At stake in the European elections in June this year will be everything that defines the modern EU: a large volume of net zero legislation, a values-based foreign policy, and ever-more intrusive business regulation.
Polls suggest the centrist majority that has supported these policies is growing slimmer. [emphasis, links added]
Ursula von der Leyen [pictured above] has been the quintessential representative of that majority. Born in Brussels, German by nationality, proposed by France, she was the perfect candidate for European Commission president in late 2019.
Now she is seeking a second term. Whether she will succeed will depend to a large extent on whether the centrist four-party coalition that supported her in 2019 will hold.
All over Europe, we are now seeing a backlash against the kind of policies the Von der Leyen Commission represents.
The far right is part of that response, but the main political shift has been inside Von der Leyen’s own political group, the European People’s Party (EPP), of which the German CDU/CSU is the largest member.
This backlash follows one of the most hectic political phases in recent EU history. When Covid struck in early 2020, Von der Leyen was instrumental in setting up the EU’s recovery fund to help countries deal with the economic consequences of the pandemic.
Then came the Green Deal, a hefty tranche of legislation on renewable energy, land use, forestry, energy efficiency, emission standards for cars and trucks, and a directive on energy taxes.
There was also a tightening of standards on pesticides, air quality, water pollution, and wastewater.
Farmers are resisting this program because it affects their livelihoods. Industrialists, too, are unhappy. A big part of the Green Deal was its industrial policy; the flagship legislation was the Net Zero Industry Act.
The industry used to be the EU’s strongest supporter.
But with the new laws came new bureaucracy: now, all EU-funded investment must include a green component of at least 30 percent, while a carbon border adjustment mechanism, to take effect in 2026, will penalize imports that do not meet EU carbon-emission standards. Together, EU legislation in the last few years amounts to a near-total corporate regime change.
Compliance with some regulations is virtually impossible for companies without dedicated legal teams. It is going to get worse.
Under discussion right now is a supply-chain law that would make European companies responsible for human rights abuses in their supply chain – including the suppliers of their suppliers.
I expect that the hyperactive phase of this green agenda will end with the elections in June. Some of it might even go into reverse. I am even starting to doubt whether the EU will ever enforce the 2035 target for phasing out fossil-fuel-driven cars.
This is an industrial-policy disaster in the making because Europe’s carmakers are having trouble selling their electric cars.
It is instructive to look at what happened to Green politics in Germany. The coalition of the center-left SPD, the Greens, and the liberal FDP started with great enthusiasm in 2021 but is now hopelessly divided.
After a string of unpopular laws, Germany’s anti-Green surge has been in full force for some time. Both the far-right AfD and Sahra Wagenknecht’s new left-populist party have identified the Greens as their main opponent.
They depict them as members of metropolitan elites forcing their urban values on rural communities. The language suggests parallels with Brexit. As the EU is associated with partisan policies of the center-left, opposition to those policies and opposition to the EU are starting to merge.
It was the sudden abolition of a diesel subsidy for agricultural vehicles that led farmers to protest in Germany. But their discontent goes deeper.
What is happening all over Europe is the first organized revolt against the green agenda. The center-right has discovered that there are votes to be had by opposing green policies. Farmers and rural communities are starting to fight back.
A consequence of this is that the centrist coalition is no longer viable. This is a healthy development. When centrist parties always form coalitions with one another, we should not be surprised to see parties emerge on the fringes.
The centrists’ reaction to the rise of the far right has been to erect firewalls – by simply refusing to engage with such parties.
This might work to begin with. But when the far right exceeds certain thresholds in support, as it has in Germany, such firewalls cannot withstand the electoral arithmetic.
In Brussels, the firewall is cracking. The EPP has already opened up to the European Conservatives and Reformists group, whose most influential member is Giorgia Meloni, the hard-right Italian prime minister, who has said she will support Von der Leyen.
Meloni’s big issue is immigration: I would not rule out the idea of Von der Leyen once again assembling a majority; what I struggle to imagine is a coalition that encompasses both the left and Meloni.
