Watch as Laurence breaks apart the lies repeatedly fed to the public and details the manipulation by the billionaire-funded lobby groups and activists.
Nice one Joel. Good to see you covering this. I think you'll find it's not such a different lane after-all, but rather another variation of the very same crimes and scams you so astutely cover here already. I.e., it's all part of the same damn thing, coming from the same powerful people. Atb.
Climate change nee AGW (Global Warming) nee Global Cooling IS the original assault on personal sovereignty that has morphed to become the fraudulent Plandemic. Phantom crises invented by TPTB (generally) to get the sheep to do something they wouldn't do of the own volition.
Joel, I like the film well enough but as one of the Chief Revealer of Covid Lies (TM), I personally would have chosen different lies to expose.
The heart of the matter is a dirty fat lie: that burning fossil fuels, thus releasing CO2, is a principal & important source of global warming.
It’s demonstrably not true. The long term evidence supports the contention it’s the other way around: each cycle of warming has been followed by rises in CO2.
Warming occurred from the late 19th century up to WW2, when human releases of CO2 was hardly changing. Then cooling occurred post-war for 30y during which time CO2 releases jumped very markedly as the late stage Industrial Revolution spread widely across the world. The only period during which human CO2 emissions rose with global temperatures was from the mid-1970s until the late-90s. Oddly enough, CO2 emissions continued to climb over the subsequent 20years, during time there’s been an inconvenient failure of temperatures to rise. Many serious climate scientists expect global cooling to become clearer over the next 30years, just as it has dozens of times in the past, associated with solar output cycles (I’m an amateur in this field, so I’m quoting others talking of a “grand solar minimum”).
I emphasisd this lie because it’s the absolutely fundamental one. Everything hangs off it being true, yet it’s a lie.
Fossil fuel consumption & associated availability of affordable energy is unequivocally THE most important driver of standard of living. Health indeces & quality of life are more heavily influenced by mean watt.hour consumption than by any other single factor.
We must be good stewards of available resources and build on tremendous improvements in cleanliness of our environment. Not smothering the place with persistent chemicals that impact multiple aspects of thd heaith of plants, microorganisms, animals & humans would be a good focus. Those of us fortunate enough to live in what was called first world countries don’t need to consume more. I expect we can be much better at using resources less wastefully. Smaller vehicles, better insulated homes, clever & realistic use of solar (eg to boost the input temperatures of water to be warmed by gas boilers).
But for goodness sake, STOP LYING.
Thank you for highlighting numerous lies & hypocrisies!
Your reply does not address the fundamental flaw with the argument that more CO2 = higher temperatures. It also poses no other alternative to fossil fuels. Wind and solar are not viable alternatives and are also harmful to the environment and people.
The simple fact is that without fossil fuels the standard of living on the planet would be much lower. While transitioning away from these fuels at some point is required, the current solutions do not provide a way out. Wind and solar do have some good applications but they do not scale and are not clean nor are they "sustainable"; solar panels and wind turbines do not last forever.
Climate change (TM) is really two scams: 1. The Science: the scam that global mean temperature is increasing 'dangerously' almost entirely because of industrial and domestic emissions of greenhouse gases, 2. The 'mitigation' scam: the notion that switching to so called 'renewables' will somehow miraculously mitigate an alleged current 'climate crisis' and prevent an impending man-made Thermageddon. Laurence's video highlights mainly mitigation lies, with the exception of 4. (increasing storms) and 5. (climate change is killing people). That last grift relies upon the pseudoscientific attribution of 'bad weather' events to a long term increase in global mean temperature (1.2C since 1850) using decidedly dodgy climate models, imperfect, spatially and temporally limited historical weather data and some pretty outrageous statistical 'fits'. The claim is that our changing climate is making bad weather much worse. An increase of mean global temperature of 1.2C over 172 years is going to kill nobody and collapse not one single 'entire ecosystem'. The very idea is patently absurd, so they have to rely upon natural disasters to make the claim that 'climate change' (TM) is killing hundreds of thousands of people across the world - and it's all your fault for driving a car, eating meat and keeping warm in winter.
