Climate Hypocrisy

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Global POLE SHIFTING May Have Caused Spain BLACKOUT, Solar STORMS Are COMING​









In a wildly underreported Space Story, the Farmingdale Observer ran an article yesterday headlined, “NASA is growing concerned as a massive anomaly spreads across Earth, scientists believe it’s linked to deep Earth forces.” They always know everything there is to know about how manmade carbon affects the planet, but they are baffled by whatever’s causing this.

image 5.png


In short, the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is a blob-shaped territory up in the farthest reaches of the atmosphere, even above the International Space Station. It is a small continent-sized region where the Earth’s magnetic field is unusually weak (and getting weaker), allowing charged solar particles to dip closer and closer to the Earth. The SAA is a chink in Earth’s magnetic armor, already exposing satellites and spacecraft to higher radiation.

It hovers over South America and the South Atlantic Ocean— but it is slowly growing, dividing in two, and drifting northwest.

When I say slowly growing, I mean slowly from a human perspective. In geologic terms, it’s expanding faster than an amorous jackrabbit locked in a grain shed. And it’s unprecedented. Scientists guess the last time anything like this may have happened was at least 11 million years ago. Maybe.

The article eagerly assured readers everything is fine, no need to panic, and especially that there is no evidence this signals a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic pole. But their eagerness to discount that one possibility sort of gave away the game.

Scientists believe that historic shifts in the Earth’s molten core are causing the anomaly— but that doesn’t explain what is causing the core to shift. A shifting core is exactly what might happen if a pole shift were underway. What else could cause the planet’s molten core to surge around like a washing machine that drank too much Strawberry Ripple? SUVs?

All we know for sure is that, while the SAA is growing and drifting, the Earth’s poles are also practically sprinting out of their positions. Smithsonian Magazine, headline from January:


image 6.png


Yet, for some frustrating reason, scientists not only refuse to connect the dots, they won’t even talk about the dots.

For all their constant chattering about “following the science,” the climate priesthood goes curiously silent when it comes to the implications of geomagnetic field weakening, pole excursions, or the growing South Atlantic Anomaly. Why?

Maybe it’s because admitting that deep-Earth forces —like shifts in the magnetic field that affect solar particle influx, cloud formation, and cosmic ray penetration— might influence climate would complicate their death grip on the cash-flowing narrative that manmade carbon dioxide is the only climate variable that matters.

After all, you can’t slap a carbon tax on the Earth’s inner core. Nor can you sell indulgences for cosmic rays. So they pretend like these historic, unprecedented, planet-shaping forces are irrelevant— because there’s no money in it. And that means there’s no money in studying it, either.

But … should we be paying more attention? Ignoring a wobbling magnetic field and a growing radiation hole over the South Atlantic is like insisting there’s no dragon outside the gates because it’s festival day and the shops need to stay open.

Sigh. One problem at a time. We’re starting to fix medical science, maybe climate science will be next.




 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
I’m sure Democrats will have a plan to tax us 70% to save the magnetic field.


i’m sure Al Gore is already on top of selling Magnetic Credits.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Mass EU Power Outage Sparks Fear Of GLOBAL SOLAR DISASTER, Cyberattack RULED OUT​



 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

No One Expects the Spanish Blackout​






Grid Collapse because of a desync of the 50Hz grid frequency - the Solar is DC Current and not a true 50 Hz Freq. like what comes from a Generator or Alternator
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

There Goes Antarctica



We mark it down as another in a long line of misses from the global warming zealots.

“Notably, four major glaciers in the Wilkes Land–Queen Mary Land region of East Antarctica reversed their previous pattern of accelerated mass loss from 2011 to 2020 and instead showed significant mass gain during the 2021 to 2023 period,” says an article in SciTechDaily summarizing the report from Tongji University researchers.

How could such an unanticipated event happen?

“The study points to anomalous precipitation as the primary driver, suggesting that natural variability plays a significant role in short-term ice sheet changes,” says climate site Watts Up With That? It also “underscores the complexity of Antarctica’s ice system and the pitfalls of oversimplified climate narratives.”

