The World Economic Forum & Davos - Setting the agenda on fossil fuels, global regulations, etc.

Recommended Posts

China Has Just Launched The World's Largest Carbon Market

By Alex Kimani - Feb 06, 2021, 4:00 PM CST

For many years, China sacrificed environmental stewardship at the altar of economic growth, adopting a growth-at-all-costs strategy. The economy-first mentality helped Beijing lift 850 million of its citizens from dire poverty but also made the country the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. However, that has been rapidly changing under president Xi Jinping who has vowed to adopt more stringent environmental policies as he seeks to temper the hardline stance that dominated previous administrations. Shortly after Xi Jinping's election in 2013, China introduced the "Green Fence" operation designed in part to improve the quality of the plastics waste coming into the country before following it up two years later with the "National Sword Campaign" that effectively banned the importation of plastics into the country.

Last year, the president reiterated his environmentally friendly stance after he announced that the country had set a firm goal to become carbon neutral by 2060

And now China has just launched a nationwide carbon trading marketplace in what could become one of its most significant steps taken to lower GHG emissions and achieve its climate goals.

China, which accounts for 28% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, has become the world's first major economy to launch a national carbon emissions trading market.

China's carbon market

Many countries across Europe, as well as some parts of the U.S., have implemented carbon markets that force companies to offset their carbon emissions by investing in green projects that neutralize their emissions.

Related: Trading Giant Gunvor: $60 Could Be The Ceiling For Oil Prices

For now, China's emissions trading system will cover its extensive power industry, including ~2,000 power generation facilities, which represent about 30% of the nation's total emissions. However, over time, the platform will expand to encompass heavy industries like oil, gas, steel, aluminum, cement, and chemicals. 

Though undoubtedly ambitious, questions are already being asked about China's new carbon marketplace. For instance, the government plans to allocate emissions allowances for free but will begin to auction allowances "at a future appropriate time". This kind of leeway suggests that Beijing is still wary of the effect that carbon pricing could have on profitability and economic growth.

That said, a survey of market participants indicates that prices are likely to start at around 41 yuan (US$6.3) per ton of CO2, rising to 66 yuan per ton in 2025 and 77 yuan by 2030. 

That's well below the $50 to $100 range by 2030 suggested by a commission on carbon prices formed in 2017 if the markets and prices are to have any impact on behavior.

Carbon offsets might not work

Though widely used by the developed economies, the efficacy of carbon offsets as a means to control climate change is increasingly being brought into question.

Scientists, activists, and concerned citizens have highlighted how companies are now using carbon offsets as a free pass for climate inaction. The types of carbon offset projects that are implemented are diverse, ranging from forestry sequestration projects to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The world needs to lower annual emissions by 29-32 gigatonnes of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) by 2030 to have a fighting chance to stay below 1.5°C. That's ~5x the current commitments by companies, organizations, and governments. We need to lower our GHG emissions by 45% over the next decade if we are to avert catastrophic planetary changes. 

Related: U.S. Rig Count Jumps Amid Rising Oil Prices

The sad truth is that trees planted today simply can't grow fast enough to come anywhere near achieving this goal, and the majority of carbon offset projects will never be able to curb the emissions growth if coal power plants and gasoline vehicles continue to dominate.

UNEP has warned that the biggest risk posed by carbon credits is that they tend to encourage complacency. According to UN Environment climate specialist Niklas Hagelberg:

"UN Environment supports carbon offsets as a temporary measure leading up to 2030, and a tool for speeding up climate action. However, it is not a silver bullet, and the danger is that it can lead to complacency. The October 2018 report by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear that if we are to have any hope of curbing global warming we need to transition away from carbon for good: by travelling electric, embracing renewable energy, eating less meat and wasting less food."

Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs, have been suggested as a better alternative to carbon offsets.

Whereas a carbon offset represents an action that effectively sequesters carbon, RECs are like a property deed representing a part of a renewable energy source, such as a solar or wind farm.

By buying RECs and pairing it with electricity from the grid, companies, and organizations directly support the development of renewable energy infrastructure. RECs provide access to alternative energy sources to areas that do not have the capacity to produce their own renewable energy.

By Alex Kimani for

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbes — A Communist Propaganda Outlet?

In 2014, the Chinese company Integrated Whale Media Investments bought 95% controlling interest in Forbes.4,5 Basically, with just 5% worth of shares in American hands, I think it’s safe to say Forbes is a Chinese-controlled company.

That the proverbial choke collar is getting yanked by its communist masters seems evident in the magazine’s rather sudden embrace of radical censorship of political opponents and views. As reported by Newsmax:6

“Communist China owned Integrated Whale Media Investments start their purge. Media and the Left aren’t satisfied with merely controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress … They want revenge. They also want to punish anyone who worked in the Trump administration, and to a lesser extent, the 45th president’s supporters.”

Good luck, Forbes. Threatening to cut down the voices of half the American population is unlikely to end well. It’s really a sad end to what has long been an American media icon. It was predictable, however, and questions about the editorial independence of Forbes were raised from the get-go in 2014. As reported by Isaac Stone Fish in a Washington Post op-ed in December 2017:7

“When a Chinese company buys a major American magazine, does the publication censor its coverage of China? There is only one example so far, and the results are discouraging. In 2014, a Hong Kong-based investment group called Integrated Whale Media purchased a majority stake in Forbes Media …

ince that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine’s commitment to editorial independence.”



  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites




Well, if you’re a Democrat, you think it’s those evil Russkies. If you’re a Republican, you think it’s those evil ChiComs. But if you’re a conspiracy realist, you know that absolutely all of the above (and many more) are working to create a truly global system of control.


