Embrace Climate Change, Save Lives

Temperatures are rising worldwide. That's a good thing according to Bjørn Lomborg:

 

How the West brought economic disaster on itself

Freddie Sayers breaks things down, how the West managed to destroy itself.

 

Sea Levels Rising - Again

Right on cue, following the scamdemic we have more fear peddling. Whole sections of New Zealand are about to be flooded by fast rising sea levels.

Give me a break, have these people got nothing better to do than keep talking about a sea level rise that never happens? It must be the academic time of year to have studies funded.

Big Oil and Electric Vehicles

I thought of this lovely conspiracy theory, have fun with it. I haven't seen this anywhere else, so I apologise in advance if this isn't an original idea.

As I've outlined numerous times, electric vehicles (EV's) are total nonsense, a complete waste of time, don't even think about them. That's the well considered experienced view of the matter, all very scientific.

But hang on, what if the fact EV's are utter crap has something to do with why they're being pushed so hard. What if the big oil companies and the myriad of companies heavily reliant on the liquid fuels infrastructure are pushing EV's as they know they're rubbish. They're doing this to discredit alternative fuels or forms of energy. The result would be to force people back to the internal combustion engine and this would be for the foreseeable future. In other words, EV's are a stalking horse, concealing big oil's desire to lock in fossil fuels. Hmm?

Note that Norway, the world's biggest hypocrite which has made a fortune from oil and gas is heavily promoting EV's. Sweden is not far behind this, they're massive hypocrite's too but they'd be promoting their carbon capture technology. There'd be a lot of interconnecting and overlapping agendas with this theory, but they all have one goal; to lock in people to a future that relies entirely on old industries that have morphed into new, sexy, born again new technology companies. Old technology companies that are really old tech re-branded or re-skinned.

To support this theory, consider ideas that never get looked at seriously. We have the idea of the water powered car, which are generally discredited. One in New Zealand was designed and built, the story of which you can read about here: https://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html

The argument against this is that it involves more energy (or the same amount) to separate the hydrogen and so there is no gain. Fine, but what about a nuclear car? The nuclear reactor generating heat, then a steam engine is used for motive power. The amount of uranium needed to drive a car its entire useful life would be extremely small. Even microscopic. It would not be enough to create an explosion, it would be more like a clock with reflective hour and seconds hands and numbers.

Such a car completely circumvents the liquid fuels infrastructure. No gas stations, and very few oil refineries would be needed as only certain lubricants would be required for wheel bearings and the like. These ideas would be ditched because of that very fact. In this new green age of Corporate Green only the right technology is accepted and that has to be based upon centralised models that rely on the existing companies (or sources of capital ) to provide the solutions. Independence is not allowed, with this idea that's exactly why EV's are promoted, they're to fail as they must, sending people into the arms of Big Oil.

Greta Thunberg's Zero Carbon Journey

What kind of message is Greta Thunberg sending deciding to sail from Europe to North America? The sensible thing would be to fly, but oh no, we have to applaud the sheer stupidity of climate panic merchants like Thunberg. Newsflash: if everyone decided not to fly, the world would plunge into a global depression the likes never seen before. Millions would die as a result.

I'll tell you the message she is sending: we should all go back to live in the eighteenth century, a time when poverty prevailed, there was little or no democracy. Infant mortality was horrendous, life was brutal and short. Well, you can stuff that message where the sun don't shine.

And her journey is crammed with carbon, look at the kind of boat she's travelling on, and the technology she's using on board, it's all crammed with carbon. If she was trying to set any example, she would travel on a boat made entirely of wood (no metal nails) and cloth sails. Hmm?

Who is exploiting this young woman for their own political agenda?

More Climate Strike

Is the proposed NZ climate strike a Green party thing? Are they setting out to politicise the young, hoping to get the vote of those turning 18 in 2020? That must be it, they're desperate to try and get over the 5% threshold under NZ's mixed-member proportional electoral system.

Climate Strike

The event is planned for March 15, 2019. Supposedly this event is being organised by school children without the endorsement of schools. In New Zealand at least; who is really behind the planning for this event? What are their politics exactly and what are their credentials for safely managing a nationwide campaign?

I've noticed a decided lack of information about this. I don't believe for one minute that children are capable of organising a nationwide political campaign. The children are being used as pawns. Disgraceful.

