Thunberg and Mnuchin

Indeed, see this article from 15 years ago: The global cooling myth

A RealClimate.org link? Really? By Schmidt, Mann and Connolley amongst others? That’s an activist site. If you have closely followed the Hockey Stick controversy, you should know where they come from. But the article is still worth reading, because it takes us back to an age where scientists were aware of how little they actually knew about climate.

But while we’re throwing activist site links around, how about that one:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/

It even references a study from 1974 by the CIA

It’s disappointing to see old tired arguments being trotted out again.

The “consensus” back then that the world is cooling was probably more solid than there is now a consensus of “catastrophic warming”. Science was a lot less politicized than it is nowadays. But anyway, science by consensus is a bad idea. Why not ask the historians if humans are better off in a warmer climate than in a colder climate.

She instead ampilfies the message of various rather extreme activists with very little resemblance to the truth.

Funny, I’d rather listen to her than to “studies” and “scientists” paid for by the likes of the oil industry.

Is there really a difference between activists like Greenpeace, UCS, Extinction Rebellion or the various Green parties and the oil industry? It is unlikely that any of them is without a clear agenda in that discussion.

if the change of climate will be of net benefit to us.

Pretty unlikely to be of benefit. If the climate changes (hotter, colder, etc) then it will affect and potentially displace large numbers of people.

Historically, the warmer climate was a lot better for human beings than the colder climate. Ask the Romans. Why would it be different this time?

Fifty years ago, the scientific consensus was the one about the coming of the next ice age.

Hmm, because there was a horrible cold winter or two? There’s already precedent for anomalies – some years are colder or warmer than others.
The Thames famously froze in 1814 (they held a fair on the river). It also froze in 1978, 1740, 1739, 1716, 1684; however it has not frozen in the 206 years since. Instead, it now seems to be the case that each passing year is about “XX since records began”. That alone ought to say something…

Records of that kind say…nothing. We already know that there was something happening in the past called the “Little Ice Age”, at least in Europe. So it is not at all mysterious that it is now warmer than it was during the 15th to 19th century.

Our timescales where we have meaningful temperature measurements are laughably short. Trying to find out past temperature via proxies has many many problems (ask the dendros about the “divergence problem”). Even today, the wheather monitoring stations are not really good enough to give proper global land coverage. And don’t start to think about sea coverage. This might be one of the reasons why the models are crap. Garbage in, garbage out.

The current of warm air/water that runs up the Atlantic and blesses western Europe with it’s reasonably pleasant water. If the ice up in the Arctic melts, well that’ll be dumping a lot of damned cold water into the ocean, which will not only mess up (or destroy) that nice warm current… it’ll also drag weather down from the polar regions as happens in Canada and the northern states.
Most of France, all of Germany, etc is further north than Toronto and Montreal (they’re just above 45N). So it is entirely possible that a “warming” may not only make places like Africa hotter (to the point of being uninhabitable), it may be that at the same time western Europe will have its ass frozen off.
You know those pictures you see of people in Wisconsin waking up to a half metre or so of snow, where they can frisbee clothing and toss buckets of hot water into the air to demonstrate the Mpemba Effect? That could become any winter’s day in Cardiff…

So you’ll surely be relieved to hear that the Arctic is not melting, and the good old Gulf Stream shows no sign of weakening (at least according to actual measurements done by German scientists a few years ago).

in computer models which have a very poor track record of any predictive capability.

Because it is insanely difficult. It’s hard enough to accurately predict tomorrows weather for a fairly small zone like “France”, trying to model the entire planet for years in the future? Brain-aching.

But the models are the only place where the climate catastrophe is actually happening. If, as you say, we cannot rely on the climate models, you agree that we have no idea if we are heading for a climate that is a little warmer, a lot warmer or if there will be cooling in the future. So the only sensible thing to do is to spend money on no-regret actions that help us no matter what future climate will be.

Actually, it is quite easy to beat it. Go 100% nuclear.

Hahaha… I nearly wet myself laughing at that. So astonishingly simplistic.

