Is the Green race a race from energy dependence.

What are the chances the UN is working toward world stability by defunding Russia, in particular, and preventing them from becoming a huge threat to world peace.  Green energy satisfies the need to keep capital from flowing to Russia Et al. and keeping funds at home.  The Free world has very little oil compared to autocratic nations with the exception of Canada.  The energy crisis of the 1970's shawn a light on the vulnerability of the west.  Global warming is the UN tool to thrust green energy on the world.  They are pushing for a world governance to encourage all counties to avoid oil and avoid enriching Russia and other potentially dangerous regimes.  After all, the UN's mandate is world peace.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We seem to have similar views, except I view the UN as the bad guys, and Russia not so much.

AOC's current push for the Green New Deal trainwreck is a globalist's wet dream, government basically assuming control over every aspect of American life.

EU is a microcosm of what UN wants to achieve.  Unaccountable bureaucrats and bankers in Brussels controlling the masses.  The Yellow Jacket protests are an indication of the unwillingness to go along with the crazy carbon taxes - which in my opinion is probably the biggest tax & spend globalist agenda on earth.

The carbon tax / demand to tax and reduce hydrocarbons / push for unsustainable and unreliable "renewable" energy is a socialist agenda.

Methane is actually renewable, but is discounted.

Clearly, I will have a minority opinion on all of this.  That's ok with me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently did some thinking about climate change and within a few days of google searches I was converted  to a climate skeptic.  I believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas but not nearly as important as the UN and IPCC claim.  It got me thinking about what they are afraid  of and Russia quickly came to mind.  What else could be more pressing than preventing an enemy of the free world from becoming more dominant and threatening to the freedom of the world.  It all started in the 1980's when the UN voted to create the IPCC.  I guess if they voted against global warming we wouldn't have the mass push for renewables.  They also will not consider anything but anthropogenic causes.  No funding goes toward quantifying the actual contribution of CO2 to our ambient temperature, but much funding goes to determining the effects of warming.  If the UN spent a fraction of their budget on third world electrification and proper ventilation they could prevent a holocaust per year.  4 million people die per year from the affects of smoke for cooking and heating, not to mention the inability to refrigerate food and medicine. The UN is a sham and should be disbanded.  The funding of the UN is also a big contributor to the Scientific/University community where there may be a lack of will to speak out against the IPCC for fear of losing funding.  It amazes me how many scientists become climate skeptics when they retire.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my top reason for not believing CO2 is important to global warming:  the holocene epoch has been much warmer than today and CO2 much lower.  If CO2 is that important to our ambient air temperature, how could recent past temperature have been so much warmer?  The alarmist say volcanic activity (bluh bluh bluh) but that doesn't last thousands of years.  The IPCC will not consider the Milankovitch cycle which involves earth's wacky orbit around the sun; which has been clearly associated with the onset of major glaciations.   Anyway, the fact the IPCC will not consider anything but CO2 as the causes of earth's warming is telling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

I recently did some thinking about climate change and within a few days of google searches I was converted  to a climate skeptic.

Good for you.  Keep poking around and questioning.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

I recently did some thinking about climate change and within a few days of google searches I was converted  to a climate skeptic.  I believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas but not nearly as important as the UN and IPCC claim.  It got me thinking about what they are afraid  of and Russia quickly came to mind.  What else could be more pressing than preventing an enemy of the free world from becoming more dominant and threatening to the freedom of the world. (1) It all started in the 1980's when the UN voted to create the IPCC.  I guess if they voted against global warming we wouldn't have the mass push for renewables.  They also will not consider anything but anthropogenic causes.  No funding goes toward quantifying the actual contribution of CO2 to our ambient temperature (2), but much funding goes to determining the effects of warming.  If the UN spent a fraction of their budget on third world electrification and proper ventilation they could prevent a holocaust per year.  4 million people die per year from the affects of smoke for cooking and heating, not to mention the inability to refrigerate food and medicine (3) . The UN is a sham and should be disbanded.  The funding of the UN is also a big contributor to the Scientific/University community where there may be a lack of will to speak out against the IPCC for fear of losing funding.  It amazes me how many scientists become climate skeptics when they retire.  