As usual, Mick "private eye" Crisp fires off half-cocked without the full facts. I'm not going to indulge you with them though. You can wallow in your ignorance.
... & if this is yet another scam that couldn't exist without the approval of those who make all our decisions for us (could Bill Gates force-inject us WITHOUT government approval? Could Tony Fauci? Can climate change agenda be forwarded into policy without lobbying $)? then why won't anyone help me organize the movement to take the power TO forward these harmful policies out of their hands?
Tell me how either could continue without politicians having All Unquestionable Say in the decision-making. Outline this for me. SHOW us what we're missing here.
Short version. There be pirates. Metered relationships bad. End around, follow the money. Nature as new asset class ie. biocapitalism. Talking heads vs. Cancelled scientists. Carrot on a stick. Learn from nature. Be self-reliant. Do not comply.
I'm wondering if I can get a carbon certificate if I earn enough carbon credits by encouraging my neighbours to sequester their carbon via the Death jab.
Good work Joel. Next - let's smash the "97% of all climate scientists agree" myth. They don't. They never did. And, the source of this much-vaunted quote who alleged it in the first place needs investigating and exposing.
They will use anything and everything to frighten us straight into totalitarianism. From pandemics to nuclear war and all things bad in between. When will it become obvious that we are being psyopted into oblivion and when will people finally stop s*itting themselves? "the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself"
Global Warming ties into energy depletion... They cannot tell the mob 'we are running out of energy'
That would panic them and cause civilization to prematurely collapse.
Instead global warming is a proxy -- the story becomes --- fossil fuels are evil -- we need to ditch them...
Throw some cash at 'renewables' and EVs and that rallies the mob - see - we don't need no dirty fossil fuels! (they fail to notice that the electricity for their EV is generated by coal .. but that's because most people are MORE-ONS... just like they don't notice all the vax injuries or that Fawchee lied when he said if you got the vax you'd not get covid).
We are being told a story not of depletion but one of success -- we have peaked in our burning of fossil fuels and are on the downslope ...
Haha - ya well we have peaked alright ... and we are on the downslope -- but it has nothing to do with transitioning to something else
The MORE-ONS can never be told the truth... they cannot handle it ... they are dangerous if given the truth ... they get angry ... they want to blame someone (they never look in the mirror)... so a PR Team is necessary .. to control them .. See Century of Self documentary... Freud feared the mob
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
As an older person watching Lawrence in this video, I'd just want to tell the producer that he talks too fast and the hardly in the background music is definitely too loud and is it neccessary? The scientists who claim these falsehoods come from the same universities and funded NGO's as the health ones. Everyone bought and paid for.
While I applaud your contribution "in your lane" I'm not in agreement with this.
Let me comment on what are called here "climate lies".
So called lies number one and number three are about the same thing - the costs of climate change mitigation policies. They are not about climate change per se. It is possible to believe that renewable energy systems are unaffordable while at the same time also acknowledging that climate change is real, caused mainly by fossil fuel emissions and very dangerous.
Nevertheless things may not be as bad as they seem because of fossil fuel depletion - fossil fuels are running out and becoming more expensive to access. This process of increasing cost of accessing fossil fuels has been going on for decades long before climate policy became fashionable among elites and governments. The energy crisis has been brewing for a long time before renewables were promoted because depletion of fossil fuels has been going on a long time - but yes, once renewables have been promoted and developed there has been no break through in dealing with the problem of intermittency and this is a big issue.
