Commenting on a conspiracy theory that she has a secret fortune of more than $1m (£900,000), Ms Thunberg said: “That is because I won an award that was worth €1m.
“I have won many awards that are worth even more, but I’ve donated all my money. Of course, they don’t care about that.”
flying no she sails wind powered so that is a BIG one and she did get a HS D and attended a U and got paid for being a student ! more lies
d- for BS not fact checked aka lying to this board
Not a thing you linked refutes that she is rich. Of course they all ignore her "family money". All those articles also seem to be posted ahead of the one I posted. (So she took a sailboat. Once. Made for good press. And they lapped it up, like good lapdogs.)
Regardless, she's still getting rich(er) because of her activism. Even more than I would have ever dreamed. Donates it? Sure. Sure she does. (So do the Red Cross and Goodwill. Right?) I'm sure she even has the paperwork to document it.
Like I said... she knows where her bread is buttered, and by whom. The fact that she has lots of bread doesn't mean she doesn't want more. (That's how you seem to feel about other wealthy people. Deal with it.)
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 12-19-2023).]
"Leftists are lying simps"... from the same guy who was duped by the "Ice Berg" meme. Yeah, right. Can you believe it? That was the meme that didn't stop after picking the "dinosaur's" pocket, but went on to steal his trousers for good measure. Left him standing outside in the cold in his BVDs.
He fell for the effin Ice Berg meme! Were there leftists behind that? Really? Was that a "false flag" meme, set up by leftists to look like it came from right-wingin' climate deniers?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-19-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: He fell for the effin Ice Berg meme! Were there leftists behind that? Really? Was that a "false flag" meme, set up by leftists to look like it came from right-wingin' climate deniers?
He fell for something true ?
Al Gore, the God Father of Global Warming came up with that belief.
Originally posted by cliffw: He [Wichita] fell for something true?
This "Ice Berg" meme models the melting of an iceberg, or ice that is floating offshore, as in the Arctic and Antarctic latitudes. That's "sea ice."
It does not model the melting of "land ice" like the Greenland ice sheet and the huge glaciers that cover the land of the Antarctic continent. The melting of land ice in a warming global climate is what climate researchers factor into their projections of sea level rise.
An iceberg does not cause sea levels to rise as it melts. It causes sea levels to rise when it "calves"... when it breaks off from the edge of a glacier that has reached the coastline and goes into the sea. This process is driven by the thawing of glaciers, which lubricates the underside of a glacier with meltwater and causes it to flow downhill, towards the sea.
When a glacier goes from the land into the sea, either by the calving of icebergs or by meltwater flowing into the sea from rivers and streams—that's when sea levels rise.
It's obvious when it's glacial meltwater flowing into the sea. But when it's the calving of an iceberg, that causes sea levels to rise by displacing an amount of seawater equal to the mass of the iceberg... Archimedes principle of buoyancy.
What the Ice Berg meme overlooks is that the level of the water in the measuring cup did increase in this humble, kitchen table science experiment—when the ice from the freezer was floated on top of the water that was already in the measuring cup. That's what would model the calving of an iceberg.
It was Wichita who posted this canard without adding any words of his own, as if he were the legendary Oracle of Delphi, majestically revealing "Truth" to an awestruck audience—and in so doing, unwittingly revealing himself as the climate science equivalent of The Emperor Without Any Clothes.
Originally posted by Wichita here: Remember that these leftist purple haired, gauged earlobes, fat tatted people who never graduated from college, but were granted 'emergency' teaching certs who only want to teach about sexual lifestyles are the ones teaching your children in these government schools.
Is this what Wichita's science teachers were like?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-19-2023).]
"Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions" Ben Dawson, Julia Drewer, Toby Roberts, Peter Levy, Mathew Heal and Nicholas Cowan for PLOS ONE; December 13, 2023. https://journals.plos.org/p...journal.pone.0295157
Originally posted by rinselberg: The melting of land ice in a warming global climate is what climate researchers factor into their projections of sea level rise.
When a glacier goes from the land into the sea, either by the calving of icebergs or by meltwater flowing into the sea from rivers and streams—that's when sea levels rise.
A discerning person would ask how that glacier developed it's ice.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Archimedes principle of buoyancy.
