Global warming

She manages to exclude any mention of Russian nuclear power industry. The costs of India are costs for contracted Russian nuclear power plants.

Russia totally puts the west to shame in this field.

Ominous Rumblings From The Climate Change Cult There are lots of active reference links at the ZH link.

by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Jan 02, 2024 - 08:30 AM

Authored by Mark Hendrickson via The Epoch Times,

In the past, I’ve referred to the well-funded, well-organized, but scientifically vacuous climate alarmists as a “cabal” with an explicitly socialist agenda.

Indeed, in a political context that’s exactly what they are. But in a religious context, they’re a cult fanatically pushing a rigid dogma.

The climate change dogma is roughly this:

The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased markedly over the past century (true);

human activities have contributed to that increase (true);

Earth has warmed by more than a degree since escaping the harsh Little Ice Age in the 19th century (also true, thank goodness!);

temperatures will continue to rise to dangerous, catastrophe-inducing levels (unproven, unknowable, and unlikely) unless human society is radically transformed by drastically curbing the human use of fossil fuels (a power-seeking agenda that would inflict widespread impoverishment and suffering on billions of human beings).

In connection with the United Nation’s recently completed annual extravaganza in climate change propaganda and hysteria—COP28—long-time alarmist Al Gore (who still wants today the “wrenching transformation” of society that he called for in his 1992 jeremiad “Earth in the Balance”) lamented the fact that some people actually disagree with the wildly speculative alarmist predictions (guesses) that he and his fellow alarmists are making about the future.

He blamed social media and algorithms for spreading what he considers disinformation (in more neutral terms: differences of perception and understanding) about climate change.

Mr. Gore explicitly called for the ban (the censorship) of social media algorithms—implicitly, those that present apostate points of view, such as de-emphasizing the role of CO2 in climate change or maintaining that Earth isn’t on the brink of climate catastrophe. (Here’s a link to the video. Start at the 22:00 minute marker to hear him say it.) He asserts that the algorithms pull listeners down into “rabbit holes” where they enter into “echo chambers.”

The “echo chamber” assertion is hugely ironic, a classic case of psychological projection.

It’s the climate change cabal/cult that sets up echo chambers at events like COP28, whereas outside of those echo chambers, there’s a wide diversity of scientific research that calls into question key parts of the cultists’ dogma from many different angles—the very opposite of an echo chamber.

Here are several recent examples of scientific dissent from the alarmist projections of the climate change cult:

In Hydrological Sciences Journal, Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Christos Vournas found that the post-1900 increase in the CO2 concentration (from 300 parts per million to 420 parts per million) “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere.”

Writing in the journal Earth’s Future, W. Jackson Davis “documents an overall negative correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 210 million years,” according to NoTricksZone.com. A “negative correlation” —i.e., when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, more often than not temperatures fall.

Like other scientists in earlier years, Allan T. Emrén, writing in the International Journal of Global Warming, “found that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa.”

Norwegians John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen (a statistician and civil engineer, respectively), writing in a Statistics Norway discussion paper, concluded that “the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”

Other scientists believe that the “hottest ever” summer that the climate change cult has hyped in 2023 (which actually, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, was the 15th hottest since 1910 on mean temperatures and 22nd hottest for maximum temperatures) wasn’t triggered by CO2, but by a significant increase in solar radiation and/or by the 2022 eruption of the Tonga-Hunga volcano having caused a 10 percent increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the climate change cultists’ belief that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming is a study published in Nature partner journal Climate and Atmospheric Science by H. Nair and colleagues. Those scientists came to the arresting conclusion that “we would expect from a 100% switchover from fossil fuels to zero-emission renewables, the net radiative heating would increase drastically.”

This, according to NoTricksZone.com, is due to “a dramatic reduction in climate-cooling aerosol (pollution) emissions,“ and, ”because aerosol emissions have a relatively greater climate impact by reflecting shortwave radiation, the net effect of transitioning to renewables will be to ‘drastically’ increase Earth’s temperatures over the coming decades.”

The above examples of scientific studies running counter to climate-change-cult orthodoxy indicate that the science surrounding the issue is anything but settled in the alarmists’ favor.