1. For energy resource poor countries investment renewables offers them some opportunity to shake off the yoke of major exporters and their potential political influence whether it by Gulf States, Russia or that Champion of freedom the USA 😄 

2. Wrong - there has been a huge amount of research to quantify the existing impact of gases that cause radiative forcing in the atmoshere. Its on the basis of that which informs the world to the impact of continuing to increase the concentration of such gases in the atmosphere and how they behave as concentrations increase. 

3. WHO have done a lot of work in this area to try and reduce indoor air pollution. The UN's entire budget is about $6bn - its not going to be directly funding electrification as you suggest. 

Edited by NickW
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

What are the chances the UN is working toward world stability by defunding Russia, in particular, and preventing them from becoming a huge threat to world peace.  Green energy satisfies the need to keep capital from flowing to Russia Et al. and keeping funds at home.  The Free world has very little oil compared to autocratic nations with the exception of Canada.  The energy crisis of the 1970's shawn a light on the vulnerability of the west.  Global warming is the UN tool to thrust green energy on the world.  They are pushing for a world governance to encourage all counties to avoid oil and avoid enriching Russia and other potentially dangerous regimes.  After all, the UN's mandate is world peace.

I appreciate much of your thoughts and that you are asking important questions.  If your proposed theory for UN Climate Alarming is correct the UN, as usual, is an epic fail.  

China is the real threat.  They are diversifying their energy efforts and will steal what they can’t develop.  All to march toward their 100 year plan of world dominance.

If the UN mandate is world peace and they are serious about it, they had better start addressing the Chinese.  A start would be removing China(and Russia while their at it) from UN Security Council permanent member status.

The truth is the UN goal, as @Tom Kirkman pointed out, is control of the masses by their perceived betters.  The UN is impotent and crooked.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

What are the chances the UN is working toward world stability by defunding Russia, in particular, and preventing them from becoming a huge threat to world peace.  Green energy satisfies the need to keep capital from flowing to Russia Et al. and keeping funds at home.  The Free world has very little oil compared to autocratic nations with the exception of Canada.  The energy crisis of the 1970's shawn a light on the vulnerability of the west.  Global warming is the UN tool to thrust green energy on the world.  They are pushing for a world governance to encourage all counties to avoid oil and avoid enriching Russia and other potentially dangerous regimes.  After all, the UN's mandate is world peace.

Can you explain what you mean by the UN working towards 'defunding' Russia. 

Russia is a permanent member of the security council and 10th largest net contributor. 

BTW - I am not defending Russia 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TXPower said:

I appreciate much of your thoughts and that you are asking important questions.  If your proposed theory for UN Climate Alarming is correct the UN, as usual, is an epic fail.  

China is the real threat.  They are diversifying their energy efforts and will steal what they can’t develop.  All to march toward their 100 year plan of world dominance.

If the UN mandate is world peace and they are serious about it, they had better start addressing the Chinese.  A start would be removing China(and Russia while their at it) from UN Security Council permanent member status.

The truth is the UN goal, as @Tom Kirkman pointed out, is control of the masses by their perceived betters.  The UN is impotent and crooked.

The problem is that throughout much of the World when you want to start talking about World peace and permanent SC members you will get a a few short responses. 

Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2011-16/17.............

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

This is my top reason for not believing CO2 is important to global warming:  the holocene epoch has been much warmer than today and CO2 much lower.  If CO2 is that important to our ambient air temperature, how could recent past temperature have been so much warmer?  The alarmist say volcanic activity (bluh bluh bluh) but that doesn't last thousands of years.  The IPCC will not consider the Milankovitch cycle which involves earth's wacky orbit around the sun; which has been clearly associated with the onset of major glaciations.   Anyway, the fact the IPCC will not consider anything but CO2 as the causes of earth's warming is telling.

@Red any comments? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia currently exports 12 million barrels of oil per day and feeds Europe with natural gas.  Revenue is easily 1/4 trillion dollars annually.  Allowing a proven hostile nation to continue generating riches is at the peril of the free world.  Encouraging the world to become energy independent will choke off this revenue stream thereby reducing the threat.  Russia recently resumed testing of long and medium range missiles.

Europe is especially vulnerable to Russia turning off the tap.  Million of people could freeze to death.  A frozen opponent would be easy pickings.  Relying on an enemy just isn't smart.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

@Red any comments? 