Of the latter, we’ve had more than enough.

But then the entire global warming story line is driven by politics, not science. A short list of the many missed climate predictions could start this way:

  • Twenty-five years ago the smart people said “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
  • “Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”
  • Glaciers were to be gone from Glacier National Park by 2020, but they’re still there.
  • No glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro either. They were supposed to have vanished by 2020. But they’re still there, though they have been melting since the ’80s – the 1880s, when researchers first began to track them.
  • The insufferable John Kerry declared at various times we have fewer than 100 months or 12 years or 10 years or four years or 500 days to save Earth from man’s fossil fuel use.
  • New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in 2019 that Miami will not exist “in a few years” due to the effects of global warming.
  • She also suggested “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
  • Six years ago then-California Gov. Jerry Brown was so sure that global warming was near that he said “in less than five years, even the worst skeptics will be believers.” Absolutely nothing has happened since that would convince a skeptic to become one of the faithful.
  • And then there’s climate alarmist in chief Al Gore. To see a collection of his foolish predictions, see our editorial from August 2019.
  • Thirty-five years ago, the Washington Post was sure that CO2, “the gas most responsible for predictions that Earth will warm,” will force temperatures up “on average by about 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2020.” The U.S. was going to suffer the most “because it occupies a large continent in higher latitudes” and “could warm by as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit.
  • Finally, there was the 1997 prediction – and hope – that global warming would kill 8 million by 2020. More than 7 million died prematurely over the next several years starting in 2020, but that was due to a virus and was in no way connected to greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate science has been hijacked and weaponized. The media breathlessly report, with no evidence but plenty of speculation, that man is killing his planet with carbon dioxide emissions; politicians promise impending doom if their big-spending, liberty-violating legislation isn’t passed; celebrities bully the common people and elevate their status while doing the things they tell the rest of us we can’t do; activist researchers produce biased, agenda-based and corrupted work; and witless fanatics block productive citizens from getting to their jobs, hold up traffic, deface art and vandalize public property.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member






1746620600616.png

1746620659766.png





I think I will watch

The Core
Dante's Inferno
2012
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Sunday’s New York Times featured a column by some guy who lives in Scotland named Dan Richards. Richards fetishizes European train travel:

Recently, I’ve boarded sleeper trains in Brussels and disembarked in Vienna; bid “Gute Nacht” to Munich and “buongiorno” to Venice. Closer to home, the Caledonian Sleeper shrinks the 400-mile journey between London and Edinburgh to just 40 winks — with supper, a nightcap and breakfast en route.
Such journeys are possible on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, but the future and fate of night trains in Europe and the United States are set on very different tracks.
In 2025, Europe’s sleeper train network has been enjoying a renaissance... The European Union has plans to double high-speed rail traffic by 2030 and link all major cities in the bloc.

Richards even uses a Swedish word, flygskam, which he says refers to “the feeling of climate guilt associated with the emissions from airline travel,” to justify this rail obsession on the continent. (🙄) He contrasts this glorious love of train travel with what he views as Americans’ failure to fall for rail.

“But as Europe embraces the night train, the United States seems to be sleepwalking into a transport dead end, slashing funding for public infrastructure and firing transit workers,” Richards laments. “Long-distance public transport in America may be heading inexorably toward a binary choice: fast, exclusive and environmentally ruinous or slow, tortuous and run-down.”

Richards believes that rail’s chances of success over here are diminishing — and, like clockwork, he finds an obvious culprit.

“In President Trump’s second term, with many climate commitments and environmental protections already up in smoke, the road ahead seems clear: more gas-guzzling cars, planes, and rockets,” he yells at clouds. “The national rail system is written off as either irreparably broken (like the long-suffering Amtrak) or a mismanaged white elephant (as with several stalled high-speed rail projects).”

There’s the rub. Train travel just isn’t feasible or affordable stateside, and Americans prefer the freedom that comes with the automobile.

