|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Jul 18, 2024 8:43:07 GMT 12
Billions invested in Australian wind capacity, yet output is the same as 3 years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Jul 19, 2024 10:21:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Jul 30, 2024 13:00:21 GMT 12
Air New Zealand pulls the plug on 2030 climate targets Air New Zealand has pulled the plug on its climate targets saying the resources needed to meet them are unaffordable and unavailable. In a statement the airline said it was removing its 2030 carbon intensity reduction target and will withdraw from the Science Based Targets initiative. It said the new aircraft and alternative jet fuels were hard to get and are expensive.Chief executive Greg Foran said these supply chain issues and expenses could slow the introduction of newer, more fuel efficient aircraft into the fleet. www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/523578/air-new-zealand-pulls-the-plug-on-2030-climate-targets |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Jul 31, 2024 13:27:12 GMT 12
Interesting to see all the forests being cut down, all the power being used thru data mega buck centres not to mention all the resources taken from productive parts of the economy to write and publish 'Climate Statements'.
Had a quick suss of some and it's pretty obvious you can rent a mob to write one for you and they use templates.
I bet most will never be read, even by the writer themselves or Queen Chloe.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Aug 1, 2024 11:32:39 GMT 12
A longish but good read on the current state of climate catastrophisim breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/08/ian-bradford-nothing-but-climate.html?m=1excerpt Is the IPCC Honest?It is often reported that there is a consensus of opinion among climate scientists that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change but this is not the case. According to many involved with the IPCC including Professor John Christy, lead author, not all of the 2500 scientists listed as contributors agree with the findings of the reports, and some have had to fight to have their names removed. There are claims that the IPCC has censored its scientists. PROFESSOR FREDERICK SEITZ WROTE A LETTER TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYING THAT THE VERSION OF THE LATEST IPCC REPORT THAT WAS RELEASED WAS NOT THE VERSION APPROVED BY THE SCIENTISTS LISTED ON THE TITLE PAGE. He went on to say that at least 15 of the key sections in the science chapter had been deleted including the following statements: “NONE OF THE STUDIES CITED ABOVE HAS SHOWN ANY CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN ATTRIBUTE THE OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GASES, AND NO STUDY TO DATE HAS POSITIVELY ATTRIBUTED ALL OR PART OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE OBSERVED TO DATE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES
The IPCC did not deny removing any sections but said there was “no bias” in their report.
So here we have the scientists in the IPCC saying it was FAR from certain that humans were causing climate change, and that there wasn’t any clear evidence that Carbon Dioxide was causing climate changes. But clearly this was overridden by the political members of the IPCC.
It seems a great many politicians have made up their minds that greenhouse gases are the main driver of climate change, and they do not seem very willing to explore other possibilities. The media seems to have followed their lead.
At least some of the scientists in the IPCC are honest, but the politicians seem to dictate the play.
So is the IPCC about scientists making decisions? NO. IT IS ABOUT POLITICIANS WITHIN THAT GROUP MAKING THE DECISIONS TO KEEP THE ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE FRAUD GOING.
THE POLITICIANS ARE RUNNING THE IPCC NOT THE SCIENTISTS
Many have suggested that politicians are providing funds for scientists to prove a CO2-Temperature link and that the IPCC findings are politically led. Certainly looks like it.
Finally: Climate alarmist cult members just ignore aspects of climate change that do not suit their narrative. Here are some:
The Club of Rome used computer models to show that the Earth may run out of resources. They wanted to check population growth and made the following statement:“In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the IDEA that the threat of global warming would fit the bill”
Dr Ottmar Endenhoffer, a member of the IPCC said this in an interview in 2010:
“We (The UN/IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
This is real person - a member of the IPCC. He actually said this. It is on record.
What he is saying is that this is a political movement. The climate scare is nothing but a tool to help them achieve their aim of a world government.
and from the comments
I did some research on this topic, looking at some of the more apocalyptic claims being made by the various panic merchants.
What I found is that almost ALL of the IPCC computer model predictions simply did not occur. An example was the IPCC prediction in 2005 that by the year 2010, there would be 50 million "climate change refugees" caused by flooding of massive seaside areas around the world, all caused by sea level rise due to global warming.
Well - 2010 arrived and ZERO climate refugees. The map that the IPCC had published, showing where all the massive flooding would occur, was taken down.
The IPCC is consistently wrong in it's predictions of doom.
1/ No 50 million climate refugees by 2010, as they forecast in 2005. Zero, in fact.
2/ No increase in rate of sea level rising.
3/ Artic Ice is still there, and not melting away
3/ Antarctic Ice is actually growing.
4/ Extreme weather events, world-wide are NOT increasing.
5/ Forest fires, world-wide, are not increasing.
6/ Yes – the planet has been slowly warming, (in fits and starts) as its only 172 years since we came out of the Little Ice Age in 1850. (That rise has been just 0.8°C).
7/ Also, all of the dire predictions made by everybody from King Charles to Attenborough, simply did not occur. It was all apocalyptic panic merchant behavior.
On further study, I found that the “warming” effect of CO2 is very secondary to water vapor, which is present in much higher amounts. Also – the “warming” effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
I also found authoritive graphs of global temperatures and CO2 levels going back millions of years, showing that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and global temp. It is very clear that climate change is a natural process, and that human CO2 emissions do not cause apocalyptic global warming.