Are valuable learnings possible? As things stand there is no valuable lesson as schools are not on board with it. Without classroom time examining all the angles of the debate, the whole exercise amounts to brainwashing.

The media has been complicit in this brainwashing. We need to know who the adults are behind this event and who is to be held accountable if anything goes wrong. Media, start being the professionals you claim to be.

Quick! Save the Planet: Stuff's Campaign

New Zealand media group, Fairfax are promoting the Quick! Save the Planet series through its newspapers and Stuff.co.nz website. It's meant to awaken concern and inform about climate change, and offer ways to effect change. In so doing, I assume they expect this will result in saving the planet from its imminent demise.

It won't do anything of the sort and campaigns like this are misguided at best, and at worst extremely foolish or even stupid. Okay, I accept they have to sell newspapers, they're largely failing and they'll all have to shut up shop within my lifetime, but the desperate will do anything to survive.

The problem with this campaign is twofold; the first is with the hysterical nature of the title. Any solution is certainly not quick, and the planet doesn't need saving. Most people intuitively know this and so when reading they're likely to skip. Only the converted will read, and so no progress is made at all.

The second problem is more serious and lies at the root. This sort of scaremongering results in polarisation of opinions and climate change extremism. Any not fully on board with the most extreme climate alarmists are instantly labelled 'climate change deniers.' Heretics in other words.

Of course there is no real debate about climate change being real, no-one with half a brain is debating it. What is up for debate is the extent to it and whether the effects are adverse at all. And if they are adverse, how bad exactly and can it be managed? What doesn't help is when someone enters the debate talking practical matters, and they're shouted down and accused of being a 'denier.'

What we are witnessing folks, is the development of a new religion; in my book Snob's Guide to New Zealand, I call the religion Eco. I describe how this new religion functions. It seems Stuff and Fairfax have adopted the faith. 

CO2 Capture Tackling GCC

This is the sort of thing I've been talking about, engineer solutions to Global Climate Change. Don't listen to the Greens, they want to destroy civilisation, returning us to the Middle Ages and transferring our wealth to others.

President Trump and the Paris Agreement

President Trump has it right again, his base will be happy with him pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement. Why should the US make all the sacrifices? I've got no argument with climate science but I do take issue with how the science has been adopted by those who want to see the industrialised world sidelined and then neutered.

It's like this; imagine you've worked hard to own a nice house. Someone from down the road with a much poorer house proposes that you be taxed so you can no longer afford to maintain your house, instead your taxes would go to improve the upkeep of the house owned by the person proposing you be taxed. Does this make any sense? No it doesn't, not at all, but this is the sort of thing these climate agreements demand of the developed world.

We could look it another way. How about we demand that Europe fix the climate solely at their cost? They've cut down their trees over the last few thousand years, put the trees back there Europe. The US is a new country, relatively speaking, why should they bear the burden? Imagine the howls of protest from Europe at the prospect.

My Problem With Cop21

Rejoice, the earth is saved. That's the propaganda line coming out of the climate conference in Paris.

My problem with the proposed measures is they appear to be socialism under another guise. They're taking from the rich to redistribute to the anointed few.

When was the last time nanny state organised anything other than a colossal cock-up? Hmm?

>>Link<<

New Zealanders will remember Nick Smith selling the emissions trading scheme to New Zealand. He went out of his way to lie to the entire nation. Recall him saying over and over that New Zealand would not be paying for trees grown before 1990? He wilfully ignored the Kyoto amendment from Marrakesh that expressly pays Russia to not cut down trees. That's wealth transfer right there and expect more of this horse-shit this time round.

The taxpayer is being hoodwinked. What's going to happen is we pay more tax, we will not be saving the planet. It's a massive tax grab, nothing more than that.

Here's an idea. How about Europe sorts itself out and puts its trees back. Heard of the black forest? It's hardly there now, but a couple of thousand years back, the thing got called the black forest as it was so dense no light penetrated.

Or how about by the time Genghis Khan rode across the steppes, all the trees had gone, his armies had a clear run.

See where am I going with this? How come people in the Americas or the Pacific for that matter have to pay for the Europeans fucking up the planet? How about our version of socialism; fuck them, they can starve, we get on and live our lives as we please. We owe them nothing.