Lackadaisically and Intermittently Throwing Darts at a Surprisingly Resilient and Long-Lived Bubble, With the Bubble Fighting Back | An experiential experience on the lasting effects of US media global warming misinformation in the minds of its recipients

All I’ve ever said is there is more than one way of looking at the situation, pros and cons, and many interrelated factors, most of which are not even known, especially by the highly-indoctrinated, non-thinking zombies. Like most AWE people for example.

Knowing a bit about wind energy myself, I noticed very early on that it was difficult to convince AWE people that the field they purported to be involved in was in fact “wind energy”. Whew, that was a wakeup call!

Next it was convincing them that the field was already highly refined, the result of thousands of years of evolution of ideas, and many, if not most, of their ideas, stepped backwards thousands of years in the process.

So, in the face of great opposition and censorship, I maintained that none of them really knew what they were doing. 15 years later, there is still no AWE system in regular operation, but still my provision of facts is censored by the true-believer zombies, as though it’s me and truth itself that is “the problem”, which can be “solved” by sweeping it under the rug. Hiding even any discussion of even just the weather in a private place that nobody can find - that is SO chicken-shit, and indicates a real self-doubt, lack of confidence, and desperation, on the part of the mindless zombies.

Arrogantly posturing as the “true experts”, they couldn’t understand that they didn’t know what they were doing in the first place, which was the point where their empty promises could be confidently written off as typical wind newbie nonsense, but that never stopped them from going on with their endless idle talk and threatening demeanor, as though somehow, in the face of their history of nonstop failure to succeed in anything they’ve ever promised, that somehow THEY should be listened to, even though they can’t even understand what they, themselves are doing, let alone a whole world of interrelated factors far beyond their comprehension.

No, they just keep repeating the bumper-sticker-level slogan-based “reasoning” that got them into this mess of wasting their lives away, doing pretty much nothing at all, while scolding the rest of us who may actually be using wind power even just to write our messages on the subject in the first place.

So not only did I try to warn the entire AWE “community” that they were misguided and not destined for success in their stated endeavors from day one, but I also cautioned them that the basis of their new, trendy, impending-catstrophe religion had a history of flipping back and forth over cooling versus warming, but that the same was true of the weather itself - not stable, and always flipping between warming and cooling, and that, technically-speaking, we are long overdue for the next glacial cycle, with the biggest mystery being how we’ve managed to stay this warm for the last 10,000 years, since interglacials, as we are in right now, normally only last about 1000 years.

Having been around when the panic was over cooling and an impending ice-age, at that time I predicted the panic would shift to “warming” after hearing Margaret Thatcher of all people advocating for “carbon taxes”. “Oh boy”, I thought, “such a financial incentive means we’re going into a cycle of panic over warming rather than cooling”, which in fact did happen. So there’s another of my predictions that turned out to be right. Unlike any of yours.

Actually, I don’t think you guys can find any prediction I’ve made that didn’t turn out to be accurate, over several decades and counting. And I can’t think of a single significant prediction or promise made by AWE people that has even come true - can you?

So, given my long experience, another point I’ve been making for several years is that there is a well-entrenched ~30-year half-cycle of panic over warming vs cooling since at least the 1700’s. (That would mean a full cycle of around 60 years.)

Of course, as we know, the zombies cannot believe any such well-understood true facts, and instead fight the truth whenever it threatens to diminish their helpless plight of being wannabe world-savers, without results, but now that the 30 years is passing, and we seem a bit overdue for the return to panic over “cooling”, the signs have been emerging, unnoticed by the zombies, but emerging nonetheless.

Here’s today’s article pointing toward panic over cooling, which says:
“Europe would be hard hit, van Westen said, cooling between 9 and 18 degrees Fahrenheit (5 to 10 degrees Celsius) within a century. That’s a huge swing, even compared with the current level of climate change, which is already having impacts.”

LINK:
‘We are approaching the tipping point’: Marker for the collapse of key Atlantic current discovered | Live Science] 'We are approaching the tipping point': Marker for the collapse of key Atlantic current discovered | Live Science

‘We are approaching the tipping point’: Marker for the collapse of key Atlantic current discovered | Live Science

And if you read the common-sense comments after the article, they all agree with everything I’ve ever said, which is not weighing in on one side or the other, but simply that there are many unknowns, with two potentially legitimate sides of the story to consider. The comments thusfar read as follows:

BBCLE
So basically the ‘experts’ are saying , “We have no idea what the hell we are talking about.”