My friend Gabriella Hoffman, who is the director of the Center for Energy and Conservation at the Independent Women’s Forum, as well as a columnist at Townhall, wrote a response to Richards’ column on her Substack.

“Americans have free will to take trains,” she declared. “Nobody is stopping you from taking a sleeper train — though the options are limited compared to Europe. But it’s not the most effective way to travel across the country. Not by a long shot.”

She admitted that rail travel makes sense in the dense metroplex around D.C. and New York City:

Amtrak makes sense from DC to NYC. I can go from downtown D.C. to NYC Penn Station in 4-4.5 hours. It makes less sense going from NYC to Rochester, NY via the Hudson River Valley. One-way, with stops, that trip can last 7-8 hours. By comparison, one can drive that same route in about 6 hours. When I traveled to Boston, I either took the metro within city limits or drove by car to travel to nearby stops in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Maine.

But it just doesn’t make sense to travel by train for the vast interior of the country. Even if we had unlimited funds to build a massive rail system, Americans probably wouldn’t go for it. As much as Europe venerates train travel, the Great American Road Trip is a romantic ideal.






 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Greenpeace Asks Judge to Reduce $667 Million Damage Award




In March, Greenpeace lost a trial in North Dakota and a jury determined they should pay Energy Transfer, the company that built the Dakota Access Pipeline, a total of $667 million in damages. Greenpeace said at the time that even half that amount could potentially bankrupt them.

Last week, Greenpeace asked a judge to reduce the amount of the damages and also to stay the verdict while they appeal.

Greenpeace wants a North Dakota judge to reduce the nearly $667 million in damages it was ordered to pay the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline in March, arguing that the award is excessive and unreasonable...
Greenpeace denies Energy Transfer’s allegations and says the company only brought the lawsuit to chill environmental activism. The defendants have yet to appeal.
In the meantime, attorneys for Greenpeace have asked Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion to slash the nearly $667 million award, claiming it exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies.
“This is the poster child of where the court needs to step in,” Steven Caplow, an attorney representing Greenpeace, said in a Thursday morning remote hearing.
Energy Transfer says Gion should let the jury’s award stand. Trey Cox, an attorney representing the pipeline developer, called the damages “consistent with the evidence produced at trial and the law of the state of North Dakota.”

Greenpeace made a separate motion asking the judge to simply toss out the entire verdict. Another hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday so we may get a ruling on some of these motions by then.

Greenpeace has been framing this entire case as one about free speech even months before the verdict. Here's a video they put together last August.

The counter-argument, which was made at trial, is that Greenpeace went well beyond protected speech into defamation and support for "direct action" against the company which delayed the project and cost Energy Transfer millions of dollars. Commentary published an excellent piece on this last week.