Let’s switch from the science to the economics of transitioning away from fossil fuel usage. If the climate change cult succeeds in radically suppressing fossil fuel usage, human societies would be much poorer. That would be a tragedy with potentially deadly consequences. While human beings can no more tame the climate than the legendary King Canute could control the tides, the fact is that it’s prosperity that best enables human beings to cope with the adverse weather events that will periodically assail us regardless of whether the world cools or warms.

Fossil fuels not only have the advantage of being much more reliable and steady than wind and solar, but they’re also more efficient and economical. The ever-astute Rupert Darwall computed, “Thanks to [Britain’s increased use of] renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity [in 2020 compared to 2009] produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.” This is a path to energy and therefore societal impoverishment. The economics of wind energy are brutal for taxpayers. Jonathan Lesser computed that “the average subsidy for each green job created will be over $2 million per year.”

It’s clear that there are plenty of reasons to slow down, if not halt, the frenetic drive to eliminate fossil fuels. The pell-mell charge toward renewables isn’t rational; rather, it’s the fanaticism of a quasi-religious cult.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ominous-rumblings-climate-change-cult

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/ominous-rumblings-from-the-climate-change-cult-5553549?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge

What if global warming , because of pollution is true ? Even if there is a 0.00001 % chance that it is true , then all our children , let alone our grandchildren  are doomed ! They will die ! Therefore best to act . Global warming can be stopped now , both by biological ( Tree planting )  and technological ( carbon capture ) and other means . Do we care for the lives of our children ? Not all do !

Putin supports Tajik President’s in his concerns about melting glaciers

Emomali Rahmon invited the participants of the meeting to take part in a high-level conference on glacier conservation, which will be held in Dushanbe in May 2025

KAZAN, October 24. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin supported his Tajik counterpart Emomali Rahmon who drew attention to the problem of fresh water availability and melting glaciers.

During an Outreach/BRICS Plus meeting in Kazan, the Russian President responded to the words of the leader of Tajikistan that Central Asia is facing the negative consequences of climate change.

"You drew attention once again to glaciers. Indeed, for countries such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and many other states, this is a very important problem, and it is growing, because glaciers are melting, and this is a source of water supply," Putin told Rahmon.

"In Central Asia, warming is leading to a reduction in the area of glaciers, one of the main sources of water resources in the region. <...> In the context of climate change, drought as one of the global problems also has a negative impact on all countries, including our Central Asian region," Putin added.

In turn, Rahmon invited the participants of the meeting to take part in a high-level conference on glacier conservation, which will be held in Dushanbe in May 2025.

The 16th BRICS Summit, which is the key event of Russia’s chairmanship in the association, is being held in Kazan on October 22-24. On the second day of the summit, its participants adopted the Kazan Declaration. The main topics of the document include the association’s future development, its position on global issues, settlement of regional crises, including in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The BRICS group was founded in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining it in 2011. On January 1, 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, became its full-fledged members. The Kazan summit became the first they attended as full-fledged members of the association.

https://tass.com/politics/1861489

Climate scientists are not part of some cabal. This is a retarded partisan political distortion of reality. Scientists are not policymakers. It is what the
WEF whore politicians do that is the issue. They use published research to blow alarmist smoke to push their agenda. If it was not global warming, then
they would find some other pretext to generate a crisis atmosphere and pursue the same agenda. This includes plandemics.

Attacking the science is nonsense on the same level as the woke "left" denying gender differences. They have some political dogma and they try to fit
reality into this framework. The climate change deniers on the right engage in exactly the same thing. I have been following the anti-science BS on the
right since the 1980s. We had that fat retard Rush Limbaugh claiming that the ozone hole was a fraud because CFCs are too heavy to reach the stratosphere.
Then we had the paid shills attacking climate science for Exxon, the Koch brothers, etc. They trot out Mickey Mouse BS about CO2 being a tiny part of the
atmosphere as if that means it plays no role in radiative transfer. Naturally, the tact that 99.9% of the atmosphere does not absorb IR (N2, O2 and Argon)
and we need greenhouse gases such as CO2 to have livable conditions on this planet is not mentioned. Doubling CO2 has a quantifiable, deterministic impact
on the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures. There is no "variability" or "uncertainty". Clouds never form a magical total reflection screen that offsets
warming induced by CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases from human activity. Dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at 30 billion tons per year (compared
to an average of 600 million tons from volcanoes) has consequences and only imbeciles would expect it to not matter.

The WEF parasites are using a crisis to boost their power and control. That is not the responsibility of climate scientists and climate science. Obviously.