It is not clear whether Renew Europe, the liberal grouping in the European Parliament, will still support Von der Leyen. Support for liberal parties is weakening everywhere, including in France.
Mark Rutte’s Party for Freedom and Democracy lost last year’s election in the Netherlands. The German FDP is fighting for its political survival within the coalition in Berlin. Von der Leyen’s hyperactive green industrial agenda is the antithesis of what conservative-liberal parties such as the FDP are standing for.
And herein lies the ultimate irony. If Ursula von der Leyen were to win a second term, she would spend most of it undoing what she did in her first.
Read more at New Statesman
I just emailed EU President Ursula von der Leyen and her entire staff…
Fernando Andresen-Guimaraes, Tomas Baert, Raluca Belegan, Eric Demoulin, Jens-Alexander Flosdorff, Adrianna Gorska-Stukow, Selma Haenicke, Charmaine Hili, Florentine Hopmeier, Susanne Horl, Alisa James, Martina Lodrant, Valeria Miceli, Efthymia Papadimitriou, Jivka Petkova, Ruth Reichstein, Bjoern Seibert, Inare Semlali, Stefan Smith, Katerina Tcholakova, Fabrice Vanderschrick, Peter van-Kemseke, Anthony Whelan, Corina Zieger
… if they’re true-blue climate catastrophists, I imagine we’ll shortly hear very loud wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the direction of Europe. LOL
Why so many? Because there’s bound to be one who’s a bit disgruntled, and will ‘leak’ to the press that they’ve received information damaging to CAGW… and that leak from within the EU government lends more credence to the fact that CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam.
The message starts with:
––––––––––––-*-
If you want your centrist majority to hold, you must eschew CAGW… now that we can definitively, mathematically prove that CAGW (and by extension, all of its offshoots) is little more than a complex mathematical scam, you will face ever-increasing headwinds for supporting it. Ditch it, free your economies to grow at an unprecedented rate, and enjoy a long rule as European Commission President.
If you want to be unprecedentedly popular, prosecute the climatologists for misleading the public to obtain multiple billions of dollars of taxpayer funds.
––––––––––––-*-
It ends with:
––––––––––––-*-
Soon, the entire world will know of the perfidy of the climatologists. And when that day comes, you won’t want to be on the wrong side of that public outrage.
––––––––––––-*-
If those Eco-Freaks were really that serious they would be Buidling Birdhouses and Feeders cleaning up a Highway and planting Trees instead of Blocking Traffic and messing up works of art and the U,S. Constitution just to appease some Nit-Wit from the Useless Nations
My email to Nicole Schwab (daughter of Klaus Schwab, and a member of the WEF):
––––––––––
Greetings,
By all means, plant more trees… that’s commendable. Work to reduce and/or ameliorate environmental pollution (particularly the ‘forever chemicals’)… that’s also commendable. Work to lift people out of poverty by bolstering their ability to fend for themselves… again, commendable.
But if you believe a “great reset” will do anything but plunge the world into chaos and result in a popular uprising against your elitist beliefs, you are sorely mistaken. Any form of socialism still has what? Money. Capital. Which should clue you in that every form of socialism merely preys upon capitalism by redistributing that capital… and given the power inequality inherent in any form of socialism, that capital invariably is redistributed from poor to rich, from the many to the few, from the ruled to the rulers… which is why every form of socialism invariably, inevitably fails (and global socialism will fail spectacularly quickly because productivity worldwide will plummet, because the power gap between ruled and ruler will be especially wide, so corruption will be especially rampant)… remove the incentive to produce (by taking from those who produce, and giving to those who do not), and the world grinds to a halt, and people go hungry. Hungry people are desperate people, and desperate people rise up… you are the creator of the chaos you seek to quell. Your beliefs in this regard are antithetical to human nature.