The pipeline eventually got finished, but Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren wasn’t satisfied. “What they did to us is wrong,” Warren said in a 2017 interview, “and they’re gonna pay for it.” The company’s suit charged Greenpeace USA (and other branches of the global NGO) with civil conspiracy and trespass for the role it alleged they played in funding and directing extremist factions in the protest. Energy Transfer also asserted the NGO defamed the company through dishonest accusations and disrupted its relations with financial backers. Greenpeace argued its actions were protected under the First Amendment. The Mandan, North Dakota, jury sided with the plaintiff on almost all points.
Energy Transfer no doubt faces years of appeals before it can collect any of the staggering $667 million judgment. But the company’s lawsuit has already exposed some of the shady linkages between liberal NGOs and violent anarchists. Evidence produced in court showed that Greenpeace raised $20,000 to send trainers (including a Greenpeace employee) to teach what it called “non-violent direct action skills” to the protesters. The charity also donated a solar-panel-equipped van, power tools, propane tanks, and other gear. Greenpeace USA then–executive director, Annie Leonard, was all-in on the effort. “We have provided massive support for this cause since day one in terms of people, material, support and funding,” she wrote in a 2016 email. Leonard also used her Greenpeace email account to personally raise another $90,000 to support the protests.
One Greenpeace trainer bragged in an email about doing “some awesome spy crap” as he scouted locations where activists could blockade construction equipment. Another was photographed using a “lockbox” to chain himself to a piece of heavy equipment. A lockbox is a heavy plastic or concrete tube into which two or more protesters can lock their arms, forming a human chain and forcing police to spend hours carefully cutting through it. It is a favorite tactic used by climate protesters who think blocking highways during rush hour will save the planet. Greenpeace sent at least 20 of the lockbox devices to Standing Rock.
At the trial, Greenpeace argued that local tribal leaders led the protests and that the nonprofit offered only indirect support. According to the AP, Energy Transfer’s lawyer said the nonprofit “exploited a small, disorganized, local issue to promote its agenda,” and described the group as “master manipulators.” It’s possible Greenpeace was just one of several outside groups backing the most militant factions at Standing Rock. But first-hand accounts from the months-long protests do suggest the Sioux elders urging nonviolence gradually lost control to outside agitators. On an anarchist website, one young radical recounts how advocates for peaceful protest were overruled by the militant faction blocking a road near the pipeline. With undisguised joy he describes the subsequent all-night battle with police: “Rocks and Molotov cocktails defend the barricade; a wall of plywood shields deflects rubber bullets and tear gas cannisters. The partisans of nonviolence are gone.”

Frankly, I'd be fine with the judge cutting the judgment in half and then forcing Greenpeace to pay the remaining amount immediately. But I guess the more realistic outcome is that Greenpeace will get a stay and then drag out the appeal for at least another year or longer. They have other legal problems in countries around the world so they can't afford this to come to a resolution anytime soon.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Vermont develops a sudden case of EV sanity

By Mike McDaniel

In February of this year, I wrote Trump imposes sanity on a green EV market. In that article I noted these characteristics of the rapidly closing electric vehicle—EV—doom loop:

*1000-pound batteries wear out expensive tires at incredible rates.
*Range is always less than the EPA and manufacturers claim. Public chargers are few and far between and often don’t work.

*EVs are much more expensive than comparable conventional vehicles.

*Parts are scarce and insurance and repair costs outlandish.

*They lose value at incredible rates and there is virtually no used EV market.

*They tend to spontaneously combust and since they make their own oxygen when on fire, are virtually impossible to extinguish.

*They’re bought almost exclusively by the top 7% of households in income.
Experience has added these facts:

*Americans don’t want EVs. They’re too expensive and can’t meet their needs.
*Government attempts to build a nationwide charger network have worked as well as most government projects: they’re a pathetic, grossly expensive and wasteful failure.

*With the second Trump Administration, which is working to end all EV financial incentives, manufacturers are “postponing” their previously lofty EV production goals.

*Ford lost at least $9.8 billion on EVs in 2023-2024 and is projecting another $5.5 billion loss in 2025, so Ford’s CEO Jim Farley is reportedly planning to somehow stop the bleeding, probably before Ford stockholders lynch him.

*Democrats, who previously loved Elon Musk and Tesla, are now calling Musk a Nazi because he’s helping end hundreds of billions in government fraud and waste, so Dems are intent on torching Teslas and bankrupting the company.

*Numerous EV start up manufacturers of recent years have gone bankrupt, many of them taking taxpayers billions with them.

*Hertz, which invested heavily in EVs, is offloading them as fast as they can.

*And Dodge, which was going to replace its V-8 Challenger and Charger muscle cars with EV versions with stereos that made V-8 noises and software that interrupted power delivery to simulate shifting, hasn’t quite admitted they’re abandoning those plans, but has announced they’re retooling to build V-8s again. It turns out muscle car fans will spend plenty for V-8 muscle but little for software tweaks.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
For our final Harvard tie-in: it’s Bad News! The Guardian ran an astonishing story yesterday that should get about a million times more attention than it did, except for its narrative inconvenience. The article’s headline advised, “Planet’s darkening oceans pose threat to marine life, scientists say.” Oh boy. Now what?

image 4.png

“Satellite data and numerical modeling,” the Guardian informed readers, “revealed that more than a fifth of the global ocean darkened between 2003 and 2022, reducing the band of water that life reliant on sunlight and moonlight can thrive.”