The Year Ahead – Part 3: Geopolitics


...The Players

We all know that the Democrats have spent the last four years promoting Russia as the greatest threat to free humanity. Yes, Russia. A country with a smaller GDP than Canada and a military expenditure 1/30th of the US that threatens global stability by interfering in Omidyar and Soros’ colour revolution in Ukraine and by starting wars with Georgia—or maybe the war was actually started by Georgia. Whatever. Boo! The Russian Bear is after you and is going to steal your (s)elections with hundreds of dollars’ worth of Facebook Jesus memes!

…Not scared yet? Well, don’t worry, the Republicans are now carefully building their own version of Russiagate: Chinagate! Yes, now it’s the evil ChiComs who are lurking behind every bush, ready to pounce on unsuspecting politicians and steer the great and virtuous US of A into their commie trap! Get ready for the exact mirror image of the Russiagate fiasco to play out now, with intense focus on Xi Jinping and the CCP’s moves, actions and ties in the right-leaning media in the coming years.

And you know what? They’re right! All of them.

Russia is not a shining beacon of freedom and prosperity. President for Life Putin is an old KGB thug and New World Order advocate who rose to power on the back of false flags staged by his FSB pals, is besties with the worst globalists in the world and seeks to limit freedom of speech in Russia and generally control his citizenry.

Nor is China a valiant crusader for peace and prosperity on the world stage. President for Life Xi heads a Chinese technocratic dictatorship that controls its citizenry with the latest whizzbang surveillance technology tied into cashless payment systems and social credit scores. As such, he serves as a hero to the politicians who are trying to normalize lockdowns, reeducation camps, social credit scores and other aspects of technocratic tyranny in the West.

Choosing between a world led by Russia and China or one led by the US and its allies is like choosing whether to eat excrement pudding or a feces sandwich. In other words, it’s no choice at all.

As I have pointed out many times before (but apparently not nearly enough), the players at the global geopolitical table all have the same vision for the future: a world where a handful of oligarchs use a technocratic managerial class to rule over their compliant populations.

No better demonstration of this simple reality could be provided than the madness that has unfolded across the globe over the past year. Lockdowns of entire cities, regions and—with the latest crackdown on international travel—even countries. Brutal crackdowns on protest and blanket censorship of dissent. Politicians arbitrarily deciding which businesses can operate and which ones must shut their doors. The foisting of untested medical technologies on the public and the complete erasure of any pretense that you can control what happens to your own body. This is the world that the technocrats and eugenicists have always wanted to bring about.

And now that Pandora’s Box has been opened and the biosecurity paradigm has been unleashed, we see that all of these governments are, at base, exactly the same. China, Russia, the US, the UK, Australia, Germany, South Korea, the Netherlands, Iran and nearly every other country you can think of has adopted the WHO’s casedemic guidelines, embraced the lockdowns and surveillance of their population, brutally put down all dissent and scrambled to secure enough doses of the COVID “vaccines” to inject each and every one of their tax cattle.

There are so few examples of governments that have not leapt on the opportunity to introduce some form of medical martial law and jump on the vaccine bandwagon that you could count them with one hand. And, sadly, even those countries like Japan that have not engaged in the lockdown insanity are vying to outdo the rest of the world with their Orwellian vaccine compliance and registry schemes.

The world of COVID-1984 is what the future looks like to these technocrats, regardless of whether it’s Uncle Sam in the driver’s seat or Uncle Xi or any of the other misleaders.

Having said that, there is a war going on right now. At one level, it is a contest between the various players in this geopolitical game to secure themselves a better seat at the table of global power in the coming biosecurity age. But, as I have pointed out before, at a deeper level, it is a war on you. It is a war on me. It is a war on all of us.

The difficulty for most of us is in understanding this war and the forms that it takes. It does not correspond in any way to what most of the public imagines warfare to be. There are no soldiers lining up on battlefields to shoot at each other. This is warfare of a fundamentally different kind.

The War

The War on You that constitutes the real Third World War takes many forms. Understanding these forms is essential to understanding the real nature of the threat facing free humanity....  [ARTICLE CONTINUES]

Edited by Tom Nolan
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute-Zero Is The New Net-Zero For Emissions

By Irina Slav - Feb 07, 2021, 5:00 PM CST


The net-zero emissions goal of many governments has more or less become part of everyday life. We’ve all heard about these plans, and we may remember a few details. Still, life goes on. Now, a report from a UK research group is taking things a lot further: it has called for the country to aim for not net, but absolute zero in emissions by 2050. UK FIRES, a research program involving scientists from several reputable universities and businesses from resource-intensive sectors, says that net-zero is not enough. What’s more, waiting for breakthrough technologies to enable this net-zero scenario is not good enough.

According to a new report, today’s technology is sufficient for achieving absolute zero by 2050. At a cost, of course.

The plan that the authors of the report outline starts with moving to a 100-percent reliance on electricity as a source of energy. That’s hardly surprising —most net-zero plans involve a version of this heightened reliance. Naturally, critics would be quick to point out that a complete reliance on one form of energy may not be particularly smart, for which there is more than enough evidence from the fossil fuel era. Still, one of the tenets of the absolute-zero plan is an economy 100 percent powered by electricity generated by renewable sources.

The authors recognize this shift to 100 percent renewable electricity will require a significant boost in generation capacity and storage. Both of these are potentially challenging endeavors for a number of reasons. Challenges include—but are not limited to—cost and land availability. But unlike other plans for emission reduction, the FIRES plan does not factor in growing energy demand. On the contrary, the report prescribes that the UK must reduce its energy consumption—and reduce it substantially—in order for the absolute zero plan to work.