I understand… you have become emotionally invested in ‘saving the planet’, you believe that your actions are warranted… but have you ever really in-depth investigated the claims made which convinced you to take upon yourself those beliefs?
What if I told you that the arguably largest claim which convinced you can be mathematically, definitively disproved?
In the attached paper, I definitively, mathematically disprove the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis; I prove it is brought about via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation; I use the energy balance graphic from Kiehl-Trenberth (it and all subsequent similar graphics represent the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models) as an empirical example of this mathematical proof; I further prove that what the climatologists claim to be happening blatantly violates 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and Stefan’s Law, and is hence unphysical.
Essentially, they are treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects… with emission to 0 K and emissivity of 1 (sometimes… other times they slap emissivity onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation while still assuming emission to 0 K… which is still a misuse of the S-B equation, for graybody objects).
This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that the climatologists carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end (to get their equations to balance) by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’… a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation.
As I show in the attached paper, the correct usage of the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense states that system energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, that it requires “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time“… that “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon that system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient (which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators).
The “backradiation” claim by the climatologists implies that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just one of many blatant violations of the fundamental physical laws inherent in the CAGW narrative.
In other words, the entirety of the CAGW industry is built upon a foundation of mathematical fraudery, and we’re all being lied to. Given that the climatologists are purportedly highly educated, there’s no way they’d slip up on such an elementary issue… ergo, it must be intentional deception. The only other possible explanation is rampant incompetence on the part of the climatologists.
This means that the offshoots of CAGW… “Net Zero”, “carbon footprint”, etc. are as equally useless as CAGW… because a proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and the proper application of the S-B equation shows that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant (two peer-reviewed empirical studies are referenced in the attached paper corroborating this), not a “global warming gas”.
If you’ve got an impartial physicist available, have them review the attached paper… you’ll find everything I write hews to the fundamental physical laws, and uses bog-standard thermodynamics, radiative theory, cavity theory, dimensional analysis, electrical theory and quantum theory.
Then ask a climatologist… they’ll claim it’s junk science… except it was all taken directly from physics tomes, and the climatologist is just attempting to protect their gravy train.Then ask the climatologist how their latest “Earth Energy Balance” graphic (remember that the “Earth Energy Balance” graphic represents the mathematics used in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs)) could possibly arrive at 398 W m-2 surface radiant exitance at their claimed 288 K average global temperature… that’s not even physically possible (you can do the calculation using the S-B equation to see this for yourself). Watch as they hem and haw in attempting to explain their junk science.
The attached paper is being distributed to (and warmly received by) lawmakers, judges, businesses and business associations, climatologists and physicists world-wide. A version is being produced so laypeople can easily grasp the concepts. We’ve also submitted proposals to governmental Educational Associations to include the scientific concepts within the attached paper in elementary and high school curricula. Soon, the entire world will know of the perfidy of the climatologists.
It’s time to reexamine your belief set, Nicole.
––––––––––
If anyone wants that paper, it’s here:
https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh
I sent a similar message today to Jonathan Overpeck and a few other climastrologists, Nate Loewentheil of Commonweal Ventures (who wants to purchase land to erect a monument to name-and-shame “climate deniers”), as well as the Illinois Trucking Association (because IL is considering CA-style emission laws for trucks), JBS Foods (because they’re being sued by the NY AG), ExxonMobil (because they’re being sued by Chicago) and a few other energy giants (with a legal maneuver to ‘poison the well’ such that it forces climate catastrophists to think twice before suing them, or risk exposing CAGW as a complex mathematical scam while getting it all on record in a court of law).
I predict we’ll see the climate catastrophists first attempt a shrill defense of their indefensible position via increasingly ridiculous measures, then fall silent as reality dawns upon them that the world is now onto their scam.
Back radiation is the LIE. Judges and politicians are lawyers, not physicists. They all could use a primer course in thermodynamics. My opinion is that if a lonely CO2 molecule up in the atmosphere is excited by infrared radiation, the energy is radiated in all directions, essentially sideways, then continues on to outer space. The only way that a molecule in air can warm the Earth is for it to create new energy, i.e. burn. Even then, at .04% of the atmosphere, the effect would be negligible.