In simpler words, over 19 years, more than a fifth of the ocean’s living space has been squeezed into an ever-shrinking strip — because sunlight can’t reach it anymore. Remember that: less sunlight.

The article was curiously unconcerned with the knock-on effects. But it is potentially catastrophic. Phytoplankton rely on sunlight for photosynthesis. If the ‘photic zone’ shrinks, phytoplankton habitats shrink. Less phytoplankton means less food for zooplankton. That means less global oxygen production, since phytoplankton make ~50% of Earth’s oxygen.

I’ll say it again: The photic zone — the sunlit top ~200 meters of the ocean — is where 90% of marine life exists and where phytoplankton produce half of the world’s oxygen. It’s kind of a big deal if it keeps getting smaller.


image 11.png

Species that depend on specific light levels, temperature gradients, or stable food chains may go extinct locally or globally. Beloved coral reefs are vulnerable. Genetic diversity could shrink as specialist species lose their ecological niches. Fish stocks may decline due to bottom-up food chain collapse. Whales, seabirds, and larger predators could suffer secondary losses.

In other words, it is exactly the kind of brooding ecological disaster that is the corporate media’s bread and butter. Usually.

But this ecological catastrophe? Media is strangely muted. There were no fiery New York Times op-eds, no scolding Greta on a yacht, no emergency UN summit featuring Bono, drone light shows, and holograms. You’d think that “a fifth of the ocean going dim” would be good for at least a TikTok explainer or a climate anxiety segment on NPR.

The problem, you see, is this particular crisis isn’t photogenic. There’s no smokestack villain. No SUV to shame. And worst of all — it whispers an awkward, unwelcome question: what’s blocking the sunlight?

Some of you probably know where I’m headed.

“And the second angel sounded … and the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died.
— Revelation 8:8-9.

🔥 For years, Bill Gates has funded ‘global warming research’ through, wait for it, Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program. The long-standing project proposes using calcium carbonate or sulfate aerosols to reflect solar radiation. The controversial program has been paused several times, due to public opposition, logistical concerns, indigenous groups, and increasingly rare ‘real’ environmentalists.

image 12.png

In other words, they just needed to find some compliant third-world countries where conducting these types of experiments is … easier. No international treaty bans SRM testing. A 2010 UN moratorium was non-binding, and even that was hollowed out with exceptions for “small-scale scientific research.” There’s nobody to intervene if someone fogs the sky over Uganda under the guise of “solar light scattering analytics.”

It’s not like Harvard or Gates put their names on it. NGOs, university grants, foundations, and fly-by-night “climate research” firms can do all the dirty work.

Harvard euphemistically describes the idea of spraying reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to dim the sun (cool the Earth) as Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Imagine the incomprehensible hubris of thinking they can manage the Sun.

Not that they noticed, but the timeline cited in the Guardian’s study (2003–2022) overlaps almost perfectly with increased SRM research and “small scale” field trials. The media pretends not to notice because no one wants to say it out loud. The implications would blow a volcano-sized hole in the climate intervention narrative and ignite regulatory hellfire.


🔥 Meanwhile, reports of atmospheric haze, reflective sky phenomena, and “milky” sun halos have cropped up globally in the past decade, especially post-2015. Aluminum, barium, and strontium — all known candidates for aerosol geoengineering — have turned up in rainwater sampling and soil studies.

And, of course, the chemtrails. Skywatchers constantly complain about increased aviation patterns at high altitudes during “non-traffic” periods, and about bizarre, persistent contrail patterns that slowly expand into a thin grey morass that smears the sky instead of evaporating.