“We need to switch to using electricity as our only form of energy and if we continue today’s impressive rates of growth in non-emitting generation, we’ll only have to cut our use of energy to 60% of today’s levels,” the authors wrote. “We can achieve this with incremental changes to the way we use energy: we can drive smaller cars and take the train when possible, use efficient electric heat-pumps to keep warm and buy buildings, vehicles and equipment that are better designed and last much longer.”

Making people buy certain products and not others would be difficult, but the UK government has already signaled it was ready to remove the option of choice to hit its climate targets: Downing Street said last year it would ban sales of gasoline and diesel cars from 2030. This has already caused disgruntlement among some Britons, but they still have ten years to embrace the change.

They will also have time to get used to the idea of beef and lamb disappearing from supermarkets because, according to the authors of the report, eating ruminants contributes unacceptably high levels of emissions to the global total.

But that’s just the beginning.

The FIRES report identifies air and maritime transport as major contributors to our species’ carbon footprint. Therefore, these must be phased out completely, the authors say, by 2050. What will replace them? Well, electric trains would be one replacement for air travel across Europe. They would not, however, be able to replace container ships carrying goods from and to Asia, for example. The authors admit there is no replacement for international shipping, and there won’t be for quite a while yet. At the same time, the UK imports half the food it consumes.

International shipping is just one sticking point in the FIRES plan. Another is cement. Cement production is a highly polluting industry, but we can’t build safely without cement. The authors of the report suggest alternative construction technologies but note that completely phasing out cement will be a challenge.

It will not be the only one in view of the report’s recommendations. One of these concerns is making equipment, clothing, and durable goods even more durable to reduce energy consumption associated with the making of new ones. That might not sit well with the companies producing these goods and equipment, which make money from making their products last shorter rather than longer. It may not be the fairest of all business models, but it has been employed for decades.

All in all, the report’s main message to both businesses and individuals is: consume less energy. It is an admirable message, by all means. However, the road that the authors suggest to this reduced consumption is unstable.

It involves the demise of industries that employ tens of millions of people who will not all be able to retrain for solar panel or wind turbine installation. It also involves some major changes to people’s behaviors. While far from impossible, these changes are contingent on the goodwill of enough people—or on several successive governments’ willingness to prescribe behaviors through bans. That might be even less smart than a 100-percent reliance on electricity for our energy needs.

By Irina Slav for



Tom Nolan says "These Authoritarian "Research Group" folks are nuts!  Insane!  Batshit crazy!"

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minute video of the World Elite Players in "The Great Reset".   Get ready for their mandates which include that the average person must consume 60% less energy such as Irina Slav's article underscores.

"Build build build" says the parasite class. "How high" say the sheep believers. War criminals, sociopaths, psychotic hegemons - all "building back better" and we are the "conspiracy theorists".
  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

WoodMac: Global Green Car Sales To Overtake Gas Vehicles Until 2047

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Feb 10, 2021, 4:30 PM CST


Global sales of battery electric vehicles, fuel-cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrids are set to exceed the sales of light-duty vehicles with internal combustion engines for the first time in 2047, new research from Wood Mackenzie showed this week.

According to WoodMac, sales of vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICE) will account for 44 percent of global vehicle sales in 2050, as alternative zero-emission cars will dominate the new car sales.

The share of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) is set to be at 48 percent in 2050, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) sales are expected to account for 5 percent of all global car sales, and fuel cell vehicles (FCV) will have a 3-percent share of the global car market.


By 2050, electric vehicle (EV) sales each year will clock in at 62 million units, and the total global EV fleet will be 700 million, according to Wood Mackenzie. 

EV sales are set to accelerate with many major economies incentivizing green recovery from the pandemic and pledging net-zero emission targets by 2050. Some major economies have also moved to ban sales of new gasoline and diesel cars at some point by 2050. The UK, for example, banned the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2030, ten years earlier than initially planned.  

In the United States, GM said last month it was going all-in toward an all-electric future, aiming to eliminate all tailpipe emissions from new light-duty vehicles by 2035 as part of a wider strategy to become a carbon-neutral business by 2040.

Global sales of EV and plug-ins surged last year despite the pandemic.

“Emissions regulations in western Europe were successful in doubling EV adoption despite the crippling coronavirus pandemic. This provides a roadmap for other countries and regions with similar goals to stimulate EV sales growth,” Ram Chandrasekaran, Wood Mackenzie Principal Analyst, said.

Despite the expected dominance of EVs within three decades, global oil demand from light-duty vehicles is projected to drop by just 24 percent, according to the analyst.

“Slow erosion of ICE stock and an increased demand from emerging economies are the main reasons for this lethargic drop,” said Chandrasekaran.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


On 2/9/2021 at 3:47 PM, Tom Nolan said:

2 minute video of the World Elite Players in "The Great Reset".   Get ready for their mandates which include that the average person must consume 60% less energy such as Irina Slav's article underscores.

"Build build build" says the parasite class. "How high" say the sheep believers. War criminals, sociopaths, psychotic hegemons - all "building back better" and we are the "conspiracy theorists".

A list of people who should be hanging from lamp posts (in minecraft) if there was any justice in the world.

It's funny though, they literally create the 'great reset' thing which they know will attract a lot of online attention especially on youtube etc, then in concert parrot certain phrases while their media puppets call people names. They are laughing in everyone's faces.

Ignore the title of this video but I think this is probably what they are up to if you are willing to watch it, the rest is fantasy and window dressing in order to make everyone thing they really have some kind of genius plan...I don't think they do. I think they know what a total screw up the debt based economy has been and that they're going to try a Breton Woods 2.0 or something where we change how money works again. Quick reminder than global debt has increased 40% since before the coof pandemic....that cannot be sustainable.


Edited by El Nikko
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a long article, but it brings up the common sense physics to the topic of alternative energy sources.