Cyclonaut
i’m sure the ‘experts’ will find a way to weave the narrative of CO 2 from fossil fuels being the root cause of this. Oh - and it’s racist as well. … I’m sorry - homophobic as well.

Ilium
So, I suppose the evidence they found from the other times this occurred in prehistoric times were caused by humans using fossil fuels, right?

Robert Crabtree
What is disconcerting is that clearly the tipping point is a precursor of a new ice age and no one mentions that. We know that historically over the last few million years the earth went through cycles where about 80% of the time was an ice age.
The cycles appear to vary between 110-140,000 years.
There was no man made influence in those cycles so independently of the present issues of global warming the earth will sooner or later enter a new ice age. This is far more serious than any warming. It will destroy the bread baskets of Asia, Russia, Europe and North America.
What we really need to research more is if the current CO2 emissions are delaying an ice age, and whether one is imminent.
*** (end of quoted comments)

Meanwhile, we’re increasing being told that the intermittency of wind and solar requires duplicate backup power stations to address that intermittency, as many with common sense have maintained from day-one, and nuclear seems to be the latest favorite.

Only thing is, if you have a nuclear power plant, once running, there is no advantage to running it at less than full capacity, so if you have nuclear backup for, say, windfarms, it kind of makes the windfarm itself unnecessary in the first place - not so great for the story of wind energy as an industry, going into the future.

I’ve tried to tell the unwashed wannabe wind energy newbies about “fads” and “fashion” in such debates and discourse over the years, and how accepted “science” is not always real science, but often politics and profit over facts, but of course the indoctrinated zombies cannot accept the information that they are in fact indoctrinated zombies, any more than wannabe wind energy experts can be convinced that their 3000-year-old “new ideas” were in fact obsolete before the Roman Empire even got started. There is no stopping ignorance in this world, which is why the rich keep getting richer, and the zombies keep lecturing everyone, while remaining ineffective and staying poor. :slight_smile:

Zzzzzzzzzzz……

Oh yeah, now there’s an unbiased source, which I won’t take the time to click on.

Tallak: when presented with the temperature data from The Greenland Ice Cores, with you having never seen this real data before, you flagged it as “disinformation” and suggested it should not be allowed to be seen. You came up with a lot of things “wrong” with it , such as it being “in German” and you don’t speak German, or that I hadn’t cited a source, on and on - anything except acknowledging it.

I, on the other hand, had seen this same data presented on so many charts, over so many years - literally hundreds, if not a thousand times, that I thought “everyone knew” or at least everyone who cared knew, about this chart, in all its various versions, and this data.

That was why I immediately knew the chart provided by Roddy’s cartoon was wrong - it was missing the main point, that temps had been decreasing for thousands of years! It was a lie - a fabrication, masquerading as good information, while hiding and gleefully mocking the truth.

The problem you had was the Holocene optimum of thousands of years ago, and the steady decline in temperatures ever since. The real data didn’t agree with what was infused into zombie brains through a slanted presentation (or lack of presentation) of the actual situation. In psychology, it’s known as “cognitive dissonance”, which is when your own eyes see what disagrees with what you’ve been told, so you choose what you’ve been told, over what you actually see.

So, I presented the real chart, but in your case, that didn’t help - you didn’t miss a beat.
No apology, such as “Geez Doug, the data you presented was actually considered “the gold standard” of climate data by climate researchers, and here I was, calling it “disinformation” and saying it should be banned. I hope Doug will accept my apologies and I’ll try to pay more attention next time.”

Nope, not a chance. And at this point, we wouldn’t expect any “zombie” to acknowledge anything factual, on any topic, if it disagreed with their mind-control programming. So that is just symptomatic of a dishonest approach, in general, which makes me less likely to try to be helpful in the future - if zombie people don’t deserve to know any facts, why waste the time presenting them with any real data - it’s just one more case of “no good deed goes unpunished”.

Speaking of zombies, have you ever heard of “zombie companies”? It’s a common term in the financial world, especially now, when interest rates have increased, making it harder for companies “selling a dream” with no actual product, to continue, as they had been previously, with the previous “free money” floating around.

I just googled the term “zombie companies” and came up with
“About 59,200,000 results (0.25 seconds)”

Not that anyone here would have any involvement with any such companies, I’m sure none of us are that dumb, but, just thought I’d mention it. :slight_smile:

Could you really make a serious argument why your ice core data holds any value towards your conclusion? even ignoring my very concrete feedback?

Didnt think so.

The guy who maintains that blog is into archeology, not climate denialism, so that doesnt really make your argument better.