The formation of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago significantly interfered with ocean currents carrying warmer water towards the North pole and is suggested as a major contributor towards triggering the last ice age. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

Russia currently exports 12 million barrels of oil per day and feeds Europe with natural gas.  Revenue is easily 1/4 trillion dollars annually.  Allowing a proven hostile nation to continue generating riches is at the peril of the free world.  Encouraging the world to become energy independent will choke off this revenue stream thereby reducing the threat.  Russia recently resumed testing of long and medium range missiles.

Europe is especially vulnerable to Russia turning off the tap.  Million of people could freeze to death.  A frozen opponent would be easy pickings.  Relying on an enemy just isn't smart.

Just as much vulnerablity on becoming too dependent on US LNG should it become a major exporter. 

Country wants to buy some Iranian Oil. Donald says no and penalty is no more LNG. 

We have seen what happens to countries who want to use an alternative reserve currency (Euro, Yuan etc) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

Russia currently exports 12 million barrels of oil per day and feeds Europe with natural gas.  Revenue is easily 1/4 trillion dollars annually.  Allowing a proven hostile nation to continue generating riches is at the peril of the free world.  Encouraging the world to become energy independent will choke off this revenue stream thereby reducing the threat.  Russia recently resumed testing of long and medium range missiles.

Europe is especially vulnerable to Russia turning off the tap.  Million of people could freeze to death.  A frozen opponent would be easy pickings.  Relying on an enemy just isn't smart.

We are achieving energy independence through renewables. It is mocked on this forum though. I don't understand why. 

ps. Europe also produces gas, so I am NOT saying it is efficient to heat homes through electricity. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

We are achieving energy independence through renewables. It is mocked on this forum though. I don't understand why. 

ps. Europe also produces gas, so I am NOT saying it is efficient to heat homes through electricity. 

The title of this thread is quite bizairre. 

Is the Green race a race from energy dependence

Any country, particular those which are energy poor reduce their reliance on imported fuels by investing in renewables. Renewables are ubiquitously available in every country,  oil gas and coal are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

We are achieving energy independence through renewables. It is mocked on this forum though. I don't understand why. 

ps. Europe also produces gas, so I am NOT saying it is efficient to heat homes through electricity. 

Modern heat pumps offer an opportunity to heat homes efficiently with electricity especially in milder climates. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IPCC's (UN) grip on research funding of the effects of global warming puts scientists and Universities in a compromised position.  Universities want scientists who bring in lots of cash flow and scientists want to continue working must be very careful of the results they publish.  The UN's mandate is to study the anthropogenic causes of climate change thereby relieving the obligation to study natural causes.  If they were truly interested in the whole picture you would see detailed studies of the Milankovitch cycle all the way down to Jupiters 12.86 year cycle effect on earth's climate. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/venus-and-jupiter-change-earths-orbit-and-climate-405000-year-cycle-180969038/?fbclid=IwAR3Zrdfgos1_ee-Dq1EQ5YuuMmrBdeR-jveQKSwE0oxGR8SzMHLuBVJkC7w#uuKifhQczRRXqsRd.01

The IPCC then cherry picks the best results from the research and includes this in their annual report.  Again, researchers are competing for funding so don't disappoint too many times.  The world governments are also involved as NASA and NOAA adjust data to suit their claims.  The heat from 1930's has been adjusted out to show current temperatures are higher than the dust bowl years.   They are even adjusting satellite data and give lame reasons like adding 0.3 degrees to account for "measurements at different times of day", like that matters for average global temperature.  The UN has an agenda and are defending it every way they can.  Diplomats at the UN have been heard saying "even if global warming isn't as bad as we think, at least it's for the greater good".   https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?fbclid=IwAR2MjIDWE9mMiZuMZ74opn-O67VLPHdADtK1lzIaOBFR17qm2Th8AsEiAsM#63ba699668a3

https://www.who.int/features/qa/indoor-air-pollution/en/?fbclid=IwAR2HMnxsoKReFAKzEbLGKUCHiJGJ8ZbY2Jl7dIxqPacSYCoRtSUAJgByyGA#.XEeW3-wgzjA.facebook

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/01/10/china-no-wind-or-solar-if-it-aint-as-cheap-as-coal/#589d8f1f3e2f