Yet if you take sea level rise across the globe as a whole you find a great deal of variability in apparent sea level rise on many different coastlines for a many different reasons. None of them disprove the idea of sea level rise as such. For example - the rebound (or rising up) of Earth's crust after the melting of ice from the last ice age - plate tectonics and volcanism raising the height of the land's surface on some coastlines and lowering land surface at others - local subsidence of Earth's crust from groundwater extraction - ground subsidence from sediment compaction at some places - changes in atmospheric wind patterns and ocean currents that piles the water up on some coastlines but not on others...
Finally the plea to support fracking leaves me seething. You would have thought that after the experience of government propaganda about covid and the vaccines, after the observation of regulatory capture of public health by big Pharma, after seeing through the lies and obfuscations about the damage done by remdessivir, the shut down of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, after the "safe and effective scam" - that after all of this Joel and friends would see through the lies of another powerful industry with friends in government and the media - namely the fossil fuel industry. But not a bit of it.
The complete innocence and naivety that imagines fracking will save the day in an energy crisis leaves me gasping.
Here's a link to a textbook that I wrote on ecological economics and published in 2015 - https://credoeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/credo.pdf Chapters 35 and 36 are about Fracking as a "granfalloon" - a hubristic exercise by a vested interest coalition of industry, officials, academics, politicians and media for a futility agenda that pays well for the coalition members but which creates more harms than benefits - not only or even mainly climate harms but destruction of landscapes, communities and farmland, the contamination of water and local atmospheric pollution, the constant noise, the poisoning of farm animals, the constant heavy traffic destroying small communities and endangering children. Here's a small sample of what you are wishing on people. A little quote from my book...
A peer reviewed study by the University of Colorado found that local residents were exposed to trimethyl benzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects. The effects included eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing. We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further [away]... Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risk from both scenarios. p 256
Gosh. Well done.... what a great contribution to public health your friends fracking agenda would cause....
Don't sniff the Gasoline while pumping into your auto. Enjoy your EV while the batteries last.
Also, you may want think about child slave labor in the Congo and the large strip mines bringing you copper or that must be processed by coal fired boilers.
Don't forget about the large diesel mining equipment that must be used.
If I run out of gasoline on the road, a 2.5 gallon gas can can fix the problem for less than $50.
When your EV runs out of battery juice on the freeway, it will cost you a few hundred bucks to get it running again. That charge will be supplied by a gas or diesel auto towing a diesel generator.
Oh, the large wind mills kill a lot of birds as well as bats. But it's ok to sacrifice the birds and bats to make you feel better about doing your part.
Well George. I am not sure if that was a barb aimed at me. If it was you missed and not only because I don't own a car and never have done.
I am not defending EV's as opposed to fossil fuel powered motors. What I am arguing is that we have reached the limits to economic growth and that means neither petrol, diesel, natural gas or electric vehicles going to be viable in the future because sufficient power sources for fossil fuel powered cars AND for EVs are going to be lacking. As fuels deplete the energy cost of energy rises and fossil fuel energy becomes more and more unaffordable for most people. At the same time renewable energy is dependent on minerals like nickel, cobalt, copper, rate earths that are not there in sufficient quantity for and comprehensive transformation of the economy to renewables and EVs. Note I am not advocating this I am merely pointing out what is happening and what is going to happen....and if I were to advocate such a renewables transformation then it would be the advocacy of a society ad economy destroyed, not by carbon emissions but by the toxicity of lare scale mining. No where have I denied that...but, in any case renewables based energy is intermittent and no one has found a energy storage solution for that that is cheap and large scale.