National Review

U.S. Offshore Wind Prospects: Overblown Promises and Blown-Up Costs

John Constable
Thu, February 11, 2021, 5:30 AM

In energy policy, it is physics that matters above all else. Executive Orders from the Oval Office, Directives of the European Union, or Acts of Parliament driven through with fanfare by Her Majesty’s Government in London may give the plausible appearance that wishes are horses and beggars may ride, and in comfort too, but it is no more than appearance. As Richard Feynman, the great laughing natural-philosopher of our age, observed with savage economy after the Challenger disaster: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”

Physics matters. It was not a random or arbitrary fluctuation, much less political favor or the power of vested interest...

... Real-world experience in the U.K. and indeed in Denmark, a country also analyzed in great detail in the Hughes study for REF, presents a stark warning to the United States; the costs of wind power have not been falling over the last heavily subsidized decade. Indeed, they remain very high, particularly for offshore wind, with operational expenditure actually rising sharply. ...

... The real puzzle here is how first-class scientific nations could have gone so far down a road that is intrinsically, physically, without strong promise. Why did any policymaker think that it would be cheap to convert the high entropy, almost random heat of wind flows into the low entropy of the improbable, reliable and timely electricity supply required by a sophisticated economy?

Large capital expenditure and operating costs, as well as significant grid costs, are inevitable if governments insist on making the sow’s ear of wind into the silk purse of modern energy. ...

... The engineer bureaucrats of Beijing know nature far too well to think that she can be fooled. The lawyers and ideologues in the White House take a different view, for now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone of the people that attended are a danger to the world and should be removed from Earth!

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil Majors Are Driving A Wind Energy Revolution

By Felicity Bradstock - Feb 13, 2021, 12:00 PM CST

Thanks to zero-carbon promises, wind farms are expected to overtake the number of oil rigs in British waters by 2030. 

Oil majors are diversifying their energy production to evolve with the times. Both BP and Total have highlighted strategies for wind energy production in the U.K., with BP investing £924 million in the development of two sites. 

In 2020, BP announced plans for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. This ambitious offshore wind project appears to be BP’s way of putting its money where its mouth is. The company is partnering with German firm Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg (EnBW) to develop the sites in the Irish Sea. 

Once the wind farms are fully operational, they could power as many as 3.4 million homes across the U.K. This contributes significantly to the government’s 10-point-plan to power all U.K. homes with wind energy, with the aim to produce 40GW by 2030. 

Recently, BP also went ahead with partner Equinor to develop existing offshore wind in the U.S. at a cost of $1.1 billion. In September 2020, the company announced plans to advance a project that is expected to produce 50GW of renewable power by 2030, generating power for over two million houses. 

“Offshore wind is growing at around 20 percent a year globally and is recognized as being a core part of meeting the world’s need to limit emissions.” CEO of BP, Bernard Looney, explained of the development. 

The two wind projects come as BP pledged to spend $5 billion a year in low-carbon investments as part of its renewable energy strategy. 

However, there has been criticism of BP’s high bid in the wind farm auction, with experts suggesting returns on the renewable investment may be low. This could be detrimental to users who may expect higher energy bills. 

Related Video: The New King Of Electricity

French oil giant Total also won in the auction, partnering with Macquarie’s Green Investment Group to secure a 1.5 GW project off the East Anglian coast. This sees the U.K. lending all suitable areas of its coastline to wind production. 

Shell is also working with Dutch company Eneco to develop offshore wind. The partnership is expected to establish wind farms off the coast of the Netherlands. 

The diversification of energy production is seeing majors win big in the stock markets. Those with strong renewable energy portfolios are faring significantly better than oil firms with few renewable investments. 

BP’s new investment looks promising as its stock price increased from $20.75 on Friday 5th to $22.05 following the wind auction win on Monday 8th. 

Oil majors are perhaps investing in offshore projects as it is familiar territory. Oil and gas firms already have extensive experience in constructing and operating facilities in these waters, making it less of a gamble. 

The U.K. offers the perfect environment to invest in wind, reaching targets of 40 percent electricity production from wind energy in December, generating 17.3GW. British coastlines are well known for their blustery nature, which lends them to wind energy production. 

As oil demand begins to bounce back, helping oil majors rally from the 2020 lull, diversification of their energy portfolios could see them make gains all round. With calls for greener practices over the next decade, the oil and gas sector could flourish in the area of renewable energy by 2030. 

By Felicity Bradstock for

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Scientism, Not Leftism, Underlies All Big-Tech Censorship


Posted By: Patrick Wood February 10, 2021

There is a very dark religion at the base of both Technocracy and Transhumanism. That is Scientism. Once understood, the massive censorship at the hands of Big Tech starts to make perfect sense.

Scientism was first proposed by the French philosopher Henri De Saint-Simon (1760-1825). He wrote,

“A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.

Saint-Simon’s idea of science was more of a metaphysical proposition that gave way to what we call today “pseudo-science”. It is mostly speculation dressed up as science. In any case, no scientist or engineer has a crystal ball to “foresee” the future nor are they “superior to all other men.”

Nevertheless, Saint-Simon became one of the acknowledged “founding fathers” of both Technocracy and Transhumanism.

In his day, he proposed that the religious leadership should literally be replaced by a priesthood of scientists and engineers, who would interpret the oracle of science in order to make declarations to society on the human actions necessary to lead mankind out of darkness and into Utopia. Thus, science would be elevated to a state of immutable godhood, worshiped by its followers, who in turn are led by its priests.

Does this sound familiar in today’s world? Well, it should.

You would think that this weird religion of Scientism would have evaporated into history after 200 years, but instead, it has magnified and proliferated.