And yet completely true.

Okay, so switching to nuclear will give a reasonably clean source of elecricity.

All sources of electricity are not 100% “clean”, but nuclear fission is the safest and cleanest by any scientific metric. Even the IPCC acknowledges that.

How tell me what you plan to do about the internal combustion engine?

Produce synthetic fuel, or H2 for fuel cells in high-temperature reactors. See, solved that for you. All the necessary technology is already there. Or we’re really going “all electric” for the vast majority of transport.

Home heating (that isn’t electric)?

If you really insist on not using electricity directly for heating (like most of France does to the best of my knowledge), use heat pumps. That solves your low efficiency factor problem nicely.

The massive amounts of CO2 released by agriculture (often described to laypersons as “farting cows”)?

It’s CH4 that the cows are “producing”. Capture it and burn it. Or compensate it by extracting CO2 from the air and producing synthetic fuels from it (see above – the fanboys of wind power tell me that that’s their strategy to produce enough back-up power for the times of low wind).

The, well, the small issue of our ever increasing population?

Actually, world population shows signs of levelling off, everywhere where people get rich enough. But with nuclear power, it does not really matter. Most of the problems of the world can be solved by having cheap, abundant power available to everyone.

And really, go nuclear? What the hell do we need all that power for? Oh, yeah, Netflix, iPads, endless phones and smart speakers and computers and a hundred thousand things that are oh-so-essential but are the end result of massively polluting enterprises. Do you know what is involved in the creation process of a modern “smart” television? Do you know what chemical elements are inside it?

Switching to nuclear will have a small benefit in places where power generation is gas or dead dinoosaur pieces, but in terms of “saving the planet”… it’s kind of damn near inconsequential.

I’m not sure what you propose as the way forward instead. End of the modern world? A global government regulating what every person in the world is allowed to possess? I.E. global communism, a dictatorship never seen before?

I’ll take nuclear power instead, thanks.

Oh, yeah, and don’t forget the entire industry involved in mining and purifying uranium. It isn’t some mystical process where you pull rods out of the earth and shove them in a reactor, “look ma, no plu’shun!”.

We have so much cheap uranium that we are wasting it everywhere because of the way our BWRs and PWRs work. If mining and purifying it was really as difficult as you seem to believe, shouldn’t it be a lot more expensive?

The old fuel assemblies from the German (ex-)nuclear fleet would be enough – if properly reprocessed and put into modern reactors – to power the whole country for more than a thousand years. I don’t know where you see the problem here.

And if that’s not enough, extracting uranium from sea water is always cheap enough for the next million years.

It’s just a little better than the alternatives…until something goes horribly wrong and leaves entire towns and cities uninhabitable for decades or centuries (we haven’t really had nuclear for long enough to know exactly when it will be safe 4 to repopulate Prypyat, if indeed anybody ever wants to).

Nuclear is two orders of magnitude better than any alternative. The mass flow needed to operate is so much smaller than that of competing technology. And various countries have shown that it is not the hardest problem of the world to operate a whole fleet of nuclear reactors without a single serious accident. Nuclear is, by any statistic available, the safest way to produce power. The only safer way is to produce no power at all.

But it’s nice to see that nuclear power still cannot be debated without someone mentioning the Chernobyl accident in the first few posts. Makes it a lot more predictive.

Historically, the warmer climate was a lot better for human beings than the colder climate.

Yup. And it’s roughly as warm now as it’s ever been for humans, and getting warmer. A lot warmer, with, before long, higher sea levels than humanity has ever experienced. The biggest immediate problem will be unpredictable weather, resulting in planning difficulties for farmers, and reduced food production. But the loss of land is going to be significant too, and in particular the flooding of many of the world’s nuclear reactor sites, in particular most of the UK’s.

Nuclear is two orders of magnitude better than any alternative.

Bullshit, on too many counts to list here. See http://clive.semmens.org.uk/Energy/Nuclear.html which covers all your points, and a lot more besides. If there are any gaps, let me know about them and I’ll fill them in.