You could probably convince me if you made a good argument. Unfortunately you dont seem to be trying to do that, nor is your data convincing

Yes, exactly, you, like so many others, are asleep.
The Greenland Ice Core Data has been the gold standard for decades, and you can find it anywhere. In a subsequent post, you referred to it as somehow being MY data, which is inaccurate, since it was me who only brought the gold-standard ice core data to your attention.

I happened to be watching a very interesting video on the peopling of the America’s, which is an interesting field from my perspective over here, and which is always advancing, constantly adding new info that debunks previously accepted paradigms, which is how science is supposed to work.

There’s an interesting chart I had never seen before, that combines the Greenland Ice Core Temp Data with the annual snowfall data from the Greenland Ice Cores, which, of course, shows temps decreasing over the last 10,000 years. The part I had never been aware of is that annual snow accumulation has been INCREASING for that same 10,000 years.

Here’s a link to the video
The Human Footprint in the Pacific Northwest (youtube.com)

And you can find the chart showing both the decreasing temps, AND the constantly INCREASING snow accumulation, about 30 minutes into it: (30:00). The lecturer mentions these facts verbally in his lecture, which is what grabbed my attention, causing me to stop the video to take a closer look at the chart. You might find it informative.

Meanwhile, I will say I have stopped email notifications of messages on this site so I am not tempted to waste my time trying to impart obvious, well-understood facts, to the mind-controlled zombie contingent, and that was a good idea, because it is a beautiful day here and I have things to accomplish besides one more hopeless task of trying to fight an uphill battle, drop by drop, against a downward-directed firehose of disinformation.

I think of it like this:

  1. There are people who specialize in exactly how to control the thoughts of well-meaning, cooperative people too naive to realize when they are being misled.
  2. If you compare the minds of these people to a cargo container ship, the accumulated disinformation is like the thousands of shipping containers stacked skyward on these gigantic ships. As we know, these ships cannot change direction quickly, but rather, due to their incredible mass and momentum, it takes several miles for them to change course.

Similarly, a mind full of “containers” of disinformation, slowly loaded to fill the good-natured, unquestioning, trusting person’s head, over perhaps decades, has a momentum of its own, which makes it virtually impossible to penetrate or redirect in any way, just like the old saying of how difficult it is for a large ship to change direction.

Therefore, all I can do is attempt to inject a FEW facts, such as point out the gold standard of temperature data, to which you have only been exposed to a tiny, very recent subset, and HOPE it MIGHT at SOME POINT, pry open a teeny part of that huge shipping container of disinformation, to allow that giant cargo ship of disinfo to possibly begin to even consider changing course, to a proper heading, at least a little bit. Some things take time.

Otherwise, here I am wasting away another beautiful Southern California sunny day, surrounded by snow-capped peaks, in an irresponsibly hidden, mislabeled “topic”, that sneakily does not even appear on the list of topics, talking to maybe 3 or 4 people, which is actually a huge waste of my time, so I will just say I am glad I turned off my email notifications of the latest messages in this list, making it much easier to resist the temptation to respond to every errant post, and point out that if I had not read a SINGLE AWE-related MESSAGE in the last ten years, I would have missed absolutely NOTHING, since AWE seemed MUCH further along ten years ago than it apparently is today, and pretty much nothing new has happened in that ten years except for the “big players” going out of business!

As far as I can see, the only remaining hope for currently active AWE efforts might be Tallak’s company, if it ever “gets off the ground”, but I will say that when this group started, and everyone was introducing themselves, I instantly pictured Tallak, 5 years into the future (meaning now) still working on software for the same kite-reeling company, most likely with no product quite ready yet. It’s been a pretty well-established pattern for this entire AWE hype-cycle. Well, best wishes and hope it works out! :slight_smile:

Here are the links to two articles concerning global warming or climate change.

These two articles describe opposing scenarios.

The first is on the thesis of warming by greenhouse gases including CO2 emissions, which is the official international thesis validated by the IPCC and the United Nations.