So yes, I am well aware of the damaging environmental impact of renewable power. There is a book that is very good for showing that trying to power a consumer society on so called "green technologies" like wind and solar is tremendously environmentally destructive. It's called "Bright Green Lies" and is by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and Max Wilbert. Your point about killing birds and windlife is in that book and I have not tried to deny it. If you think that I am then show me where I have. If this is aimed at me then you are assuming what my point is and snearing at a fantasy of my point of view. Here is a good review of the Bright Green Lies book on the website of Alice Friedemann https://energyskeptic.com/2021/book-review-of-bright-green-lies/
While you are on Alice Friedmann's website (Energyskeptic blog) look up details of her recent book - "Life After Fossil Fuels - A Reality Check on Renewable Energy" Here is her point of view and it is close to mine:
Within the next few years, oil will be declining at a rate of 6% or more a year. Oil is the master resource that makes all other goods possible: coal, natural gas, mining, logging, transportation, agriculture, construction, cement, steel, and so on. Nothing could possibly reduce greenhouse gases more than oil decline. No geoengineering project could even come close and would almost certainly bring on unexpected side effects worse than the “cure”. Oil decline will be exponential, which means in as little as 16 years we could be producing just 10% as much oil, and everything else for that matter, than we produce today. Or sooner if a shrinking economy triggers enough instability to case civil war, social unrest, and war over the remaining oil.
Little is known about whether exposure to unconventional oil and gas development is associated with higher mortality risks in the elderly and whether related air pollutants are exposure pathways. We studied a cohort of 15,198,496 Medicare beneficiaries (136,215,059 person-years) in all major U.S. unconventional exploration regions from 2001 to 2015. We gathered data from records of more than 2.5 million oil and gas wells. For each beneficiary's ZIP code of residence and year in the cohort, we calculated a proximity-based and a downwind-based pollutant exposure. We analyzed the data using two methods: Cox proportional hazards model and Difference-in-Differences. We found evidence of statistically significant higher mortality risk associated with living in proximity to and downwind of unconventional oil and gas wells. Our results suggest that primary air pollutants sourced from unconventional oil and gas exploration can be a major exposure pathway with adverse health effects in the elderly.
..........................
The closer they live to fracking well sites, the sooner the elderly people (and younger ones not studied) die. The increased mortality is 2.5 percent, but 3.5 percent in residences downwind of drilling sites. The study used 136 million (more accurately, 136,215,059) person-years – 2.5 percent of which would be about four million life-years that could have been lived but were destroyed by fracking.
Death rates are slightly higher in downwind than in upwind locations. This is due to the poisoning of the atmosphere. But that is just one of the causes of illness and death. The poisoning of water and soil, intensive truck traffic with diesel exhaust fumes, noise, continuous blinding lighting at night, etc. also play a role.
Check this 13 minute video out that exposes the complete and utter POLITICAL fraud that the "green new deal" represents. Lies, damned lies and squawking ,virtue signalling chicken littles, "rebels with a fraud".
Premiered Sep 21, 2019
This is my most concise expose of climate fraud. Please pass it around to everyone you know and your elected officials. The video is short, but cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Nice one Joel. Good to see you covering this. I think you'll find it's not such a different lane after-all, but rather another variation of the very same crimes and scams you so astutely cover here already. I.e., it's all part of the same damn thing, coming from the same powerful people. Atb.
Climate change nee AGW (Global Warming) nee Global Cooling IS the original assault on personal sovereignty that has morphed to become the fraudulent Plandemic. Phantom crises invented by TPTB (generally) to get the sheep to do something they wouldn't do of the own volition.
Follow Latimer Alder on twitter.
In 1950 Pakistan had 38 million people
About 3,000 died in the big floods then
1 in every 12,000
Today it has 230 million and 1,700 died in the floods
1 in 130,000
Everywhere, we are getting better at surviving bad weather and 'climate events'
So what's the problem?
I didn't watch the clip.
Truth can still serve as for. False flag.
Climate is changing, and they work hard to paint the skies and lower temperature by blocking out the sun.
I see these several days a week.
They can make it rain and lower the sunlight with these fake clouds.
They know how bad it is, but only tell us what serves their needs , if that.
I always feel bad and tired the days they chemtrail.
The skypainting is proof of climate change, as we are changing it, actively.
So what are they actually hiding?
The sun
💕💕💕💕💕
For more on the CO2 climate emergency HOAX see the facts here - https://co2coalition.org/
Lots of similarities with the COVID 'pandemic.'
