By Russ Babcock.

During this summer of 2023 (NH), we witnessed catastrophic wildfires in Hawaii, western and northern Canada, and the northwestern United States, burning not only hundreds of square miles of oxygen-producing forests, but also communities in major cities, small towns, and villages were hit, while right next door, in a neighboring state, we saw hurricane-force downpours, and devastating flooding of several towns and villages.

We are expected to believe that this is all caused by an increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04%, according to the madness promoted by governments and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media – and all this in the absence of any evidence. They just put their bold label on it: climate change. That’s reason enough for them, and it’s suggested that it should be reason enough for the rest of us.

Before this astronomical (😏 ) CO2 increase of 0.01%, average temperatures on Earth were ~0.9 degrees Celsius lower than today. It is fair to say that no one knows exactly how much (if anything measurable) of that 0.9 degree increase is due to the 0.01% increase in CO2 concentration. But we all know that half of the 0.9 degree rise in temperature occurred before fossil fuel planes flew. Cars, trucks, trains, ships and buses have only been in use since about the middle of the 20th century. That should be a clue to rational thinking people, whether they understand the underlying science or not.

The honest consensus on the causes of climate change among real and legitimate scientists who actually study potential causes of changes in global temperatures and climates in scientific detail, is probably much closer to zero. Even the total temperature increase of 0.9 degrees over the past 125 years would not be a reason for catastrophic weather events such as droughts, hurricanes, storms, El Niños, heat domes, atmospheric rivers, etc.

There are many other reasons for such events that are scientifically more probable than a 0.01% rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, or any part of a 0.9 degree rise in global average temperature. In short, catastrophic weather events result mainly from physical interactions between adjacent climates, and to a lesser extent from sudden and significant tectonic changes (e.g. volcanoes).

There are many science-based causes for changes in the Earth’s average temperature, both at the Earth’s surface and at different altitudes in the atmosphere, and even more reasons for constant changes in the many climates around the world that exist simultaneously. But the proponents of the man-made climate change narrative (also called anthropogenic global warming, or AGW), have a major influence on politics and the media through their financial resources and ownership of newspapers, radio and TV-stations.

With that control, they can prevent public discussion about scientific reasons and causes of global temperature and climate changes. Or at least they make it extremely difficult for really well-informed scientists to have fruitful communication links with the general public. The megaphones of the mainstream media are the gateways to the minds of the voting population. It appears that the alternative voices about anything to do with climate change are off limits to main stream media (MSM).

So that’s the problem. Getting the media to side with the truth is the first step in the overall solution of the problem. The problem will be solved when the public is informed enough to vote the bad guys out of office, and replace them with people who are not out to destroy our personal freedoms, our free enterprise production, our democracy, our national sovereignty, our way of life – all of which apparently need to be ‘reset’

https://theconversation.com/profiles/russ-babcock-126401

Take 90 minutes of your time and listen to three of the best sermons that were ever preached in the Crystal Cathedral. It will bless you, especially if you are still a bit sceptical of Christianity.

Please read our latest newsletter by clicking on the link below:

Newsletter: Spring 2023 | Bread on the water

Ian Plimer (Australia) changes our perspective of climate change,

Note that some of the things he said, is exactly in line with my own findings, e.g. here:

It is the earth itself, stupid!? | Bread on the water

By Gordin Hughes. Source here: Wind costs will remain high (netzerowatch.com)

The share price crash of Siemens Energy has strikingly exposed a problem with wind energy costs that colleagues and I have been investigating for more than a decade. The painful facts are that (i) wind power generation, both onshore and offshore, is more expensive than we’re told and (ii) wind turbine performance tends to deteriorate as they age, largely because of the type of failures Siemens Energy has been identified. There is strong evidence to support these conclusions, which has been presented in reports published by the Renewable Energy Foundation in 2012 and in 2020 for the UK   Denmark, with updates from the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Net Zero Watch .

The news about Siemens Energy evokes a strong tendency to say ‘you were warned’. Their trials, however, are a symptom of a more widespread disease, affecting all of us, either directly through the cost of electricity or indirectly as wind farm owners (through pension funds and other investment vehicles). Siemens Energy’s share price decline is dramatic, but that can be written off as a temporary market reaction to disappointed expectations. We need to dig a little deeper to understand the reasons for the disappointment and their implications for the outlook for wind energy.

The announcement by Siemens Energy targeted higher-than-expected failure rates for their onshore turbines. These were attributed to problems with key components, but newspaper reports suggest more systematic design flaws in recent generations of large turbines. Previous announcements have focused on problems with offshore turbines, and the market reaction suggests that few believe the current problems are limited to onshore turbines. Further, while each of the major turbine manufacturers has its own specific issues, Siemens Energy is not alone in facing high warranty costs due to higher-than-expected failure rates.

In ascending order of importance, there are three aspects to pay attention to:

(a) Siemens Energy and other manufacturers have made warranties of performance that will not be met due to higher failure rates. They will incur additional costs, either to replace components or to compensate wind farm operators for any resulting underperformance. Those costs are the basis for the depreciation that Siemens Energy had to take. Investors will be painfully aware that the company is declaring profits on wind turbine sales, but without making adequate provisions for future warranty repair costs. In accounting terms, this is known as recognizing future profits for new business. When it becomes clear that the contracts will be less profitable, the company has to write off the value of previously reported profits and therefore the value of the assets on its balance sheet. In fact, though perhaps wholly unknowingly, the company has misled investors about its past and present profitability. Senior managers should feel very uncomfortable about their position as the problem was predictable (and predicted).

(b) Warranties have a limited period – often 5 to 8 years – but the higher failure rates will persist and affect performance over the remainder of the life of the wind farms where the turbines are installed. Their future operating costs will be higher than expected and their output will be significantly lower. This will shorten their operational life, which is determined by how the margin between revenues and costs changes as wind farms age. Lower revenues and higher costs bring forward the date when replacement or repair is required. These changes will often significantly reduce the returns of the financial investors – pension funds and others – to whom operators sell most of the shares in wind farms after a number of years.

(c) Siemens Energy and other manufacturers can claim that they can – over time – solve the component and design problems that lead to high failure rates. They could be right. The history of power engineering is littered with examples of new generations of equipment that encountered major problems when first introduced, but were eventually resolved. Many companies have run into serious financial difficulties or even went bankrupt due to these “teething problems”. The mistake in this case was to pretend that wind turbines were immune to such disturbances. The whole justification for the falling cost of wind generation rested on the assumption that much larger turbines would produce more output at a lower cost per megawatt, without the high cost of generation change. Now we have confirmation that such optimism was completely unjustified – the whole development process was a case of too far, too fast. Again, this was both predictable and predicted.

The idea that wind turbines are immune to the factors that influence other forms of power engineering has always been absurd. As a result, both capital and operating costs for wind farms are not falling as fast as claimed and may not fall significantly at all. It follows that current energy policy in the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States rests on quicksand – naive optimism reinforced by enthusiastic lobbying detached from technical reality.

In the longer term, (b) and (c) are the big story. With regard to (a), serious analysts have long recognized that claims about future wind costs and performance by the wind industry should not be taken seriously. It is clear that they have been fooling themselves and their investors since the last 2010s. Unfortunately, we are now bound by a future with high energy costs, with all the consequences for the economy and living standards.