So you’ll surely be relieved to hear that the Arctic is not melting,

That’s nice.
Sad to hear that so many scientists measuring Arctic ice cover for extent and thickness have all been telling porkies though.

Why not ask the historians if humans are better off in a warmer climate than in a colder climate.

Given the population explosion and the fact that we’ve built massive cities on coastlines, I will repeat what I said previously – ANY major climatic change will be… a big problem.

It is unlikely that any of them is without a clear agenda in that discussion.

Well, one has the incentive of a trillion-dollar business behind it.

I feel as if I ought to remind you of the many publicity campaigns and “studies” funded by the tobacco industry to “prove” that there was no link between smoking and cancer.
Until the point when the entire argument collapsed under the weight of actual evidence and science, so now there’s no such thing as a cigarette advert on TV and packets basically have to say THIS WILL KILL YOU DICKHEAD on them. Here in France, the packs are now all the same colour, I guess the nanny state figured children would be attracted to smoking via the pretty packets with pictures of maimed body parts and big warnings about all the many nasty things that smoking might do.

That’s not to say that the tree huggers won’t have an agenda, but there’s no doubt whatsoever that the petrochemical industry have one.

So you’ll surely be relieved to hear that the Arctic is not melting,

Says Steffen, the year after Iceland held a funeral for a glacier that “died”.
Yeah, I know, pure coincidence…

But the models are the only place where the climate catastrophe is actually happening.

Thank God for that. Gives us all time to think of something useful to do rather than all that carbon offset nonsense.

If you really insist on not using electricity directly for heating (like most of France does to the best of my knowledge),

For a while France was promoting wood-based heating from sustainable forests. But they’re moving away from that.
There is some resistance though, in part because the electricity provider is a state monopoly. And probably not helped that a year or so back, ErDF decided to charge everybody about thirty euros extra as a one-off payment because they made an error of some sort in calculating… I dunno, the explanation was convoluted (probably intentionally), but the bill wasn’t.
Couple that with ErDF outsourcing the installation of smart meters (the infamous Linky) to Enedis, who conveniently have the law stating that householders cannot refuse the meters … refusal must be done at commune/town level by the Mayor, and most aren’t bothered even though a quirk of law states that the electricity meter is town property, so it if is incorrectly installed and burns the house down, you go after the town council, not anybody actually involved in putting the things in place.
So, are you surprised that people might prefer wood/granule/paraffin/butane heating in preference to electric?

I’m still waiting for a big price hike in a year or two when somebody adds up how much was actually spent on installing the meters (and recabling a HUGE amount of the country as the old exposed-core three-phase from the sixties was deemed inadequate) and thinks “holy crap, it cost HOW MUCH?!”. Of course, there will be no option to say “take it out of you CEO’s pay, our spinning disc meters were perfectly serviceable”, no, they’ll bump up the price and we’ll just be expected to cough up.

I’m not sure what you propose as the way forward instead. End of the modern world?

I don’t propose anything, but basically yes – if one looks at the things that would really need to be done to try to repair some of what modern life has wrought, the obvious answer is… no more modern life.

That’s why I don’t think all those following Greta are truly going to follow her. Not when they realise the many far reaching sacrifices that would be required.
And, as the world is right now, it’ll be sacrifices that people like us will be expected to do. The rich? Well, different set of rules for them. Must keep the status quo.

That’s why I don’t make any proposals. Those sorts of things are unlikely to happen.

If mining and purifying it was really as difficult as you seem to believe,

I never stated that it was “difficult”. I stated that there is an entire industry involved in mining and processing the product. It’s… not what I expected to be honest. It looks like a yellow powder, like custard mix. It’s not particularly radioactive in that state, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to breathe any of it in. And as a person who visited a mine in Wales as a child (you know, when they still had mines), I can tell you they are extremely dusty places. So, yeah, radioactive dust. Marvellous.

shouldn’t it be a lot more expensive?