Lies upon lies, and they eat it up. Blows my open mind.
Joel, I like the film well enough but as one of the Chief Revealer of Covid Lies (TM), I personally would have chosen different lies to expose.
The heart of the matter is a dirty fat lie: that burning fossil fuels, thus releasing CO2, is a principal & important source of global warming.
It’s demonstrably not true. The long term evidence supports the contention it’s the other way around: each cycle of warming has been followed by rises in CO2.
Warming occurred from the late 19th century up to WW2, when human releases of CO2 was hardly changing. Then cooling occurred post-war for 30y during which time CO2 releases jumped very markedly as the late stage Industrial Revolution spread widely across the world. The only period during which human CO2 emissions rose with global temperatures was from the mid-1970s until the late-90s. Oddly enough, CO2 emissions continued to climb over the subsequent 20years, during time there’s been an inconvenient failure of temperatures to rise. Many serious climate scientists expect global cooling to become clearer over the next 30years, just as it has dozens of times in the past, associated with solar output cycles (I’m an amateur in this field, so I’m quoting others talking of a “grand solar minimum”).
I emphasisd this lie because it’s the absolutely fundamental one. Everything hangs off it being true, yet it’s a lie.
Fossil fuel consumption & associated availability of affordable energy is unequivocally THE most important driver of standard of living. Health indeces & quality of life are more heavily influenced by mean watt.hour consumption than by any other single factor.
We must be good stewards of available resources and build on tremendous improvements in cleanliness of our environment. Not smothering the place with persistent chemicals that impact multiple aspects of thd heaith of plants, microorganisms, animals & humans would be a good focus. Those of us fortunate enough to live in what was called first world countries don’t need to consume more. I expect we can be much better at using resources less wastefully. Smaller vehicles, better insulated homes, clever & realistic use of solar (eg to boost the input temperatures of water to be warmed by gas boilers).
But for goodness sake, STOP LYING.
Thank you for highlighting numerous lies & hypocrisies!
Your reply does not address the fundamental flaw with the argument that more CO2 = higher temperatures. It also poses no other alternative to fossil fuels. Wind and solar are not viable alternatives and are also harmful to the environment and people.
The simple fact is that without fossil fuels the standard of living on the planet would be much lower. While transitioning away from these fuels at some point is required, the current solutions do not provide a way out. Wind and solar do have some good applications but they do not scale and are not clean nor are they "sustainable"; solar panels and wind turbines do not last forever.
Climate change (TM) is really two scams: 1. The Science: the scam that global mean temperature is increasing 'dangerously' almost entirely because of industrial and domestic emissions of greenhouse gases, 2. The 'mitigation' scam: the notion that switching to so called 'renewables' will somehow miraculously mitigate an alleged current 'climate crisis' and prevent an impending man-made Thermageddon. Laurence's video highlights mainly mitigation lies, with the exception of 4. (increasing storms) and 5. (climate change is killing people). That last grift relies upon the pseudoscientific attribution of 'bad weather' events to a long term increase in global mean temperature (1.2C since 1850) using decidedly dodgy climate models, imperfect, spatially and temporally limited historical weather data and some pretty outrageous statistical 'fits'. The claim is that our changing climate is making bad weather much worse. An increase of mean global temperature of 1.2C over 172 years is going to kill nobody and collapse not one single 'entire ecosystem'. The very idea is patently absurd, so they have to rely upon natural disasters to make the claim that 'climate change' (TM) is killing hundreds of thousands of people across the world - and it's all your fault for driving a car, eating meat and keeping warm in winter.
Hi Joel,
If you think that climate change is a lie, why are you a co-founder of a climate change startup?
https://www.bgf.world/
As usual, Mick "private eye" Crisp fires off half-cocked without the full facts. I'm not going to indulge you with them though. You can wallow in your ignorance.
i would be curious to know as well and what was the reason for this post ?