We also have to keep in mind that there is an altitude / air density / mean free path length relation. As altitude increases, photon mean free path length (MFPL) increases exponentially.
This means that upwelling radiation has a longer net MFPL than downwelling radiation, and given the millions upon millions of times energy could be absorbed / reemitted before reaching space, that means photons have a “2 steps upward, 1 step downward” type of thing going on… our atmosphere literally augers the radiation toward space.
Further, we have to consider how radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere… the MFPL at the planet’s surface is ~10.4 m, and ~50% of the radiation is absorbed in the first 10% of that length, then ~50% of the remainder is absorbed in the next 10% of that length, then ~50% of the remainder is absorbed in the next 10% of that length, so on and so forth.
So at the surface, that would mean 100% of the so-called ‘backradiation’ would have to be coming from the first ~10.4 m of the atmosphere, and that would mean wholly 50% of that so-called ‘backradiation’ would have to be coming from within ~1.04 m of the surface, where there is practically zero energy density gradient between surface and atmosphere, thus there would be little impetus for photon generation.
When one scratches the surface of the claims made by the climate catastrophists, it bleeds out. It’s a very fragile beast.
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks, I’m responding to the socialism part of your comment. As an aerospace engineer I came up with solutions to significant technical problems. The result was huge savings for my employer. There were big sacrifices to obtain my engineering degree. This included two and a half years of no social life when I was in the rigorous engineering program. The only reason I did this was to benefit my future family with a better standard of living. If I had the expectation that socialism would be in effect I wouldn’t have sacrificed to get my degree and wouldn’t have been in position to make the contributions that I did. Socialism takes from those who have earned what they have in order to give to those that haven’t. This kills the ambition of those who can perform.
Real capitalists don’t surrender to socialism.
I sent a similar email to Vanessa Kerry… John Kerry’s daughter, who was seen in a video saying that we’d just have to get used to the idea that we’ll have to end all fossil fuel use.
It starts:
––––––––––––––-*
Greetings,
I’m sure you absolutely believe that fossil fuel use must be phased out… you’ve become emotionally invested in the narrative that you’ve bought into, but have you ever stopped to ask yourself, “What if I’ve got it wrong?”… have you ever seriously and in-depth investigated the claims made which led you to the beliefs you have?
What if I told you that one of the arguably largest claims which led you to your belief set could be definitively, mathematically disproved?
––––––––––––––-*
I get a kick out of imagining these leftist weirdos going into panicky histrionics as they’re force to examine their never-before-examined belief system. LOL
I encourage everyone to try it… it’s great fun. LOL
Using a bit of Google-fu, I found Javier Milei’s email address. He’s the new libertarian president of Argentina.
It’d be fantastic if he took my advice, cut off any funding to any UN climate programs, and implemented a program to teach the concepts in that paper to children in grade school and high school… that would ‘inoculate’ them against and lessen their anxiety over claims made by the climate catastrophists, it would reduce the likelihood of the children being radicalized into leftist environmental groups, and by the time they graduated high school, they’d be able to rebut the ridiculous claims made by the climate catastrophists with scientific rigor.
I just love spoiling the best-laid plans of climate catastrophists. LOL
I found the personal email address of Judge Sabrina McKenna (who is on record as stating that she believes climate change to be an existential threat… how she’s not required to recuse herself for inherent bias is beyond me), the judge in the climate lawsuit in Hawaii. I CC’d Stu Burguiere from the Glenn Beck program, and Alex Jones from InfoWars, just to keep her honest… she cannot say that she didn’t get the information.
It starts with:
––––––––––––––-*-
Greetings Judge McKenna,
You’ve stated that climate change (presumably you mean “anthropogenic climate change”) is “an existential threat”. It is now incumbent upon you to ensure that you’ve got your premise correct, given that you will be ruling on such topics in a court of law.