The priests of global warming “science” see into the future to tell us with certain authority that the seas are going to rise and the world will literally burn up. Remedies are offered to head off such a terrible fate, such as scrapping Free Market Economics in favor of Sustainable Development as huckstered by the United Nations.

The priests of global pandemic “science” peer into the future and tell us that hundreds of millions of people are certainly going to die. The only way to save yourself is to do exactly what they tell you to do: wear a mask, nay, two or three masks, deny all social contact with family and friends, shut down unessential economic activity, etc. What was originally a 14 day exercise to simply “flatten the curve” has now intentionally morphed into a never-ending cascade of pseudo-scientific instructions and demands.

Trust the Science. Obey the priests. Don’t listen to anyone or anything else.

Scientism specifically and pointedly rejects all other sources of truth that cannot be discovered by its priesthood of scientists and engineers. Thus, philosophy is out. The Bible is out. Religion in general is out. Anything that does not fit their narrative is out.

This is exactly where modern censorship can be truly understood. It’s not an issue of left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal or Democrat vs. Republican. It’s an issue of their self-deluded truth vs. reality.

Consider these common areas of repeated censorship:

  1. Vaccine skepticism – Not allowed. Vaccines are science and you must take them, period.
  2. Great Reset – Censored. Cannot be critical of globalization. The Great Reset is predicated on science, social engineering, scientific management.
  3. Global Warming – Taboo to criticize. Man-made warming is “scientific”; all else is deemed fake news and fake science.
  4. Hunter Biden scandal – Absolutely verboten. Such scandals expose corruption among global elite oligarchs, who are all heavily invested in Big Tech and scientific management of society.
  5. Face masks, lockdowns – Their science says do it, no alternative discussions allowed.
  6. Alternative COVID treatments such as HCQ – Totally censored as anti-science, even when offered by prominent doctors and scientists.

What about Twitter’s ban on President Trump and tens of thousands of populist-oriented social media users? Populism is the biggest threat to Big Tech because populists are uniformly against globalization (all about science), the Great Reset (all about science) and scientific bullying.

What about the censoring companies? You guessed it. They are all based on advanced technology: Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, Mailchimp, Stripe, Mastercard, GoDaddy, etc.

In sum, censorship is all about science – their science. Pseudo-science. If you cross their “science” or any part of it, you are going to get blotted out. How do they blot you out? Oh, that’s all automated with technology. It’s called Artificial Intelligence.

The religion of Scientism is threaded throughout every high-tech government agency and corporation in the world. They are the “excluders”. Legitimate scientists and engineers are the “excluded”, and along with them, everyone who dares to repeat their warnings.

To fight Big Tech over censorship is to fight its carefully concealed religion of Scientism, which is precisely what makes it so dangerous.





  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas Winter Storm Highlights The Importance Of Fossil Fuels


By Irina Slav - Feb 16, 2021, 5:00 PM CST


The message that we need to electrify everything that currently uses fossil fuels to generate energy has become the dominant message of the energy transition. Solar, wind, and energy storage—perhaps with the help of hydropower and some nuclear—can handle the energy needs of mankind, the argument goes, and do it with a much lower carbon footprint.

Yet, the Arctic cold wave that is sweeping across the United States has seriously undermined this argument.

Natural gas prices exploded last week in many parts of the U.S. and are still rising higher, as are electricity prices. In Texas, a state unaccustomed to such weather, wholesale electricity prices hit $9,000 per MWh on the spot market, prompting at least one retail power supplier to urge its clients to switch to another provider to avoid huge utility bills.

Blackouts are now a fact, with two million households across Texas without power at the time of writing. Authorities, meanwhile, are urging people to conserve energy by limiting their consumption. ERCOT has said the blackouts will be rolling, lasting for 45 minutes per area. This may not be a lot, but it does indicate the presence of a problem.

Texas, the Wind Capital of the U.S.

Texas is the biggest producer of wind energy in the United States.

Unfortunately, the state saw half of its wind turbines frozen by the icy winds blowing from Canada to parts of the U.S. that were unaccustomed to such temperatures. Of a total 25 GW in wind power capacity, 12 GW were knocked out by the freezing spell. At the same time, there is a shortage of natural gas, likely because of the sudden spike in demand. And it could get worse.

The cold spell has hit the oil and gas industry in Texas as well. Oil wells are being shuttered, and refineries are being shut down amid the blackouts caused by the deep freeze and a shortage of gas. Pipeline operations have also been affected by the blackouts, which could compromise gas supply further.

Related Video: To Pump Or Not To Pump: Big Oil Diverges On Production Strategy

“Attempting to electrify everything would concentrate our energy risks on an electricity grid that is already breaking under the surge in demand caused by the crazy cold weather,” wrote veteran energy journalist Robert Bryce in an article for Forbes this week. The current weather situation, Bryce said, shows very well why it would be highly risky to put all our eggs, as it were, in the electricity basket. If we electrified everything, he argued, it will only a matter of time before a much more serious blackout hits.

Indeed, a blackout of massive proportions almost hit Europe earlier this year. The fact that the catastrophe was avoided was lucky, but the event highlighted two problems: over-reliance on intermittent solar and wind power, and a possibly excessive interconnectedness of the continent’s national grids.

Cost of Electrification

Speaking of Europe, its solar power production has dropped to zero these days. No country except Slovenia is producing solar power right now, and Slovenia’s production is a meager less than 1 percent of its total generation. Wind power is going strong in most of Europe, but solar is out.

In Sweden, even wind power production is low because wind activity is low. So Sweden, which has ambitions to become all-renewable by 2040, is seeing a jump in electricity prices to the highest since 2011 and is urging people to conserve energy by reducing their consumption. Incidentally, it is also importing electricity from countries such as Poland and Lithuania, which generate it from coal, compromising Sweden’s green commitment.