'' why are you a co-founder of a climate change startup? ''
Nice deflection!
... & if this is yet another scam that couldn't exist without the approval of those who make all our decisions for us (could Bill Gates force-inject us WITHOUT government approval? Could Tony Fauci? Can climate change agenda be forwarded into policy without lobbying $)? then why won't anyone help me organize the movement to take the power TO forward these harmful policies out of their hands?
Tell me how either could continue without politicians having All Unquestionable Say in the decision-making. Outline this for me. SHOW us what we're missing here.
Check this out..
https://wrenchinthegears.com/2020/10/13/technocrats-great-barrington-and-bermuda-grass-why-settle-for-reform-when-a-radical-solution-is-needed/
too much !
Short version. There be pirates. Metered relationships bad. End around, follow the money. Nature as new asset class ie. biocapitalism. Talking heads vs. Cancelled scientists. Carrot on a stick. Learn from nature. Be self-reliant. Do not comply.
I'm wondering if I can get a carbon certificate if I earn enough carbon credits by encouraging my neighbours to sequester their carbon via the Death jab.
ouch !
Good work Joel. Next - let's smash the "97% of all climate scientists agree" myth. They don't. They never did. And, the source of this much-vaunted quote who alleged it in the first place needs investigating and exposing.
They will use anything and everything to frighten us straight into totalitarianism. From pandemics to nuclear war and all things bad in between. When will it become obvious that we are being psyopted into oblivion and when will people finally stop s*itting themselves? "the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself"
Global Warming ties into energy depletion... They cannot tell the mob 'we are running out of energy'
That would panic them and cause civilization to prematurely collapse.
Instead global warming is a proxy -- the story becomes --- fossil fuels are evil -- we need to ditch them...
Throw some cash at 'renewables' and EVs and that rallies the mob - see - we don't need no dirty fossil fuels! (they fail to notice that the electricity for their EV is generated by coal .. but that's because most people are MORE-ONS... just like they don't notice all the vax injuries or that Fawchee lied when he said if you got the vax you'd not get covid).
We are being told a story not of depletion but one of success -- we have peaked in our burning of fossil fuels and are on the downslope ...
Haha - ya well we have peaked alright ... and we are on the downslope -- but it has nothing to do with transitioning to something else
The MORE-ONS can never be told the truth... they cannot handle it ... they are dangerous if given the truth ... they get angry ... they want to blame someone (they never look in the mirror)... so a PR Team is necessary .. to control them .. See Century of Self documentary... Freud feared the mob
Oil Discoveries are at record lows https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/icbkDFACM4iA/v2/800x-1.png
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Biggest-Oil-Gas-Discoveries-Of-2019.html
As an older person watching Lawrence in this video, I'd just want to tell the producer that he talks too fast and the hardly in the background music is definitely too loud and is it neccessary? The scientists who claim these falsehoods come from the same universities and funded NGO's as the health ones. Everyone bought and paid for.
While I applaud your contribution "in your lane" I'm not in agreement with this.
Let me comment on what are called here "climate lies".
So called lies number one and number three are about the same thing - the costs of climate change mitigation policies. They are not about climate change per se. It is possible to believe that renewable energy systems are unaffordable while at the same time also acknowledging that climate change is real, caused mainly by fossil fuel emissions and very dangerous.
Nevertheless things may not be as bad as they seem because of fossil fuel depletion - fossil fuels are running out and becoming more expensive to access. This process of increasing cost of accessing fossil fuels has been going on for decades long before climate policy became fashionable among elites and governments. The energy crisis has been brewing for a long time before renewables were promoted because depletion of fossil fuels has been going on a long time - but yes, once renewables have been promoted and developed there has been no break through in dealing with the problem of intermittency and this is a big issue.