The second takes an opposite side.

https://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html
An excerpt:

In the Devonian Period (400 million years back) beginning plants evolved to produce lignin, which in combination with cellulose, created wood which in turn for the first time allowed plants to grow tall for sunlight. Forests pulled down carbon as CO2 from the atmosphere to make wood. Lignin is very difficult to break down and no decomposer species possessed the enzymes to digest it. Trees died atop one another until they were 100 metres or more in depth. This was the making of the great coal beds around the world as this huge store of sequestered carbon continued to build for 90 million years. Then, fortunately for the future of life, white rot fungi evolved to produce the enzymes that can digest lignin and so the coal-making era came to an end. If it had not, CO2, which had already been drawn down for the first time in Earth’s history to levels similar to today’s, would have continued to decline until CO2 approached the threshold of 150 ppm below which plants begin first to starve, then stop growing altogether, and then die. Not just woody plants but all plants. This would bring about the extinction of most, if not all, terrestrial species, as animals, insects, and other invertebrates starved for lack of food. And that would be that. The human species would never have existed. This was merely the first time that there was a distinct possibility that life would come close to extinguishing itself due to a shortage of CO2.

And, are they equally likely to happen? False balance?

Not being a climatologist, I am not able to answer.
I can only see that where I live it has been warmer in recent years.

If you were, you would statistically say the first one was likely, and the latter unlikely.

If you were a grumpy old guy, maybe a scientist from an unrelated field, you might make waves stating that the second one was more likely, amongst people who were mostly clueless and scared, unwilling to take action, looking to lose something or just not able to deal with change.

Futhermore, if you were caught up in conspiracitory thinking, you would no longer be able to believe that the first group were talking truth and facts, and you would be acting counterproductively relative to dealing with a serious issue, global warming.

Simple

Let me support that with a ChatGPT quote.

me: how big fraction of proffessional climatologist subscribe to the view that the world is getting warmer and that this would primarily have negative consequences

ChatGPT:

The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the world is getting warmer and that this warming is primarily due to human activities. This consensus is well-documented in the scientific literature. For instance, a study published in 2013 in the journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change and found that 97% of the papers that took a position on the cause of global warming agreed it was primarily human-induced. This view is also supported by major scientific organizations worldwide, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Meteorological Organization.

These organizations and scientists argue that the consequences of global warming are predominantly negative, impacting ecosystems, weather patterns, sea levels, and global food and water supplies. The negative consequences are expected to include increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, rising sea levels due to melting ice caps and glaciers, and significant impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems.

While the exact fraction of climate scientists holding these views might vary slightly depending on the survey or study, the overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real, primarily caused by human activities, and likely to have significant negative impacts if not addressed.

97%. It looks like soviet scores.

Science is not about consensus, but about facts. I am not a climatologist, so I cannot have any advice about climate, which only would be an opinion.

ChatGPT is all but something neutral and objective. It records and delivers dominant doxa, reflecting the ideology of its programmers. I have plenty of examples on this but it would take too long to discuss them, and off topic.

I agree. But from our [my maybe] point of view, seeing that all these scientists think there is cause for worries, I could assume that it is very likely they are on to something. I could start reading papers but I dont have to. I chose to believe they are telling the truth, at least a significant portion of them.

I would rather put it the other way; if you decide to take the contrary view of all these scientists, you should have some solid reason to believe they are corrupted [well that I dont believe any day] or that they are all wrong. This proof you would probably spend a lifetime even to just understand all the evidence… and they would have to look at real evidence, not some youtuber or an article off Fox News. And you would have to be capable mentally of processing all this information in a good way.

I mean, all this doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

It could make sense though, to be one of the 3% scientists that are unsure about all this. Maybe based on some theory or data that did not get enough attention and funding. But even then, you should accept the fact that those other 97% may understand something that you dont, and keep that avenue open

Even the IPCC establishes different scenarios depending on what energies are used: Emissions Scenarios — IPCC.

It is interesting to note that in general Western countries tend to reduce their CO2 emissions while they are increasing on average around the world, above all in China and India, in spite of the enormous coverage of Western media.

See the huge increase of coal, oil, natural gas in the world:

And also:

Hi Everyone: YouTube just spoon-fed me this very interesting video discussing the integration of wind energy, which would include AWE if ever implemented, and solar, to the grid, specifically in the UK and the E.U.
We Spent £220 Billion on Decarbonisation and Saw Zero Financial Benefits: Kathryn Porter

1 Like

Hi Doug,

I watched this video which is indeed interesting in more ways than one.
Kathryn Porter is right about everything she says. But I am not going to review the energy choices of which I was aware of the harmful consequences, to focus on the AWE case.

In my opinion, and I repeat, AWE for electricity production should focus on the initial goals: harnessing more consistent and powerful high-altitude winds.

Thus, predictability would be improved, leading to potentially less disruption of the grid, as well as better utilization of the rare earth elements necessary for generators that would then be better capitalized.

But we are still in the realm of (renewable?) fiction.