I have absolutely no idea how much uranium costs. And in this day and age, you’ll forgive me if I don’t feel particularly inclined to Google it.

But it’s nice to see that nuclear power still cannot be debated without someone mentioning the Chernobyl accident in the first few posts. Makes it a lot more predictive.

:-) Thing is, a failed reactor has important side effects.

A damaged/destroyed coal/oil/gas power station will likely create a lot of pollution that will need to be sorted out, a decontamination process. It’s known about, it’s been done when old stations have been torn down.

Nuclear is that with the added benefit of rendering the site literally uninhabitable for durations that may be longer than a person’s lifespan. Oh, and not only that but stuff you can’t see will eventually kill you even if you aren’t in direct contact with it.

So while the big nuclear accidents were a result of stupidity/incompetence (Chernobyl) or a natural event so cataclysmic that all the backup systems failed (Fukushima), it is extremely disingenous to talk about nuclear power as the ideal solution without considering what happens when it goes wrong.

Yes, in normal use nuclear is pretty safe. Japan, a country with endless earthquakes, had been running nuclear for ages. Look at what actually had to happen to topple a reactor. One trusts that an event like that won’t happen again for a very long time.
However something that worries me is that sooner or later the terrorist assholes might get into their heads that sabotaging and/or simply trying to blow up a reactor might be a little more of a statement than taking potshots at civilians. The Flammanville station has already had to shoot down a couple of drones. Idiots with drones looking for a great video to dump on YouTube, or somebody scoping the place out?

to operate a whole fleet of nuclear reactors without a single serious accident.

Depends upon your definition of “serious”. Wikipedia has a list of nuclear accidents. It has quite a number of entries.
[ summary: don’t go near Windscale/Sellafield, or America… ;-) ]

Another think that one must consider is what to do with the waste. Some of it is processed again to turn it into fuel for a different sort of reactor, while the rest is generally shoved into holes tunnelled deep into mountains. I wonder if France’s high level of nuclear power is in any way related to having BIG mountains on two sides?

You know, that shit will outlive us. It will outlive our language. It will probably outlive our species.
So there’s an interesting science in trying to devise ways of warning “THIS STUFF WILL KILL YOU” for whoever might stumble upon the nuclear waste, in a way that will be taken seriously and not dismissed as the incoherent rantings of a weird superstitious species that believed in mystical sky fairies.

I don’t know what happens to waste from a coal plant (what is it, ash?), but what I do know is that it doesn’t have to be buried forevermore. So please consider all of the aspects of nuclear power, not just the ones that make it look good.

And if that’s not enough, extracting uranium from sea water is always cheap enough for the next million years.

Oh come on… We still don’t have a sensible large-scale way of taking salt out of seawater to use as drinking water; yet we’re supposed to pluck it out of a resource where it measures around 3 parts per billion, so hardly plentiful; the only reason there are estimated to be around four billion tons of uranium is because we’re looking at around 1.4 billion kilometres cubed of water (covering 70% of the surface of the planet).
It’s possible, but so is finding a needle in a haystack. ;-)

Why not ask the historians if humans are better off in a warmer climate than in a colder climate.

Take a look at https://xkcd.com/1732/ and reconsider. It’s not just the change in temperature (though that’s beginning to be a problem), it’s the rate of change in temperature.

The tagline on that is brilliant:

[ After setting your car on fire ] Listen, your car’s temperature has changed before.

There are methods of extracting uranium from seawater – see https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power – but you either have to pump seawater over your ion exchange system, in which case, with only 3ppb uranium in the water, you’ll spend more energy pumping than the uranium would generate (unless you use reprocessing to extract energy from all the U235 not just the first few percent, and breeder reactors to utilize the U238 as well – in which case, uranium supply ceases to be a problem anyway), or you have to have enormous quantities of ion exchange media dangled in vast volumes of ocean, in locations where natural current will do the job of the pumps. And by enormous I mean so humongous no-one in their right mind would consider it feasible at all to supply current uranium demand, never mind the vastly expanded demand there’d be if nuclear power was expanded enough to make a serious dent in human energy use.

