For years in their quest to claim “green” energy status, European leaders have shut off their own domestic production of oil and gas in favor of a pipeline from Russia.
Their goal has been to lower emissions and claim energy moral superiority while rejecting the reality that modern societies cannot function without fossil fuels. [bold, links added]
Now, as Russia wages a war on Ukraine and uses gas production as a weapon against the West, European countries are starting to see their so-called “green” energy revolution backfire in a spectacular fashion.
“Germany will restart coal-fired power plants and offer incentives for companies to curb natural gas consumption, marking a new step in the economic war between Europe and Russia,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“Berlin unveiled the measures Sunday after Russia cut gas supplies to Europe last week as it punched back against European sanctions and military support for Ukraine.”
“Russia’s gradual cutting of gas supplies has raised the specter of a potential fuel shortage if Europe goes into winter with less-than-full stowages. It has also raised prices, putting additional pressure on economies that are already struggling with high inflation and rising borrowing costs and face the prospect of a recession,” the report continues.
Meanwhile, President Joe Biden continues to plunge the United States into economic ruin by pursuing his alternative energy agenda, which has already led to record gas prices and a looming national security crisis through the depletion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
DOOCY: "How much lower can we let the strategic petroleum reserves get before that becomes a problem?"
Kirby doesn't give a firm answer. pic.twitter.com/MfNXn5jREf
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 15, 2022
While vowing to destroy the oil and gas industry in the U.S., Biden is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia next month in pursuit of increased oil production and supply.
Like virtue-signaling European leaders, Biden knows the U.S. needs oil but refuses to allow it to be produced domestically in order to maintain “moral superiority” on the issue of carbon emissions.
Read more at Townhall
It is still a weapon though, isn’t it.
It also seems you want to be totally dominated and controlled by Putin, who illegally invaded a sovereign state in an attempt to recreate the USSR.
The incompetence was being friendly with Putin . whilst simultaneously threatening the PRC. which means the PRC is now getting lots of cheap oil and gas rather than denouncing Putin.
There is a very good reason London has been known as Londongrad isn’t there. There are also a lot of Russian tr0lls around, aren’t there.
“Now, as Russia wages a war on Ukraine and uses gas production as a weapon against the West…”
Sorry to correct you, but Russia is not using natural gas production as a “weapon against Europe”. Europe and the whole West has put “sanctions” on Russia by not buying Russian gas or oil. This desperately stupid strategy has created a stronger Ruble and a weaker Euro and Dollar. We are draining our own economies without even being threatened. Russia didn’t have to lift a finger. Our leadership, across the board, is incompetent.
We are suffering from self inflicted wounds.
Obama living so close to the Beach if Global Warming was for real he would living in a state further inland also had Propaine Tank installed
Why don’t you try thinking for yourself rather than parrottin FF propaganda?
“Obama bought a house right down near the water when we are all going to be flooded by monstrous sea level rises.” Pray tell, what are the predicted changes in sea level, and whilst you’re at it tell us about coastal subsidence.
“Then there is the fabled fiction of Polar bears as the poster child for climate fruitcakes. That didn’t quite work out as planned, did it?” Pray tel.l what you are referring to?
“Then we have Attenborough with his walrus over the cliff lies when they were stampeded by a hungry polar bear” No.
” There is so much more to ask about your “religion.”: I have found that those who make such inane claims, and not just about the fact of AGW tend to be overly religious. They also tend to believe all and any conspiracy theories that come along.
Why don’t you learn some science?
“The Earth’s temperatures are within normal, historical, natural variability”, is a conspiracy theory? I don’t think you understand the meaning of “conspiracy theory”?
When somebody tells you that the world will come to an end in 20 years if we don’t immediately stop using fossil fuels, and they have been repeatedly telling you this since 1984, and then you look it up and discover that other people were repeatedly told the same thing, starting in 1904, then you know that you are dealing with a conspiracy theory. A very absurd one.
Polar bears? Today Dr. Susan Crockford reported that there is a new, 20th sub-populaton of polar bears located in southern Greenland. How’s that extinction working out for you.
How many bullsh*t lies are you willing to accept before you start using a little critical thinking.
Why did you change the subject?
I asked : Pray tell, what are the predicted changes in sea level, and whilst you’re at it tell us about coastal subsidence. Why no answer?
I note your response about Polar Bears in no way answered my question. That a new population has been discovered does not mean other populations are not decreasing, does it, so why are you being dishonest?
“When somebody tells you that the world will come to an end in 20 years” Who told you that? The common position is that the environment will continue to deteriorate not that the world will come to an end. That is misinformation spread by dishonest alarmist deniers. So the conspiracy theory is what you are claiming, isn’t it.
Now, what about seas level change?