It is also clear that – in the broader picture of planet Earth and it’s history – we are in a planetary CO2 starvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Aug 1, 2024 16:41:35 GMT 12
Interesting to see all the forests being cut down, all the power being used thru data mega buck centres not to mention all the resources taken from productive parts of the economy to write and publish 'Climate Statements'. Had a quick suss of some and it's pretty obvious you can rent a mob to write one for you and they use templates. I bet most will never be read, even by the writer themselves or Queen Chloe. Bit like getting auditor in for your bussiness,you paying? Yep we find no issues. Our work place hasnt failed in 10yrs  Use to be a independant set in by customer.(food safety and that shit) |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Aug 2, 2024 2:49:25 GMT 12
Meanwhile in a cold place, strange - thought the catastrophists would be pleased with news like this
and |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Aug 2, 2024 10:50:14 GMT 12
Meanwhile in a cold place, strange - thought the catastrophists would be pleased with news like this
and It can't be that simple.
Where did that data come from?
I've become very picky with things like the above. The source data is what it is all about so you need to know where the data came from and who graphed it, that often tells you a shed load more than the graphs themselves.
I was showing our apprentice (who can't get into the NZQA stuff as for all the talk of Govt, the NZQA and the assorted training mobs, inc those marine based, they are all lazy shits who talk big but can't be fucked to action. We could have 100's more apprentices out there today if those mobs weren't so fucking lazy and self interested) how with one click here and there I can use the testing data to produce a range of charts depending on the outcome I want.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Aug 2, 2024 14:04:56 GMT 12
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/Nope its shrinking. On July 15, 2024, halfway through the month, sea ice extent stood at 8.16 million square kilometers (3.15 million square miles), ranking seventh lowest in the satellite passive microwave record for that date. The rate of ice loss from July 1 to July 15 of 121,000 square kilometers (47,000 square miles) per day was above the average value of 89,000 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) per day. As assessed using the NSIDC sea ice spatial comparison tool, ice losses over the past two weeks have been most notable along the Eurasian coast, ANTARTICA HAS GROWN eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-iceSea ice covers the ocean surrounding Antarctica, forming a key component of the coupled ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere system in southern high latitudes that helps regulate climate, ocean circulation, and marine ecosystems. The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Aug 2, 2024 17:07:36 GMT 12
Meanwhile in a cold place, strange - thought the catastrophists would be pleased with news like this
and It can't be that simple.
Where did that data come from?
Welcome to the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI SAF) High Latitude Processing Center. This web site gives you information and products from the high latitude part of the EUMETSAT OSI SAF. The High Latitude center has responsibilty for the production and distribution of the OSI SAF Sea Ice products. We also produce the high latitude part of the OSI SAF SST and Radiative Flux products.
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Aug 3, 2024 12:49:57 GMT 12
It can't be that simple.
Where did that data come from?
Welcome to the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI SAF) High Latitude Processing Center. This web site gives you information and products from the high latitude part of the EUMETSAT OSI SAF. The High Latitude center has responsibilty for the production and distribution of the OSI SAF Sea Ice products. We also produce the high latitude part of the OSI SAF SST and Radiative Flux products.
1, Great it was not another of the billions pushed out by assorted interest groups, as so many are.
2, That place looks like it is far more interested in reporting what they see rather than interoperating what they are seeing, that's good.
Some interesting stuff on that place CZ. I like the way you could pull up some info and then suss the findings in say 2005 and today to suss for differences. The graph you posted is supported by other stuff,the odd bit which may suggest more ice today than 15 years ago. But I was sussing a very short time frame, 7days, and after wondered "How much change can actually happen to the amount of ice inside 1 week?'. If the answer is 'lots' then that 7 day window maybe too short.
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Aug 3, 2024 12:54:46 GMT 12
Check this out. I wondered into it while sussing CZ's graph place. Note how they used the same aircraft as a EV and it was a tad shot on range. Change it to hydrogen and boom, 800 plus km per tank. That 800 makes it very viable. In fact I think I want one. A VTOL would be very handy commuter.
link to it here |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Aug 10, 2024 17:34:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Aug 11, 2024 9:29:30 GMT 12
I have sussed how to see what is in all the blank posts. Below is the contents for anyone else suffering the same. Interestingly that Uni of Nebraska-Lincoln mirrors one that came out, maybe 6months ago, from a Uni in a Scandinavian country, I am thinking the Netherlands. It also said cows living on grass are carbon positive not negative. Part of the positive came from the soil/ground due to the way the cows grazed it. Another output by a Uni in the US was looking at studies on cow CO2/Methane emissions and it suggested many of the studies were right but not broad enough i.e. some results did show lots of bad emissions but those tended to only suss industrial cow farming in the US i.e. living inside on artificial foods. Hardly like NZ style, which was mentioned in the EU study as being one of the best out there.
Obviously these studies will never be seen in MSM or the likes.
Anyway, this is what the X above said
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Aug 12, 2024 20:02:58 GMT 12
|
|
Use to be a independant set in by customer.(food safety and that shit)