This is telling us—in no uncertain terms—that the lack of diversification is the opposite of wise. It is as true of electricity supply as it is of economies and businesses. Total electrification and the shutting out of fossil fuels completely will mean blackouts. It’s as simple as that.

Because while the energy generated by the Sun and the wind comes free, it cannot be summoned when you need it, and even combined with energy storage, it will be insufficient. That’s what fossil fuels are for.

Incidentally, a report from last year forecast that the Earth was entering a cooling period because of a phenomenon called a Grand Solar Minimum that could last until 2053 and lead to a “noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.”

By Irina Slav for   

Books By Irina Slav





Tom Nolan's NOTE:  Here is the title from Irina's link at the National Institute of Health...

Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling


In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature...

... The signs of solar activity are seen in cyclic 11-year variations of a number of sunspots on the solar surface using averaged monthly sunspot numbers as a proxy of solar activity for the past 150 years. Solar cycles were described by the action of solar dynamo mechanism in the solar interior generating magnetic ropes at the bottom of solar convective zone. ...


Zharkova et al. [1] suggested to use the summary curve as a new proxy of solar activity, which utilizes not only amplitude of a solar cycle but also its leading magnetic polarity of solar magnetic field.

Figure 3 presents the summary curve calculated with the derived mathematical formulae forwards for 1200 years and backwards 800 years. This curve reveals appearance of Grand Solar Cycles of 350–400 years caused by the interference of two magnetic waves. These grand cycles are separated by the grand solar minima, or the periods of very low solar activity [1]. The previous grand solar minimum was Maunder minimum (1645–1710), and the other one before named Wolf minimum (1270–1350). As seen in Figure 3 from prediction by Zharkova et al. [1], in the next 500 years there are two modern grand solar minima approaching in the Sun: the modern one in the 21st century (2020–2053) and the second one in the 24th century (2370–2415)...


... Currently, the Sun has completed solar cycle 24 – the weakest cycle of the past 100+ years – and in 2020, has started cycle 25. During the periods of low solar activity, such as the modern grand solar minimum, the Sun will often be devoid of sunspots. This is what is observed now at the start of this minimum, because in 2020 the Sun has seen, in total, 115 spotless days (or 78%), meaning 2020 is on track to surpass the space-age record of 281 spotless days (or 77%) observed in 2019. However, the cycle 25 start is still slow in firing active regions and flares, so with every extra day/week/month that passes, the null in solar activity is extended marking a start of grand solar minimum. What are the consequences for Earth of this decrease of solar activity? ...


Temperature decrease during Maunder minimum

From 1645 to 1710, the temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. This likely occurred because the total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.22%, shown in Figure 4 (top plot) [2], that led to a decrease of the average terrestrial temperature measured mainly in the Northern hemisphere in Europe by 1.0–1.5°C as shown in Figure 4 (bottom plot) [3]. This seemingly small decrease of the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere led to frozen rivers, cold long winters, and cold summers.

The surface temperature of the Earth was reduced all over the Globe (see Figure 1 in [4]), especially, in the countries of Northern hemisphere. Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland; sea ice crept south from the Arctic; Dunab and Thames rivers froze regularly during these years as well as the famous canals in the Netherlands.

Shindell et al. [4] have shown that the drop in the temperature was related to dropped abundances of ozone created by solar ultra-violate light in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere located between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Since during the Maunder Minimum the Sun emitted less radiation, in total, including strong ultraviolet emission, less ozone was formed affecting planetary atmosphere waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream.

Shindell et al. [4] in p. 2150 suggest that “a change to the planetary waves during the Maunder Minimum kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south – into a negative phase, that led to Europe to remain unusually cold during the MM.”...

...This will bring to the modern times the unique low activity conditions of the Sun, which occurred during Maunder minimum. It is expected that during the modern grand solar minimum, the solar activity will be reduced significantly as this happened during Maunder minimum (Figure 4, bottom plot). Similarly to Maunder Minimum, as discussed above, the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25–27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020–2053) and four solar cycles from the second modern grand minimum (2370–2415).

This, in turn, can lead to a drop of the terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C from the current temperature during the next three cycles (25–27) of grand minimum 1. (2020-2053)

... The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. ....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Gates: The 2021 60 Minutes interview

Bill Gates Goes Full Captain Planet, Wants To Change 'Every Aspect Of Economy' While We Dine On Fake Meat

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Feb 16, 2021 - 6:11

Microsoft founder Bill Gates is pushing drastic and 'fundamental' changes to the economy in order to immediately halt the release of greenhouse gasses - primarily carbon dioxide - and 'go to zero' in order to save the planet from long-prognosticated (and consistently wrong) environmental disaster.

Changes we'll need to make in order to realize Gates' vision include:

  • Allocating $35 billion per year on climate and clean energy research.
  • Electric everything.
  • Widespread consumption of fake meat, since cows account for '4% of all greenhouse gases.'
  • Retooling the steel and cement industries, which Gates says account for 16% of all carbon dioxide emissions, to inject up to 30% of captured C02 into concrete, and create a different type of steel.
  • Widespread adoption of next generation nuclear energy to supplement wind and solar.

And since producing plants to make fake meat emits gases as well, Gates has backed a company which uses fungus to make sausage and yogurt, which the billionaire calls "pretty amazing."


"When you say fungi, do you mean like mushroom or a microbe?" asked Anderson Cooper in a recent "60 Minutes" interview to promote Gates' new book, "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster."

"It's a microbe," replied Gates, adding "The microbe was discovered in the ground in a geyser in Yellowstone National Park. Without soil or fertilizer it can be grown to produce this nutritional protein -- that can then be turned into a variety of foods with a small carbon footprint."