Hey David or is it Al as in Gore, a few questions for you with all your “facts” Please explain why about 50 plus years of doom and gloom prophesies why has not ONE of the high ranking, rich and influential peoples’ nonsense has ever happened? Like here in Australia with Tim (Flim Flam) Flannery telling us and the world that our dams would never be filled again. Then he, like USA climate nut Obama bought a house right down near the water when we are all going to be flooded by monstrous sea level rises. Also just read the latter has had a huge fuel tank placed on his property, surely for the dreaded ‘fossil’ fuel he pretends to hate. What about the fake stories of Pacific Islands being inundated? In reality a huge survey showed most are actually growing? Then there is the fabled fiction of Polar bears as the poster child for climate fruitcakes. That didn’t quite work out as planned, did it? Reasonably sure that it was overhunting that their numbers declined because as soon as that was banned, they rebounded. Then we have Attenborough with his walrus over the cliff lies when they were stampeded by a hungry polar bear. Oh and by the way on sea level ‘rises’ that created such a drama that National geographic made a whole edition for the cause and lost what little credibility it had left. The Green movement/ Climate Change is absolutely nothing about the environment and everything about control and money and even you cannot deny it. Onother one, ethanol, the product that is partly produced by cutting down rainforests in South America and Asia to provide the materials for said fuel. Hardly green in anyone’s language. Then the question of the rich climate activists flying off in their private jets to their talkfests, too pompous to take a normal flight with normal people, then pontificate to everyone else what they should be doing but never, ever do it themselves. There is so much more to ask about your “religion.”
Why haven’t you repudiated any of the fact I have provided and just responded with ill informed conspiracy theories.
Like all virtue-signaling denoers you wilfully ignored the main reason for the problem, which is Germany’s ill advised decision to abandon nuclear energy, but to have stated that would have totally destroyed your virtue-signaling wouldn’t it.
“Climate Science Primer: Curious Anomalies in Climate Science”
Professor Bob Carter. RIP, when asked to publish his “research”, he point blank refused, but he was well paid by Murdoch.
Segalstad used incorrect interpretations of laws and geochemical data and completely neglected of published measurements. He is another one when repeatedly asked to publish his “research”, point blank refused.
“1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism” Studies tghewm, theyt are all bunkum.
“Nobody can truthfully say that scientists sceptical of manmade global warming are kooks or crooks, or simply in the pay of Big Exxxx, or that there is a consensus – as Al Gore claimed.” Oh yes they can, and justifiably so.
“I have, throughout, tried to judge the science on its own merits, not by whether it has been peer-reviewed and supported by official science. ” And yet all this site does is post political rhetoric.
Monckton of Brenchley. The laughing stock of the UK, facts and science.
“I’ve done my best, but I’m still learning and I still make silly mistakes sometimes.” All of what you posted were silly mistakes.
What a load of ill informed claims. “Life was born in CO2 levels more than twenty times those of today. In an atmosphere completely without O2! Indeed, but that life was aquatic and the CO2 level in the oceans was low, but as life in the seas developed, plants evolved to become terrestrial and produced the atmospheric O2 we rely on. All extant avian and terrestrial species evolved when CO2 was around 200 ppm, then with the onset of the Industrial Revolution it started to rise, to 295 ppm a hundred years ago to 415 ppm today.
“any addition of CO2 to our atmosphere makes life greener, stronger, more drought-tolerant and abundant.” Only with the addition of large quantities of water and nutrients that are not available in nature. So we can totally ignore the rest of your diatribe.
“And solar panels and windmills just can’t do it.” Nobody is claiming that, other than you deniers. Why are you ignoring nuclear, hydro, geothermal, tidal and so on? Because that totally destroys your belief system is why.
Life started when there was no oxygen on earth. Blue green algae provided earth with an atmosphere containing oxygen, perhaps as long ago as 3.5 billion years. The first land plants appeared 470 million years ago when the estimated carbon dioxide level was 5,000 ppm. The first amphibians appeared 363 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was just below 2,000 ppm. The first mammals appeared 210 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was 1,500 ppm. The first angiosperms, flowering plants, appeared 247.2 million to 242 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was about 1,800 ppm. It is accurate to say that the life we have today evolved under much higher levels of carbon dioxide. My reference for the Earth’s historical level of carbon dioxide is Berner RA Kothavala Z (2001) GEOCARB III: “A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time”
All very true, but totally irrelevant for all life today as all extant flora and fauna evolved when the CO2 was around 200 ppm, then with the onset of the Industrial Revolution it started to rise, to 295 ppm a hundred years ago to 415 ppm today.
We are not the same mammals etc. that existed 300 mya, are we, so why are you trying to make out we are?
So, all life is different today than when it first evolved. Note that some green house operators run their houses at 1,800 ppm carbon dioxide, the same level carbon dioxide was at when angiosperms first evolved.
“So, all life is different today than when it first evolved.” Not sure ew=what you are getting at, but yes, we evolved from aquatic creatures but drown if stay underwater.
“Note that some green house operators run their houses at 1,800 ppm carbon dioxide, the same level carbon dioxide was at when angiosperms first evolved.” So? They are not cultivating primitive angiosperms are they, so you are being being somewhat disingenuous, to be polite.