As for reprocessing or breeder reactors…

but you either have to pump seawater over your ion exchange system, in which case, with only 3ppb uranium in the water, you’ll spend more energy pumping than the uranium would generate

The only vaguely feasible answer to that is rather similar to the answer that Iran should be given about their “need” for nuclear power¹.
In this instance it’s a coastal location with a very sunny climate (thinking equatorial or least tropics here) so the pumping can be done using solar power.
The thing is if you’ve got a solar power setup to do that why not just crack the H2O for gas supply instead?

As many people say, why run a fission reactor on your doorstep when you can use a fusion reactor that’s sat a much safer 93 million miles away?

¹ Decidedly more solar power available to Iran than the UK which they could use to crack H20 for a n infinite ly renewable gas supply.
Zero polution and no nasty nuclear waste to bury for a few thousand years.
Of course that could leave the likes of the UK having to buy gas from the people we have to buy oil from…

Of course that could leave the likes of the UK having to buy gas from the people we have to buy oil from…

This exact thunk has occurred to me in the past.

Just for fun, they could further reduce the overall efficiency of the system by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, mixing it with that hydrogen, and heating and compressing it in the presence of a catalyst to produce methane, which they could then liquify for convenient transport to the UK, where it could be burnt in existing gas turbine generating stations…the most convenient transport might be pipelines rather than shipping…or they could have a high voltage DC line and send electric power…

Scottish Gas is already considering producing hydrogen by electrolysis using Scotland’s copious wind power, and converting domestic gas boilers and cookers from methane to hydrogen – or possibly a mixture, later to be changed to 100% hydrogen. Either two conversions, or a change to a low-hydrogen mix that works without conversions, a single conversion to a low methane mix that uses the same orifices as pure hydrogen, and finally the change to pure hydrogen.

An area-by-area staged conversion, of course, like the conversion from “town gas” (hydrogen/carbon monoxide) to “natural gas” (methane) that you probably remember.

or they could have a high voltage DC line and send electric power…

I think the cost factors around the step up / step down of DC tend to rule out DC as a distribution method. high voltage DC is efficient on long distance lines but then you lose out at the ends.

There’s also the old joke about a/c being safer because it gives you 100 (or 120) chances a second to let go. :)

tend to rule out DC as a distribution method.

If I’m going to have DC, I want it 5V with a dozen USB standard A receptacles for all these USB powered devices I now seem to own…
;-)

In this instance it’s a coastal location with a very sunny climate (thinking equatorial or least tropics here) so the pumping can be done using solar power.

…and fairly reliable weather, so you could – in the daytime – simply… oh, I dunno… use the solar power?

If I’m going to have DC, I want it 5V with a dozen USB standard A receptacles for all these USB powered devices I now seem to own …

We seem to have acquired a camper van, and such a multiway 12v device would be welcome. Any recommendations, anyone?

So you’ll surely be relieved to hear that the Arctic is not melting

I found it slightly ironic that on the day that Steffen wrote this gem, BBC 6Music’s breakfast news was reporting this headline.

I think the cost factors around the step up / step down of DC tend to rule out DC as a distribution method. high voltage DC is efficient on long distance lines but then you lose out at the ends.

HVDC is common enough for transferring power between networks at present. I’m not a transmission engineer (I nearly was, but my Masters thesis ended up in a different area to the plan, and the rest is history), but AIUI HVDC wins out over longer distances due to the lack of AC losses on the line itself.

I think the cost factors around the step up / step down of DC tend to rule out DC as a distribution method.

Definitely – “distribution” means from the intermediate substations to the local substations, and the final distribution from there to the consumers’ premises. I was talking about sending power from the Middle East to the UK – that’s not “distribution”! See Steve Fryatt’s latest comment.

simply… oh, I dunno… use the solar power?

I assumed that Steve Pampling wrote what he did with his tongue in his cheek.

the old joke about a/c being safer because it gives you 100 (or 120) chances a second to let go.