(Speaking of which, it appears that we're already rounding the corner on C02 emissions)


More via CBS News:

Gates isn't just looking to cut future carbon emissions, he is also investing in direct air capture, an experimental process to remove existing CO2 from the atmosphere. Some companies are  now using these giant fans to capture CO2 directly out of the air, Gates has become one of the world's largest funders of this kind of technology. 

But of all his green investments, Gates has spent the most time and money pursuing a breakthrough in nuclear energy -- arguing it's key to a zero carbon future.

He says he's a big believer in wind and solar and thinks it can one day provide up to 80% of the country's electricity, but Gates insists unless we discover an effective way to store and ship wind and solar energy, nuclear power will likely have to do the rest. Energy from nuclear plants can be stored so it's available when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. 

Gates also admits he's a hypocrite - telling Cooper "I probably have one of the highest greenhouse gas footprints of anyone on the planet," adding "my personal flying alone is gigantic."

He's atoning for his climate sins by purchasing plant-based aviation fuel, switching to an electric car, using solar panels, and buying carbon credits to the tune of $7 million per year.

Gates' climate pivot is getting a full-court media press. As Paul Joseph Watson of Summit News writes:

Bill Gates has been lauded as the man to “save the world” and help the planet reach zero carbon emissions in a new report by Wired Magazine, despite such standards not being reflected in the billionaire philanthropist’s own lifestyle.

The article investigates how Gates plans to achieve a “zero carbon” world and promotes his new book which argues “it’s time we make real societal, economic and logistic changes to our way of life to avoid disaster.”

According to Gates, the planet needs to reach zero carbon emissions in order to “avoid catastrophe.”


Gates’ efforts to reduce CO2 emissions may have an environmentalist sheen, but that goal also risks reducing living standards in the west, something that Gates isn’t likely to embrace for himself.

As we previously highlighted, while Americans are being told that the dream of owning private property is over under a future ‘Great Reset’, Gates and other billionaires have been buying up huge amounts of farmland.

Gates is now the biggest owner of farmland in America, according to a Forbes report.

While the mainstream media continues to champion Gates’ influence, he has received harsh criticism elsewhere.

As we highlighted last week, Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, wrote a comprehensive report accusing Gates of engaging in neo-feudalism.

Kennedy warns that, “To cloak his dystopian plans for humanity in benign intentions, Gates has expropriated the rhetoric of “sustainability,” “biodiversity,” “good stewardship” and “climate.”

He also accused Gates of attempting to monopolise and dominate global food production, labeling it “a dark form of philanthrocapitalism based on biopiracy and corporate biopiracy.”

Kennedy was subsequently banned by Instagram after his report was published.

As we highlighted earlier, pro-Gates messaging has also found its way into children’s television programming.

*  *  *

Does Gates have a plan to force the rest of the world to adopt his vision?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the 23 minute mark...

Bill Gates says:  "...Climate Change,  It will bring a death rate 5 times the Pandemic per year, and going up every year, and there won't be a single thing like a vaccine that can magically get rid of it."

In this Yahoo Finance special presentation, Andy Serwer is joined by former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates as they discuss the threat of climate change and what could happen to our planet if we don't address the problem.

Bill Gates on the global climate crisis and what the world needs to do

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 18TH, 2021 (30 minute video interview with one of the World's Elite Technocratic Rulers who dictates your health, your life-style, and collects your data and information.)


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


In ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,’ Bill Gates charts a difficult course that might just be doable

February 14, 2021 at 5:30 pm By Lisa Stiffler


...The cure: we humans need to cut our emissions of greenhouse gases from its current 51 billion tons annually to zero.

It’ll be tougher than anything humanity’s ever done, and only by staying constant in working on this over the next 30 years do we have a chance to do it,” said Gates in a recent interview with GeekWire.

“Having some people who think it’s easy will be an impediment. Having people who think that it’s not important will be an impediment,” Gates said...

...Over the course of twelve chapters, Gates in his new book explains global warming basics; describes the five main categories of emissions and how they can be reduced; lays out the role of regulations for curbing carbon; covers ways of adapting to a warmer world; gives an overarching plan for cutting emissions, and ends with steps that individuals can take to prevent the crisis (spoiler: the most important one is political action).

“We cannot make the progress we need in climate without it being a broad discussion in most households in the country,” he said in the interview. “So you’ve got to get lots of other people involved.”...

...“[W]hen it comes to massive undertakings — whether it’s building a national highway system, vaccinating the world’s children, or decarbonizing the global economy — we need the government to play a huge role in creating the right incentives and making sure the overall system will work for everyone,” Gates writes.

“I’m talking with Jeff Bezos. We’re gonna do some things together. He’ll obviously do a ton of stuff that’s on his own, which I applaud.”



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Who Will Win The Carbon Capture Tech Showdown?

By Irina Slav - Feb 17, 2021, 5:00 PM CST


Solar panels and wind farms have become fixtures of the global energy mix even if things like winter cold sometimes interfere with their operation. Hydrogen is garnering growing attention—even if skeptics are warning that it is still prohibitively expensive to become mainstream. And now another aspect of the all-out war on climate change is drawing more attention: carbon capture, also known by the fancier name of negative emissions.

Earlier this month, Elon Musk made headlines yet again, but this time with news unrelated to either Tesla or SpaceX. The billionaire entrepreneur offered a $100-million prize to those who can come up with a large-scale solution to our carbon dioxide problem.

"The world's leading scientists estimate that we may need to remove as much as 6 gigatons of CO2 per year by 2030, and 10 gigatons per year by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change," the XPrize website that announced the prize said, adding that simply reducing emissions from ongoing operations is not enough to meet the Paris Agreement targets.

