA represents automakers including BMW, Volkswagen, and Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler.
.The VDA’s warning comes as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the strongest advocates of the global pact to curb emissions of gases that speed climate change, said there was no turning back from the 2015 Paris climate agreement.”
There will probably be more Paris Agreement setbacks like these two.
The ignorance shown by the media regarding the Paris Agreement leads me to wonder is it incompetence of just out-right lies.The primary argument often is, quoting the editorial in the local newspaper, “By breaking ranks with nearly 200 nations, the United States joins only Syria (which is riven by civil war) and Nicaragua ….”More on this paragraph below, but first about the 200 nations.According to the Paris Agreement’s Green Climate Fund, the majority of the almost 200 nations are to be given money from this fund.As of May 2017, 41 nations have contributed or have pledged money to this fund. Reviewing the data, we find that of the 41 nations, 22 of them are in for $10 million or less, 6 are in for $100 million or less, 7 are in for $500 million or less, 1 is in for $750million or less and 5 are in for more than $1billion with the US the major player at $3 billion. Beginning 2020, the Green Climate Fund will require that the donor nations provide a total of $100 billion per year! So what has been given so far is chump change.
Well, what do the other 160 nations have to lose by not joining?Free money is what they will lose if they don’t sign up.In fact, only about 13 countries are contributing any serious money. The nearly “200 nations” is a bogus issue.
Climate Change Sanity 