In my experience (far more of that than there should have been, and please (insert deity of your choice) not again, it might be the last time) it’s not so much chances to let go as bloody good kicks to force you to jump off the ladder or whatever.

(That said, by far the worst shock I’ve ever had was DC. 25kV of it, fortunately only a fairly brief pulse – but not brief enough for comfort. I leave it to you to guess where I got that.)

Are these links of any interest?

G.B. National Grid Status
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

France National Grid Status
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

I’m familiar with them, and yes, they’re quite interesting, I think. You can see what’s happening now but obviously it doesn’t tell you what’s possible in the future, or what different options would cost, or their environmental implications.

I assumed that Steve Pampling wrote what he did with his tongue in his cheek.

As did I. ;-)

worst shock I’ve ever had was DC. 25kV of it,

My worst was something in the order of 45kV DC. A bunch of us at school one Saturday night and a bunch of us decided to try fixing the broken TV in the dining room. It was a big old jobbie (21 inch) in a wood/cardboard box.
Got the back open. Something smelled bad, track that down, replace it with another, see if that works.
But there’s a big cable in the way.
“You move it”
“No you move it”
Lacking both tact and patience (I was a problem child), I moved it.

And apparently did quite an impressive backflip right over a table to land hard on the one after. I don’t remember, just recall that it hurt like hell. Everything. Everywhere.

Turns out the problem was faulty insulation. On that big cable. Oops.

Still, it was a good outcome. After matron finished wetting herself over it, the physics teacher calmly pointed out that the TV was a “live chassis” type. Who the hell makes the chassis live? He did explain but I don’t recall, just remember thinking that people that designed TVs were clearly maniacs.¹ Turns out somebody had already noticed, and failed to pay attention, to a sticker saying that. I guess we were all pretty lucky.

¹ And, of course, an untrained thirteen year old rummaging around inside a working (sort of) cathode ray device is clearly not even remotely crazy…

Blimey. 45kV is a lot for a CRT. My 25kV was indeed off a CRT – Microvitec 14" colour monitor. Daft thing was that I designed the PCBs for the bloody thing, including of course all the clearances for the EHT (and of course the mains side of the SMPS). (I didn’t design the circuit – just converted the prototype into a manufacturable beast.)

I shan’t assume a discharge resistor isn’t open circuit again…

Needs discharging with a Brinkley Stick once powered down. Handling used CRTs is just as bad – don’t let your hands/fingers anywhere need the EHT socket on the reverse side – the tube acts like a big storage capacitor and can bite back! I did it once (and only once) with a radar display CRT – almost dropped it.

I assumed that Steve Pampling wrote what he did with his tongue in his cheek.

The only tongue in cheek/wry comment was actually the reference to having to buy your gas from the people that currently sell us oil.

Now the earlier comment about scientists and their ice melt studies was definitely all a snark.

Blimey. 45kV is a lot for a CRT. My 25kV was indeed off a CRT – Microvitec 14" colour monitor.

I recall a colour screen Urodynamics machine had a 60kV tag. I also recall that it hurt like f*** and I sat with a cup of sugary tea for about half an hour. Probably fortunate not to be having an extended lie down in the anatomy “waiting room”

shan’t assume a discharge resistor isn’t open circuit again

My boss some years ago¹ was in the habit of ensuring the power capacitor in diathermy machines was discharged by rocking a screwdriver shaft across the terminals.
Damn was that “crack” loud, and I didn’t know a mans eyes could open that wide and stay that way for so long.
Escort to comfy chair time, no strange smells indicating a need for clean underwear.

Oh, and dispose of a scrap screwdriver arc welded to the capacitor terminals.

¹ Circa 1986-87

My Microvitec experience must have been about 1980, I think. I did a few short term contracts for them around then – the very first one was the initial “engineering” drawings they wanted to show the bank when they first borrowed the money to set the company up. One of the two brothers had the flat next to mine. They offered me £125 for the job, or a 2% share in their new company. I took the £125…not being a gambler. That 2% (that I thought would probably be worthless) would have topped a million at one point…

Sorry, I haven’t been able to post in the past few days. The login was successful but posting was not possible…

Back to “Greta” and “Money talks”…

What a coincidence…

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg sits on the floor with a self-made cardboard sign in front of a house wall in Sweden.