If you want to tackle sea level rise as an issue why cherry pick sea level rise on coral atols? Is it because coral atols grow - and so appear to disprove sea level rise? https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL088752
Yet if you take sea level rise across the globe as a whole you find a great deal of variability in apparent sea level rise on many different coastlines for a many different reasons. None of them disprove the idea of sea level rise as such. For example - the rebound (or rising up) of Earth's crust after the melting of ice from the last ice age - plate tectonics and volcanism raising the height of the land's surface on some coastlines and lowering land surface at others - local subsidence of Earth's crust from groundwater extraction - ground subsidence from sediment compaction at some places - changes in atmospheric wind patterns and ocean currents that piles the water up on some coastlines but not on others...
A propos the argument about storms getting more frequent and intense do you think you could refer to the literature on this controversy please? There are counter arguments - at least I am aware of debates from 10 years and more ago when insurance company Munich Re joined the debate https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-increasing-extreme-weather-damage-costs.htm Clearly Munich Re thought there was an issue in 2011. On this debate see - https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-increasing-extreme-weather-damage-costs.htm
Finally the plea to support fracking leaves me seething. You would have thought that after the experience of government propaganda about covid and the vaccines, after the observation of regulatory capture of public health by big Pharma, after seeing through the lies and obfuscations about the damage done by remdessivir, the shut down of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, after the "safe and effective scam" - that after all of this Joel and friends would see through the lies of another powerful industry with friends in government and the media - namely the fossil fuel industry. But not a bit of it.
The complete innocence and naivety that imagines fracking will save the day in an energy crisis leaves me gasping.
Here's a link to a textbook that I wrote on ecological economics and published in 2015 - https://credoeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/credo.pdf Chapters 35 and 36 are about Fracking as a "granfalloon" - a hubristic exercise by a vested interest coalition of industry, officials, academics, politicians and media for a futility agenda that pays well for the coalition members but which creates more harms than benefits - not only or even mainly climate harms but destruction of landscapes, communities and farmland, the contamination of water and local atmospheric pollution, the constant noise, the poisoning of farm animals, the constant heavy traffic destroying small communities and endangering children. Here's a small sample of what you are wishing on people. A little quote from my book...
A peer reviewed study by the University of Colorado found that local residents were exposed to trimethyl benzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects. The effects included eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing. We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further [away]... Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risk from both scenarios. p 256
Gosh. Well done.... what a great contribution to public health your friends fracking agenda would cause....
Don't sniff the Gasoline while pumping into your auto. Enjoy your EV while the batteries last.
Also, you may want think about child slave labor in the Congo and the large strip mines bringing you copper or that must be processed by coal fired boilers.
Don't forget about the large diesel mining equipment that must be used.
If I run out of gasoline on the road, a 2.5 gallon gas can can fix the problem for less than $50.
When your EV runs out of battery juice on the freeway, it will cost you a few hundred bucks to get it running again. That charge will be supplied by a gas or diesel auto towing a diesel generator.
Oh, the large wind mills kill a lot of birds as well as bats. But it's ok to sacrifice the birds and bats to make you feel better about doing your part.
Well George. I am not sure if that was a barb aimed at me. If it was you missed and not only because I don't own a car and never have done.
I am not defending EV's as opposed to fossil fuel powered motors. What I am arguing is that we have reached the limits to economic growth and that means neither petrol, diesel, natural gas or electric vehicles going to be viable in the future because sufficient power sources for fossil fuel powered cars AND for EVs are going to be lacking. As fuels deplete the energy cost of energy rises and fossil fuel energy becomes more and more unaffordable for most people. At the same time renewable energy is dependent on minerals like nickel, cobalt, copper, rate earths that are not there in sufficient quantity for and comprehensive transformation of the economy to renewables and EVs. Note I am not advocating this I am merely pointing out what is happening and what is going to happen....and if I were to advocate such a renewables transformation then it would be the advocacy of a society ad economy destroyed, not by carbon emissions but by the toxicity of lare scale mining. No where have I denied that...but, in any case renewables based energy is intermittent and no one has found a energy storage solution for that that is cheap and large scale.