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#18f35a6428eb

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of the IPCC's hold on research is the number of university professors who become climate skeptics upon retirement.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I am so passionate about the UN's ulterior motive for pushing climate change is that Canada is being squeezed by the free world to be a martyr and fall on the sword.  The environmental movement in Canada is crippling our efforts to build infrastructure to get our oil to the world market.  As a result we receive a fraction of the value from our only customer, the USA.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

The World Health Organization is part of the UN. On that site you can look at all the interventions to deal with indoor air pollution - clean burning stoves, flue pipes, adoption of gas and electricity etc. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One example is washington state's position to stop the trans mountain pipeline (TMP).  They are concerned that the extra traffic will further harm the habitat of the killer whales.  What a joke.  The TMP could eliminate tankers from the Salish sea if the refineries in washington used petroleum from alberta.  Washington state gets their oil from Alaska, but some comes from russia.  It's a coordinated push by the USA to keep alberta oil landlocked.  The US exports as much oil as canada exports to the USA but gets a big discount for the canadian oil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

One example is washington state's position to stop the trans mountain pipeline (TMP).  They are concerned that the extra traffic will further harm the habitat of the killer whales.  What a joke.  The TMP could eliminate tankers from the Salish sea if the refineries in washington used petroleum from alberta.  Washington state gets their oil from Alaska, but some comes from russia.  It's a coordinated push by the USA to keep alberta oil landlocked.  The US exports as much oil as canada exports to the USA but gets a big discount for the canadian oil.

Why not pipe it to Vancouver and ship it from there? The Worlds your market then. No need to be reliant on Uncle Sam. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TMP has been help up by court challenges and indigenous protests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

The IPCC's (UN) grip on research funding of the effects of global warming puts scientists and Universities in a compromised position.  Universities want scientists who bring in lots of cash flow and scientists want to continue working must be very careful of the results they publish.  The UN's mandate is to study the anthropogenic causes of climate change thereby relieving the obligation to study natural causes.  If they were truly interested in the whole picture you would see detailed studies of the Milankovitch cycle all the way down to Jupiters 12.86 year cycle effect on earth's climate. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/venus-and-jupiter-change-earths-orbit-and-climate-405000-year-cycle-180969038/?fbclid=IwAR3Zrdfgos1_ee-Dq1EQ5YuuMmrBdeR-jveQKSwE0oxGR8SzMHLuBVJkC7w#uuKifhQczRRXqsRd.01

The IPCC then cherry picks the best results from the research and includes this in their annual report.  Again, researchers are competing for funding so don't disappoint too many times.  The world governments are also involved as NASA and NOAA adjust data to suit their claims.  The heat from 1930's has been adjusted out to show current temperatures are higher than the dust bowl years.   They are even adjusting satellite data and give lame reasons like adding 0.3 degrees to account for "measurements at different times of day", like that matters for average global temperature.  The UN has an agenda and are defending it every way they can.  Diplomats at the UN have been heard saying "even if global warming isn't as bad as we think, at least it's for the greater good".   https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?fbclid=IwAR2MjIDWE9mMiZuMZ74opn-O67VLPHdADtK1lzIaOBFR17qm2Th8AsEiAsM#63ba699668a3

https://www.who.int/features/qa/indoor-air-pollution/en/?fbclid=IwAR2HMnxsoKReFAKzEbLGKUCHiJGJ8ZbY2Jl7dIxqPacSYCoRtSUAJgByyGA#.XEeW3-wgzjA.facebook

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/01/10/china-no-wind-or-solar-if-it-aint-as-cheap-as-coal/#589d8f1f3e2f

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#18f35a6428eb

I love the way you Climate Change Konspiracy Deniers end up posting links in support that actually say the complete opposite of what you are trying to say. 

For example in that first link in the conclusion

But the big question for most people is: Where are we currently on the Venus-Jupiter climate cycle and could their neighborly tug explain some of the changes in our climate? In a press release, Kent says we’re likely in the middle of the cycle when Earth’s orbit is almost circular. This means the swing is not causing climate disruptions. It’s most likely that any changes we are experiencing comes from outsized human input in the release of greenhouse gasses.
🤦‍♀️😄😄😄

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites