Climate Hypocrisy


PREMO Member

Government Weather Control BACKFIRES Sparking MASS FLOODING IN DUBAI, ITS NOT A Conspiracy​



PREMO Member

How Climate Change Narrative Is Preventing Africa From Modernizing and Prosperity

Mr. Machogu said the IMF and the Western nations that embrace climate policies for Africa are engaging in neocolonialism, or “climate colonialism.”

And it’s no different than past colonialism, the likes of which liberal elites, such as former President Barack Obama, have condemned.

“Colonialism skewed Africa’s economy and robbed people of their capacity to shape their own destiny,” President Obama said while in Ethiopia in 2015. “Eventually, liberation movements grew. And 50 years ago, in a great burst of self-determination, Africans rejoiced as foreign flags came down and your national flags went up.”

Two years earlier, in 2013, while in South Africa, President Obama warned a group of young African leaders about the consequences of Africa achieving Western parity.

“If everybody’s raising living standards to the point where everybody’s got a car, and everybody’s got air conditioning, everybody’s got a big house, well, the planet will boil over,” he said, “unless we find new ways of producing energy.”

The new climate colonialism is being driven by global entities such as the U.N., which says Africa should have energy, but due to climate change concerns, it should focus on wind and solar.

Calvin Beisner, founder and president of the Christian-based Cornwall Alliance, said currently “the most harmful policy” is that the IMF, World Bank, and agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development “refuse to do loans or other funding for coal, natural gas, or oil-based electric generating stations in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America.”


Climate Colonialism​

Mr. Machogu criticized the U.N.’s 2023 Sustainable Development Goals for Africa, which he said were developed after U.N. employees went to Africa to study the issues facing the continent. From that expedition, U.N. employees came up with 17 “solutions.”

“They said that one of the problems is climate change,” Mr. Machogu said. “It doesn’t make sense to me because I come from Africa. We have far bigger problems—people sleeping hungry, very poor people around me. I’m more worried about that than I'll ever be worried about climate change.

“Every solution to [Africa’s] problems is centered around climate change. [The UN says to Africa] ‘If you’re going to end poverty, let’s end it in a way that we don’t impact our climate. If you’re going to have clean water, let’s do it in a way that will not be too bad for the climate.”

He said modern civilization has “four pillars of civilization”—steel, cement, plastic, and fertilizer.

“Without fossil fuels, we can’t produce these four pillars of civilization. Without fossil fuels, we don’t have energy. We must have fossil fuels. It’s how the West beat poverty.”

Mr. Machogu said that, in layman’s terms, the U.N.’s policy boils down to “no fossil fuels for Africa,” which necessarily means no economic progress. Conversely, unrestricted access to fossil fuels could help pull Africa out of poverty.

“Let me speak for Africa because 60 percent of Africans rely on agriculture for their livelihood,” Mr. Machogu said. “We need fossil fuels for farm machinery. Despite the fact that the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and all of these environmental organizations say solar and wind for Africa, we can’t electrify agriculture—if we did electrify, it would be a tiny percent.
“Right now, our access to farm machinery is very low. I think about four or five percent [of Africans have access], which is very low compared to places like China’s 75 percent, India’s 45 percent, and the U.S.’s 95 percent. Almost everything in U.S. agriculture is done by machines. So having access to farm machinery really would change our lives because it would amplify and expand our capabilities.”

In addition to needing fossil fuels for machines and access to loans to purchase them, Mr. Machogu said expanded irrigation, courtesy of fossil fuels, would benefit Africa.

“Africa is not all green,” he said. “We have other places that are very dry. So, one of the easiest ways we can end that is by irrigating our land, and we will irrigate our lands using pipes from fossil fuels.

Holding up a yellow plastic bucket and panning to his surrounding crops, Mr. Machogu said most Africans get water for crops by lugging it from wells. The further your crop is from the well, the more backbreaking and time-consuming the labor.

Finally, Mr. Machogu explained that urea use, a fertilizer made from ammonia and liquid carbon dioxide, is significantly lower in Africa, thanks, in part, to external pressure from entities like the IMF.