Chemtrails are practically mainstream now. They’re not even denying it anymore. Two days ago, Phys.org ran a story headlined, “Florida bill would ban 'chemtrails' and 'geoengineering.' But what are they?

image 8.png

“Geoengineering—also known as climate engineering—refers to large-scale efforts to combat climate change,” the article explained, “including proposals to fire small reflective aluminum particles into the air to act as mirrors and deflect the sun's rays away from Earth.”

The story quoted Stanford atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson — no backwoods tinfoil hat wearer — who called solar geoengineering a “horrible idea,” warning that “reducing sunlight reduces photosynthesis,” which could lead to mass crop failure and global starvation. But so what? Climate change!

🔥 They don’t always call it SRM. That’s Harvard’s preferred label. Governments and defense agencies have a long, Orwellian history of using dual-purpose research and thesaurus-heavy relabeling programs, like “atmospheric opacity studies,” “solar albedo field experiments,” and “high-altitude particulate distribution models.”

The Guardian tells us that 21% of the global ocean has darkened since 2003 — compressing the photic zone where 90% of marine life lives and where phytoplankton churn out oxygen and food like an unseen but absolutely essential factory.

So … if even small-scale atmospheric dimming — like from volcanic eruptions — can lower the amount of light reaching the surface, what happens when high-altitude planes release solar-reflective particles directly into the stratosphere? The answer is: they don’t know. That’s why they are testing it, dummy. Here’s NOAA’s helpful diagram:


image 13.png

So let’s put a bow on it. This week, Harvard gave us the full syllabus of civilizational rot: a tenured professor of honesty caught falsifying honesty data; a morgue manager shipping faces and hands to gothic craft stores; and now, a planet whose oceans are going dark from lack of sunlight — possibly from geoengineering experiments cooked up by the same technocratic priesthood that once taught ethics from behind ivy-covered walls.

The truth is, the same elite institutions trafficking in nudges and necromancy now want to manage the Sun itself with aerosol mirrors and solar behavioral compliance. Harvard used to illuminate minds; now it’s blocking the literal sunlight — literally and figuratively. A once-Christian university, it now runs occult rituals in lab coats, darkening both the heavens and the seas in the name of science. It’s not just a decline. It’s a descent — an institutional Fall, wrapped in prestige, powered by grant money, and hurtling toward Revelation not with trumpets, but with budgets.

I’m sorry to say it, but Harvard’s destruction couldn’t come a moment too soon.




 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member







Hank Berrien reports:

The lawsuit brought by Misti Leon after the death of her mother, Juliana Leon, accuses oil companies of causing Juliana’s death in 2021 because of their contribution to climate change. Juliana, 65, died in her car on June 28, 2021, from hyperthermia. The lawsuit names Exxon, British Petroleum, Chevron, Shell, Conoco, and Phillips 66 oil companies, as well as the Olympic Pipe Company, because of their contribution to climate change.

Yet the Times never mentions some salient points regarding Leon’s death, even though they’re included in the lawsuit.
One: Two weeks before her death, doctors performed bariatric surgery on her; she had been on a liquid diet ever since. Two: The day of her death, she was returning from a doctor’s appointment where they told her she could resume eating solid foods. The Times never mentions that the car’s air conditioning broke, prompting Leon to roll down the windows and pull over to the side of the road. Three: Weather forecasts said the heat would be intense that day.


1748742440516.png


1748742511488.png

1748742553238.png
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

So, That Claim Lefties Love About 97% of Scientists Believing Climate Change? Yeah, It Just Got DEBUNKED



I can't remember a time when Lefty politicians, activists, and green penises in general weren't trying to somehow blame human beings for climate changing. Oh, sure, they changed what they called it, from global cooling to global warming to finally very vague 'climate change,' but the message has remained the same. Evil mankind is destroying the planet, and if we don't give the government more money, then it will only get worse, and HEY, 97% of scientists agree!

Gosh, that seems like a lot of scientists, you know?

But guess what? You guessing?

Yeah, that's BS.

A false narrative.

A lie, even.

Take a look:









1748828473303.png






Image
 
Top