Coincidentally, the media reports on a Sunday evening about a girl in Sweden who is on strike for the climate and whom no one in the world knows.

By chance, exactly on this day, in this hour, in exactly this place, Ingmar Rentzhog, a PR expert happens to come by and take pictures.

Coincidentally, Mr. Rentzhog also has excellent contacts to organizations that are endowed with lots of money and have dense, globally branched networks and very rich donors.

He also happens to be the chairman of the Global Challenge‡ think tank.

Coincidentally, Greta’s mother also published a new book about herself and Greta a few days later.

And of course, by chance, Ingmar Rentzhog posts his touching photo of Greta on Instagram and Facebook, along with a long, heart-wrenching article, right on the day of the book launch.

By chance, Rentzhog and Greta’s mother had met before. On May 4, 2018 at a climate conference.

Coincidentally, he also became chairman of the aforementioned think tank on that very day.

Which happens to be sponsored by billionaire and ex-minister Kristine Person from the Social Democratic Workers’ Party.

And let’s start the PR campaign for the naive, left-green, naive young people around the world. A teenage schoolboy with Asperger syndrome as a driving force for donations and for spreading left messages, that pulls like crazy and is managed perfectly.

To top it all off, an appearance on Swedish TV with a blazing plea for climate rescue. What the line-true media naturally did not show and only revealed a clip the following day: the hall was almost empty …

Coincidentally, Gretas Papa is not only the managing director of both Ernman Produktion AB and Northern Grace AB, both listed companies in Sweden with an identical address in
a posh district of Stockholm, whose shares have been going through the roof since Greta first appeared.

He also happens to be a promoter of the company “WeDontHaveTimeAB”, whose founder happens to be Ingmar Rentzhog and who finances her business model by connecting through the Paris Agreement and promoting the big business with climate information and CO2 certificates.

This “noble” company only operates PR for the Paris contracts and the CO2 agenda for “climate rescue”, which happened to have launched these CO2 certificates.

Behind “WeDontHaveTime” are “activists” from “Extinction Rebellion”, an international left-wing radical environmentalist movement.

After Rentzhog advertised with Greta for the new mission of “WeDontHaveTime”, about one million euros were raised.

Needless to say, this stock has also risen steeply since Greta-PR.

It is now known that these CO2 certificates are huge business and anything but an effective weapon against pollution and CO2.

The idea of trading pollution licenses to stimulate the economy to save energy and protect the climate has simply been reversed by industry.

Even an official study presented in Berlin says that the European emissions trading does not add to the companies payment, but this companies are win millions!
For Germany in particular, this means that the German economy is stolen 900.000.000 EUR every year from trading in CO2 emission papers!

Everyone is worried about climate change … Of course people are afraid of it … it is stoked at every nook and corner.

Nobody speaks of the fact that “climate change” is a completely natural phenomenon within a centuries-long cycle!
Of course not .. you couldn’t make money with that!

So throw away your beloved car and buy the modern electronic waste, let yourself be cheated by the car companies … the next scandal is not long in coming!
Or even better! Buy an electric car and give the children in Africa work, digging raw materials to make the batteries … otherwise they just sit around lazily.

…

Some of that may be true, and if so, disturbing, Raik. The bit about the dodginess of electric cars and the source of materials to make their batteries definitely is.

But this jumps out at me: “Nobody speaks of the fact that “climate change” is a completely natural phenomenon within a centuries-long cycle!”

That is something I know plenty about myself. Climate change is indeed partly a natural phenomenon, and there are cycles involved in it, but there are also non-cyclical changes both natural and anthropogenic, and one very major non-cyclical change is the very real global warming effect of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is very well known and known to be a direct result of fossil fuel burning and other human activities.