So yes, I am well aware of the damaging environmental impact of renewable power. There is a book that is very good for showing that trying to power a consumer society on so called "green technologies" like wind and solar is tremendously environmentally destructive. It's called "Bright Green Lies" and is by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and Max Wilbert. Your point about killing birds and windlife is in that book and I have not tried to deny it. If you think that I am then show me where I have. If this is aimed at me then you are assuming what my point is and snearing at a fantasy of my point of view. Here is a good review of the Bright Green Lies book on the website of Alice Friedemann https://energyskeptic.com/2021/book-review-of-bright-green-lies/
While you are on Alice Friedmann's website (Energyskeptic blog) look up details of her recent book - "Life After Fossil Fuels - A Reality Check on Renewable Energy" Here is her point of view and it is close to mine:
Within the next few years, oil will be declining at a rate of 6% or more a year. Oil is the master resource that makes all other goods possible: coal, natural gas, mining, logging, transportation, agriculture, construction, cement, steel, and so on. Nothing could possibly reduce greenhouse gases more than oil decline. No geoengineering project could even come close and would almost certainly bring on unexpected side effects worse than the “cure”. Oil decline will be exponential, which means in as little as 16 years we could be producing just 10% as much oil, and everything else for that matter, than we produce today. Or sooner if a shrinking economy triggers enough instability to case civil war, social unrest, and war over the remaining oil.
Thanks Austen. Here's a recent study that is pretty telling:
Exposure to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development and All-cause Mortality in Medicare Beneficiaries
Nat Energy . 2022 Feb;7(2):177-185. doi: 10.1038/s41560-021-00970-y. Epub 2022 Jan 27.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35425643/ Abstract
Little is known about whether exposure to unconventional oil and gas development is associated with higher mortality risks in the elderly and whether related air pollutants are exposure pathways. We studied a cohort of 15,198,496 Medicare beneficiaries (136,215,059 person-years) in all major U.S. unconventional exploration regions from 2001 to 2015. We gathered data from records of more than 2.5 million oil and gas wells. For each beneficiary's ZIP code of residence and year in the cohort, we calculated a proximity-based and a downwind-based pollutant exposure. We analyzed the data using two methods: Cox proportional hazards model and Difference-in-Differences. We found evidence of statistically significant higher mortality risk associated with living in proximity to and downwind of unconventional oil and gas wells. Our results suggest that primary air pollutants sourced from unconventional oil and gas exploration can be a major exposure pathway with adverse health effects in the elderly.
..........................
The closer they live to fracking well sites, the sooner the elderly people (and younger ones not studied) die. The increased mortality is 2.5 percent, but 3.5 percent in residences downwind of drilling sites. The study used 136 million (more accurately, 136,215,059) person-years – 2.5 percent of which would be about four million life-years that could have been lived but were destroyed by fracking.
Death rates are slightly higher in downwind than in upwind locations. This is due to the poisoning of the atmosphere. But that is just one of the causes of illness and death. The poisoning of water and soil, intensive truck traffic with diesel exhaust fumes, noise, continuous blinding lighting at night, etc. also play a role.
The last time I checked, mining was a dangerous business. Most workers in those industries know this.
Sitting in front of your computer using WiFi and 5Gis not so dangerous unless you had multiple clot shots.
Check this 13 minute video out that exposes the complete and utter POLITICAL fraud that the "green new deal" represents. Lies, damned lies and squawking ,virtue signalling chicken littles, "rebels with a fraud".
Premiered Sep 21, 2019
This is my most concise expose of climate fraud. Please pass it around to everyone you know and your elected officials. The video is short, but cuts right to the heart of the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU&t=6s
Nice video but it's not correct IMO. There are much bigger lies, much more important lies. Lie #1 is here: https://confusedpepe.substack.com/p/climate-lies?sd=pf