“Personally, we use the 40 kilos of nitrogenous fertilizer for one hectare of our land,” he said about his farm. “We have other people using 20 kilos. In other places, like Ethiopia, people use 16 kilos per hectare.

“Go to a place like the U.S., the West—which says Africa should not have access to fossil fuels—and it’s using 120 kilos [of nitrogenous fertilizer] per hectare. Europe uses 160–170 kilos per hectare, India uses 250 kilos per hectare, and China uses 360 kilos per hectare.


PREMO Member

Biden Administration Announces Anti-Oil Restrictions on 13 Million Acres of Alaskan Petroleum Land

“Following significant engagement with the public, Alaska Native Tribes, and Alaska Native Corporations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) finalized the Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) rule that will ensure maximum protection for significant resource values on the more than 13 million acres of Special Areas in the western Arctic, while supporting subsistence uses and needs for Alaska Native communities,” the federal agency stated.

The new rules won’t impact current leases on the NPR-A, which is owned by the federal government. Projects that have already been authorized, including the controversial Willow Project, will still be able to occur.

Haaland said the restrictions underscore the Biden administration’s “commitment to ensure that places too special to develop remain intact for the communities and species that rely on them.”


PREMO Member
UCLA study: Gay couples at greater risk from climate change

A new study out of UCLA says same-sex couples are at greater “risk of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change” than straight couples.

These effects include “wildfires, floods, smoke-filled skies, and drought,” according to a report from KQED.

Same-sex couples disproportionately live in coastal regions and cities, which are more vulnerable to such disasters. They’re also more likely “to live in areas with poor infrastructure, worse-built environments.”

Washington DC, which rates high for “climate risks” such as heat waves, floods, and “dangerously strong winds,” has the greatest proportion of gay couples in the U.S.


Among several recommendations, Shaw and study co-author Lindsay Mahowald say climate disaster relief should be “administered without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,” and that future surveys like the U.S. Census ought to include “measures of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

I'm not sure why queers are special .... except identity politics

ANYONE living in a coastal city would be in danger if Global climate Warming Change were real


PREMO Member
As the Biden administration expands its offshore wind projects as part of its goal to reach a carbon-free energy system, whales and other marine life may become collateral damage, according to new research.

Two independent studies measuring ocean wind turbine construction noise found that the sound emitted by vessels mapping the seafloor was significantly louder than estimated, and that noise protection for whales and other sea creatures during wind turbine pile driving doesn’t work.

Intense noise causes hearing loss in whales, other marine mammals, turtles, and fish, compromising their ability to navigate, avoid danger, detect predators, and find prey, according to scientific studies.

Robert Rand, an acoustics consultant with 44 years of experience, took underwater readings of the sonar survey vessel Miss Emma McCall off the coast of New Jersey. He also recorded acoustic readings of pile driving for Vineyards Wind 1, an offshore wind farm project under construction 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard.

In his pile-driving report, published March 28, Mr. Rand found that even the most advanced sound-dampening technologies didn’t adequately control harmful noise. The pounding was just as loud as seismic air gun arrays used for oil and gas exploration, long known to cause injury, hearing loss, and behavioral changes in fish and marine mammals.
Furthermore, the noise made by the construction vessel itself, which is not monitored, was almost as loud as the pile driving. Mr. Rand found that the standard formula used by the National Marine Fisheries Service to calculate how noise, over a period of time, affects a mammal’s hearing, significantly underestimates the sound levels experienced by dolphins and whales.

Environmentalists have always trumped nature, wind turbines in California are called Condor Cuisinarts for a reason


Just sneakin' around....
I've been saying for a long time that windmills in operation can create low frequency noise that will disrupt many species, most notably whales. Never mind the install noises.

Windmills are better suited to land masses where the sound will drive gophers and moles away. :yay:


Well-Known Member
I've been saying for a long time that windmills in operation can create low frequency noise that will disrupt many species, most notably whales. Never mind the install noises.

Windmills are better suited to land masses where the sound will drive gophers and moles away. :yay:
Coal powered electric plants are a lot less pollutant and safe for all living creatures than fans and solar, when you figure in the cost or producing them servicing them, and getting rid of them when they die.