Carbon capture is not something new, but it has stayed largely out of the spotlight because of the high costs. And yet it is being done, mostly at power plants and other industrial facilities that emit a lot of carbon dioxide. There is also direct air capture, which means exactly what it says on the tin. This is a neat and straightforward way of sucking out carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but—you guessed it—it's the opposite of cheap.

Wood Mackenzie's Vice-Chair for the Americas, Ed Crooks, wrote in a recent article that the short-term costs of direct air capture are in the range of $230 to $266 per ton of carbon dioxide captured. This is unviable over the long term, Crooks said, noting that Wood Mac's scenario for hitting the 2-degree Paris Agreement target—the less ambitious one—will need a cost of removing carbon of $100 per ton by 2050 to work. This means either a surge in financial support for this sort of technology or a sharp drop in costs.

Speaking of financial support for direct air capture, a team of researchers earlier this year published a paper that argued we could actually deploy direct air capture machines on a global scale even at current costs. This deployment, Wired wrote in a report on the paper, would cost between 1 and 2 percent of global gross domestic product.

For context, the 2019 global gross domestic product totaled $87.55 trillion. This means that at 1 percent of global GDP, based on 2019 numbers, the world needs to invest $875.5 billion in direct air capture every year to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at a rate of 2.3 gigatons annually. That would be 400 times the amount of carbon dioxide that is currently being captured and sequestered. Although the team argues this is doable, despite the price tag, Musk and Wood Mac do not seem to agree. The XPrize prize is tied to the solution being economical.

But direct air capture is by far not the only way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already released in the atmosphere. Capturing carbon emissions at power plants is much cheaper than DAC: at between $35 and $120 per ton of CO2, according to Wood Mac, some of these are a real bargain. But there are challenges there, too – not all such projects remain economical over the long term, as the Petra Nova plant in Texas demonstrated, getting shuttered after less than four years in operation due to mechanical problems and failure to meet capture targets. Related: Is This Oil Rally The Start Of Something Much Bigger?

This is the main problem with carbon capture facilities: they are very complex, hence they are expensive, but their complexity also makes them prone to a host of mechanical problems. And they also take a lot of time to build, so they are in no way a fast solution for what the media and politicians have labeled a climate emergency.

Yet there are other solutions that don't require much in the way of sophisticated technology: investment in natural carbon sinks such as forests and wetlands is also picking up, with the participation of none other than Big Oil that has recently doubled down on efforts to transform into Big Energy.

While not as direct as sucking out carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, carbon offsetting projects are certainly viable over the long term as they benefit all stakeholders involved: farmers, for example, earn carbon credits for farming practices that lead to the greater retention of carbon in the soil or in forests and the companies that help them develop these practices take a bite out of those credits.

Given the cost considerations around the different carbon capture technologies, it should be clear by now that there is no one single right way to tackle emissions, ongoing or already released in the atmosphere. Some of the ways currently available could become more economical and, as such, more viable but others will ultimately fail to contribute to the climate change war.

But here's a piece of good news that passed unnoticed last year amid the lockdowns and the energy demand crash: the Sun is helping. According to a paper by Maths Professor Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria University, last year, the Sun entered what scientists call a Grand Solar Minimum—a period of minimal activity—that will last until 2053 and will cool the Earth by 1 degree Celsius. Even the Sun has joined the quest to hit those Paris Agreement targets.

By Irina Slav for


Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling

by Maths Professor Valentina Zharkova


In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature. ..


Temperature decrease during Maunder minimum

From 1645 to 1710, the temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum...

This seemingly small decrease of the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere led to frozen rivers, cold long winters, and cold summers...

...The surface temperature of the Earth was reduced all over the Globe (see Figure 1 in [4]), especially, in the countries of Northern hemisphere. Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland; sea ice crept south from the Arctic; Dunab and Thames rivers froze regularly during these years as well as the famous canals in the Netherlands...


... The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. ...

Edited by Tom Nolan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Having a strong technical knowledge of the power system along with some expertise in finance, rates and costs can help one see the folly of a variety of policies adopted to support many of today’s wind and solar projects. Very few policy makers possess anything close to the skill sets needed for such an evaluation. Furthermore, while policy makers could listen to experts, their voices are drowned out by those with vested interests in wind and solar technology who garner considerable support from those ideologically inclined to support renewables regardless of impacts.

-- Charles Rotter




Watts Up With That?  The World's Most Viewed Site on Global Warming and Climate Change

  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2020 at 11:20 AM, Boat said:

Buildings should be rated on the amount of people allowed by how much fresh air the building can inject. The amount of HEPA filtration. Of course mandatory masks, same day testing with results, tracing team infrastructure etc. Means of calculating these measures and developing best practice legislation should have happened. Look at the cost because we didn’t. We failed as a country this round of virus, let’s not fail the next. I don’t need an organization or billionaire to be as smart as Captain Obvious.

Yes let’s keep up this garbage to save 80 year old diabetics that could simply stay home. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

found this in an old file sent by a friend......

Question: What is the height of globalization? :(

Answer: Princess Diana's death

Question: How come?

Answer:  An English princess with an Egyptian boyfriend crashes in a
French tunnel, driving a German car with a Dutch engine, driven by a Belgian who was high on Scottish whiskey, followed closely by Italian Paparazzi, on Japanese motorcycles, treated by an American doctor, using Brazilian medicines! :o

In addition, this is sent to you by a Singaporean, using Bill Gates' technology, which he stole from the Japanese.

In addition, you are probably reading this on one of the IBM clones that use Taiwanese-made chips, and Korean made monitors, assembled by Bangladeshi workers in a Malaysia plant, transported by trucks driven by Indians, hijacked by Indonesians and finally sold to you by Chinamen!

Globalization!!! :|

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.