This is an issue upon which you are duty-bound to acquiesce to scientific reality… your political ideology does not matter, your personal beliefs do not matter, your feelings do not matter.
What if I told you that a proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and a proper application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation proves that you’ve got your premise incorrect?
––––––––––––––-*-
Then I emailed Sunoco (one of the defendants in the lawsuit) legal department with the same information (and I let them know that their judge has that information), along with that self-same “poison the well” legal strategy that either results in the plaintiff withdrawing the lawsuit, or the destruction of the entirety of CAGW and by extension all of its offshoots (net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, etc.).
Let the sparks fly! LOL
And the really great thing is, the climate catastrophists have no defense against that “poison the well” legal strategy… a judge excluding entry of provable and long-established and oft-corroborated scientific fact into the court record? That judge would be off the bench and disbarred so fast their head would spin. LOL
I emailed The Storting (Norwegian Parliament), which chooses those who award the Nobel Prize.
That email:
––––––––––––––-*-
Greetings.
It should be made known that your Nobel Committee’s awarding of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. and the IPCC was fallacious. Their entire premise was based upon the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis, which has been disproved.
Perhaps you should actually check the premise of claims made before you go awarding people.
In the attached paper, I definitively, mathematically disprove the CAGW hypothesis; I prove it is brought about via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation; I use the “Earth Energy Balance” graphic from Kiehl-Trenberth (it and all subsequent similar graphics represent the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models) as an empirical example of this mathematical proof; I further prove that what the climatologists claim to be happening blatantly violates 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and Stefan’s Law, and is hence unphysical.
Essentially, they are treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects… with emission to 0 K and emissivity of 1 (sometimes… other times they slap emissivity onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation while still assuming emission to 0 K… which is still a misuse of the S-B equation, for graybody objects).
This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that the climatologists carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end (to get their equations to balance) by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’… a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation.
As I show in the attached paper, the correct usage of the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense states that system energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (remember that while 2LoT in the Clausius statement sense only mentions temperature, temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant), that it requires “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time“… that “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon that system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient (which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators).
The “backradiation” claim by the climatologists implies that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just one of many blatant violations of the fundamental physical laws inherent in the CAGW narrative. As I show in the attached paper, this is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient).
In other words, the entirety of the CAGW industry is built upon a foundation of mathematical fraudery, and we’re all being lied to. Given that the climatologists are purportedly highly educated, there’s no way they’d slip up on such an elementary issue… ergo, it must be intentional deception. The only other possible explanation is profound incompetence on the part of the climatologists.
This means that the offshoots of CAGW… net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, carbon credit trading, etc. are as equally useless as CAGW… because a proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and the proper application of the S-B equation shows that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant (two peer-reviewed empirical studies are referenced in the attached paper corroborating this), not a “global warming gas”.
This doesn’t just apply to CO2, however. It applies to all atmospheric polyatomic molecules (in fact, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause, as I show in the attached paper). So while the climate catastrophists are attempting to shift from CO2 to CH4 (methane) as their climate bogeyman, it won’t work because their narrative still relies upon that same misinterpretation of the fundamental physical laws and misuse of the S-B equation.
These concepts used to be common knowledge. Somewhere along the way, the concepts got skewed to fit a particular narrative. Eventually, the concepts described herein will be common knowledge again, whereupon CAGW and its offshoots will be dumped on the midden heap of bad scientific ideas.
If you’ve an impartial physicist available, have them review the attached paper… you’ll find everything I write hews to the fundamental physical laws, and uses bog-standard thermodynamics, radiative theory, cavity theory, dimensional analysis, electrical theory and quantum theory.
––––––––––––––-*-
If anyone wants that paper, it’s here:
https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh
Time for all those Eco-Freaks who take up living in Grass Huts without Windows and no heat lets see them cope with that