PREMO Member
A recent report from the Fraser Institute, a non-profit research firm that stands out as one of the last redoubts of sanity in Canada, makes clear the paucity of evidence for claims that climate change is causing more severe weather:

"According to the UN's Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), evidence does suggest that some types of extreme weather have become more extreme, particularly those relating to temperature trends. • However, many types of extreme weather show no signs of increasing and in some cases are decreasing.
"Drought has shown no clear increasing trend, nor has flooding. Hurricane intensity and number show no increasing trend. Globally, wildfires have shown no clear trend in increasing number or intensity, while in Canada, wildfires have actually been decreasing in number and areas consumed from the 1950s to the present.
"While media and political activists assert that the evidence for increasing harms from increasing extreme weather is iron-clad, it is anything but. In fact, it is quite limited, and of low reliability. Claims about extreme weather should not be used as the basis for committing to long-term regulatory regimes that will hurt current Canadian standards of living, and leave future generations worse off."

But the conservative Canadian outfit is far from alone in reaching that conclusion. Take for example this from the National Geographic Society, which is anything but a voice of anti-climate change analyses:

There is no real evidence that tornados are happening more often. A lot more are being recorded now than in 1950, but a closer look at the data shows the increase is only in the weakest category, EF0. There's been no increase in stronger twisters, and maybe even a slight decrease in EF4s and EF5s.
That suggests we're just spotting more of the weak and short-lived tornadoes than we did back when the country was emptier (the United States population in 1950 was less than half what it is now), we didn't have Doppler radar, and Oklahoma highways weren't jammed with storm-chasers.

I love that reference to Oklahoma highways being full of storm chasers. Those guys are crazy, to be sure, but they have helped grow our understanding of what causes tornadoes.

So the next time somebody tells you climate change is causing more severe weather, point them to these two studies and encourage them to stop letting climate agitpropsters in the mainstream media do their thinking for them.



PREMO Member

Eco-friendly brake cables eaten by foxes after switch to soy insulation

Eco-friendly brake cables are being eaten by foxes, after manufacturers switched from petroleum-based insulation to soy, forcing owners to wrap their cars in tarpaulins.

Recent photos show multiple cars covered in blue plastic for protection after a spate of attacks in Worthing, West Sussex, with locals claiming at least 20 vehicles were targeted by foxes.

Jack Cousens, the AA’s head of roads policy, said the animals may be attracted to the soy-based insulation on brake wires.

Since 2000, peanut and soy-based oils and waxes have been used on car parts including gearbox insulation, primer bulbs and diesel injector wires, instead of petroleum-based coverings.


PREMO Member

Environmentalism Is Deadly: Considering Carbon Footprint of Medical Interventions Will Cost Lives

I've written quite a bit about wokeness in healthcare and how dangerous it is -- because it is. Whether DEI policies and programs in med schools across the country, or woke changes to basic medical facts, lives are at stake because the Left puts their virtue signaling and moral superiority ahead of your health and safety.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is the latest to eschew the notion of 'do no harm' for considering the carbon footprint of medical interventions. And this will kill people.


From the study:

Human-induced climate change and destruction of nature is a global health emergency. By 2030, an estimated 2 billion people will reside in areas considered to be not well suited for sustaining human life.1 Extreme weather events, water and food insecurity, and the risk of infectious diseases are increasing. Immediate action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in all sectors of society is paramount to support a livable future.
Health care is a substantial contributor to the current environmental crisis. In 2021, the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference health program urged the health care community to reduce emissions by building low-carbon, sustainable health care systems. But knowledge about the carbon footprints of existing health care interventions and how best to assess the environmental effects of new tests, treatments, and services in relation to their clinical benefits has been limited. As a result, it’s been difficult to make evidence-based decisions focused on using clinically effective and climate-friendly interventions.

Make no mistake: considering the carbon footprint of medical interventions means those interventions will be restricted, rationed, and otherwise limited. The priority will not be whether or not the intervention is effective and will save your life, the priority will be its impact on Gaia.
And if that impact is deemed too big or detrimental, guess who isn't getting that treatment.