Extaqnt angiosperms evolved at 200 ppm, but as with all other life they can be force fed. Ever watched sumo? Or body building nuts? Have you tried foie gras?
You are obviously fully aware that the articles publicised here are garbage so why do you agree with them?
Two hundred seventy studies of 83 food crops show that increasing carbon dioxide by 300 ppm increases yield by an average of 46%. My reference is Idso 2014 CD, Idso Carter RM et al (2014) climate change reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. Heartland Institute, Chicago. An increase of 300 ppm is greater than the increase we have had since the industrial revolution but the studies are constant with satellite images showing a greening of the earth. When any nutrient needed for plant growth is at a suboptimal level, increasing it continually will eventually reach a limit of other nutrients. However, an increase 300 ppm of carbon dioxide has not reached those limits. That would be a level of 700 ppm. Other studies have shown that a carbon dioxide level of 280 ppm results in 8% less growth compared to levels of today.
More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more moisture in the soil. A major cause of water loss is the need for plants to have their pores open to adsorb carbon dioxide. More carbon dioxide means the pores have to be open for a shorter period of time so there is less water loss. My reference is Swann AL, Swann S. Hoffman et al (2016) Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity PNAS113(36):10019-10024
“My reference is …. Heartland Institute,” A front for the FF industry using the exactly the same tactics it used when it was a front for the tobacco industry. Anyone believing anything emanating from Heartland needs to take a long hard look at their critical thinking abilities.
Plants, Amazing, for once a denier used an actual peer reviewed paper. Why not do it for all your claims/
“Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations allow plants to reduce water losses per unit of carbon gain (12), in part by reducing stomatal conductance when the gradient of CO2 between the atmosphere and the leaf interior increases. If leaf
area stays the same, this physiological response has the potential to reduce water losses”
Rather a lot of assumptions and requirements there. So yes, there is a possibility. OK.
Your standard response to anything that doesn’t support you narrative is to attack the source. That doesn’t cut it. What about citing some results that show that increased carbon dioxide doesn’t enhance plant growth? There was one group that supports the climate change narrative that conducted an experiment that show growth in a forest was enhanced by increased carbon dioxide.
I have provided links before. Didn’t you access them?
https://whistleblower.org/politicization-of-climate-science/global-warming-denial-machine/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
https://climateinvestigations.org/who-is-paying-for-heartland-institute-climate-denial-palooza/
“Roger Bezdek, Craig D. Idso, David R. Legates, S. Fred Singer” All of whom have been thoroughly discredited numerous times.
For example Legates wrote: “…Cook and colleagues asserted that 97.1% endorsed their hypothesis that humans are the sole cause of recent global warming.” No they didn’t. What they were looking at wasn’t any sole cause of recent global warming. The categories were based on 50% or more of global warming. It’s attribution papers that have found that human activity is the cause of probably all the global warming since 1950 (and some of it prior to 1950).” That is standard denierspeak, i.e. totally misrepresent the data and facts.
Again “Moreover, consensus and votes have no place in science.” Proving he either knows nothing about science and the scientific method or is lying.
The left hates the energy, fossil fuels, that have made us the best fed, longest-living, most prosperous human beings that have ever existed. They have no idea that fossil fuels are THE ONLY GREEN ENERGY. Because fossil fuels recycle the dangerously low levels of the life essential trace gas CO2, without which life cannot exist. Here’s how it works… Life was born in CO2 levels more than twenty times those of today. In an atmosphere completely without O2! At any level of life essential CO2 below 2,000ppm, life begins to starve for more CO2. We know this because any addition of CO2 to our atmosphere makes life greener, stronger, more drought-tolerant and abundant. Greenhouse growers and biologists have known this for a century. It is because ALL LIFE DEPENDS ON CO2 FOR LIFE TO EXIST. This is true because the most important process in life on earth is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis IS what makes the environment green. It provides the carbon that composes life’s structure – all of them. ALL life is composed of little carbon sacks of water, which we call cells. Photosynthesis absorbs sunlight energy, CO2 and water and converts them to the high-energy organic bonds of sugar and releases atmospheric oxygen that’s of no use to plants or photosynthetic single-celled photosynthetic organisms. Using fossil fuels not only releases energy, it releases the same two molecules that create life on earth – CO2 and water. That is how fossil fuels are our ONLY GREEN ENERGY. As conservatives, we have to stop allowing the left to lie with their use of language. Solar panels and windmills have nothing to do with being “green”. On the grid all they do is redundantly drive up the cost of energy. Because civilization requires energy 24/7/365. And solar panels and windmills just can’t do it.
What a load of misinformation and distortions of reality.
“Read more at Townhall” A biblical literalist, science and fact denying conspiracy theory site.
What was that about your stated aim of fighting fight junk science when you are actively promoting it?
Time for prince Charles to take up living in a tent
Time for you to get in touch with reality.
I am in touch with reality you moron
So who is using your name to post all the inane comments then?