Hi Pierre: I got interested in wind energy long before it was “a thing” - way back in the 1960’s. I just thought it was cool when I toured the hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls and realized it took no fuel to provide electricity at our house 70 miles away. The amount of water was limited, so I thought “What about wind?”

I just think wind energy is cool, lots of action, and fun, a mental challenge to get it working properly, and of course once set up, zero fuel expense.
BUT, hydroelectric is stable and the amount of water reserve upstream makes it a reliable source of “spinning reserves” for the grid.

The problem with solar and wind is they absolutely require backup power sources for dark or calm times, so powerplants become redundant, needing gas-fired plants and/or battery plants to fill the gaps, So now, just to accommodate the “renewables”, you need to build at least twice as many powerplants, that are only used half the time or less, and lots of electronic band-aids to integrate it all and emulate the “spinning reserves” that the grid normally relies on for stability. The result is electricity costing more than twice as much, and outages like the recent one in Spain & parts of France, where some people even died.

The case for the “renewables” sounds great when it is a small addition to an otherwise self-sufficient, stable grid, but past a certain level, the inherent negatives become impossible to ignore.

An expensive battery power plant is not producing power all the time, but rather either charging up, or just sitting there, most of the time. Same with gas peaker plants. Renewables seem to be serving as a demonstration that nuclear power might be a main way forward from here. Yes, it would be nice to harness the jet stream. Of course, it sounds great. Meanwhile nobody can reliably power even a single home with any little AWE system after nearly 20 years if empty promises, handwaving, and happy-talk. :slight_smile:

The positive thing about all this is that AWE is not likely to overload the grid.

That video was full of misdirection, falsehoods, poor logic, straw man arguments…

Here’s the comment I left them

Great that someone takes the counter argument but, I have issues with this.
Initial fault Iberia - was gas breakdown. Lack of grid forming inverters on the solar kit allowed the trip to roll. More Battery storage would have prevented it too. Reactive zonal grid design would have helped too.
As for we didn’t do it argument. 0.8% is our best case localised emissions. Not our historic contribution nor our total inc scope 1,2,3 emissions.
You can’t compare climate change death numbers to blackouts death numbers orders of magnitude lower.
You implied Germany getting rid of the more polluting deadly emissions coal wasn’t smart? Logic?
BTW England is MILES behind this game. Scotland already runs at 95% renewables. Where is your infrastructure England? Why is there no grid capacity North to South? Why do we in the North have to curtail generation because of your blocking rollout? Oh why do we have to pay to transmit when you get paid to?
So let’s get this straight… Is it the renewable energy that’s expensive / Or the contracting which encourages curtailment?
Just build them where they need to be - Where your users are - Get used to lovely turbines. We did - for you
Heathrow fire was not caused because the money went on curtailment - that’s another logical fallacy.
An inverter is not trying to be a transformer - These are two distinct separate device types - not a square peg trying to fit a round hole.
Net Zero is a shorthand way of saying electrify everything - it’s fast ommunication of something that needs done not something done to or by a group of elites. Yeah put us both in a room and point at the elite - it’s no me.
Yeah who in their right mind wants smart meters, cheap running EV’s, Cost efficient warm homes with heap pumps and insulation. Not English apparently. This is a HUGE North South Divide.
And a nuclear plant , is going to come from where? Take how long and many more x than the ticket to build?
Sail eugh so last century. Sneering at sail now that triggers me. So I’m not going to comment on that.
Sun dimming (shielding) Yep, policy that investigates all potential outcomes and options, that sounds sensible.
Is burning fossil fuels toxic? (you said so earlier when the generator killed a family, Wasn’t a solar panel fell on their heads)
More minerals for an EV… hardly. How many minerals does it burn? None. Ever seen re
cyclable diesel? what no? Lithium batteries are >99% recyclable. Who drives less than 15k Miles?
British Thought Leaders ? - Wow what a channel name. How about re-branding to MIND CONTROL STATION FOR BLIGHTY ?

An important point is mentioned on the video at 31:15: variability. It is due to intermittence, and leads to stop and go for fossil backup. This variability could be compared to that of crosswind kite during figure-eight paths inducing accelerations and decelerations. Both variabilities consume a lot of power.

The most populous countries emit the most CO2, from fossil fuels, without (maximum CO2 emissions excepted if hydroelectricity is available) or with (a little less CO2) intermittent renewables. China data are now available.

1 Like


Wow
Nice share @PierreB
Eugh Mid West America
Disgusting
Clean that up