Ah yes. I remember him. We used to drink beer together. He still thinks the world is flat.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It was Wichita who posted this canard without adding any words of his own, as if he were the legendary Oracle of Delphi, majestically revealing "Truth" to an awestruck audience—and in so doing, unwittingly revealing himself as the climate science equivalent of The Emperor Without Any Clothes.
Of course he is not the Oracle of Delphi of Global Warming. You are.
(Unfortunately, the article seems to not allow copying of its text. Here are screen grabs from that article.)
I don't know if that website is very accurate. I remember looking up two people whom I knew personally (not like I hang out with them, but I know them), and what was on there was totally incorrect and really exaggerated. I know she comes from a fairly well-off family, but I would just be suspect of that website... it seems a bit outrageous.
Originally posted by cliffw: Joe six pack does not own a private CO2 spewing jet, Like our Global Warming Czar John Kerry.
Taking that data plot from Wichita at face value, the only thing it represents is Emissions. It's an attribution of the amount of Greenhouse Gas Emissions per human individual, broken out by Income Level. But what are the implications?
How do the funding and other resources that support ongoing Climate Mitigation and Climate Adaptation efforts shape up, and how could that be attributed on a per human individual basis, broken out in a similar way by Income Level?
Are the "big Emitters" also the "big Donors", in terms of who is paying for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation efforts that are part of (for example) the Inflation Reduction Act? How do the federal and state tax revenues and other resources that support Climate Mitigation and Adaptation efforts line up, when broken out in this same way by Income Groups? For the United States and for other countries and the entire world?
This is like so many of Wichita's other "manifestations" on this forum: It's only "part of the story."
Wichita's data plot may be a powerful argument that the U.S. and other countries should be moving farther towards the "Left" in terms of governance and economics. (Try to imagine Wichita's frowning face as he reads this sentence, if he were to read this sentence.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-21-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: How do the funding and other resources that support ongoing Climate Mitigation and Climate Adaptation efforts shape up, and how could that be attributed on a per human individual basis, broken out in a similar way by Income Level?
Funding ? Is that code for theft by Global Warming Cultists ?
Did you have a parrot on your shoulder? Is that how you learned to parrot what you hear?
NO SAM GRABBED THE PARROT I did not want one on the boat stink and cage size so he took it when a stray parrot landed on the boat yard fence never did see any one claim that one lots of others had them
inc the kibbutz kids on the old wood sail boat that drown the cougar had a huge blue and gold that squacked pre dawn every day we did have lots of very crazy/interesting/stray people but few were sad to see the pre-dawn squacks sail on way louder then a rooster
6ft handcarved stika spruce blade 2x4 blank forget the naca foil numbers buddy did with a grinder in a 1/2 hour freehand bike crank bearing to an car alt by belts set up on top a broken mast 5 - 10 amps in normal 10 to 15 mph winds cost about $100 total even got a tax credit for more
sort of common prior to cheap solar on anchored boats
Babble from the rabble that's addicted to the insipid memes and cartoons that circulate on social media.
But reality continues it's regular programming; to wit:
"Pattern Energy Breaks Ground on $11 Billion Clean Energy Project"
quote
Pattern Energy has sealed an $11 billion non-recourse financing deal and launched the construction of SunZia Transmission and SunZia Wind.
This initiative marks the largest clean energy infrastructure project in U.S. history.
The SunZia Transmission, spanning 550 miles with a ± 525 kV high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line, links central New Mexico to south-central Arizona. It boasts the capability to carry 3,000 MW of clean, dependable, and cost-effective electricity across Western states.
This transmission line will transport clean power generated by Pattern Energy’s 3,515 MW SunZia Wind facility, set to become the largest wind project in the Western Hemisphere. The wind farm is underway across Torrance, Lincoln, and San Miguel Counties in New Mexico.
The groundbreaking financing structure encompasses an array of financial instruments, including an integrated construction loan, letter of credit facility, term facilities, tax equity term loan facility, and a holding company loan facility. . . .
Pentagon's Climate and Environmental Research Programs
As the White House and private sector rush to develop the next breakthrough in climate technology, two small offices inside the Pentagon are funding research into everything from solar panels to building efficiency systems that could someday be commercialized.
The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the related Environmental Security Technology Certification Project (ESTCP) have a strategic aim for their work: to help defend US national security.
But “if we can get leverageable value out of our investment that we make for the military mission, that is a win for everyone,” said Kimberly Spangler, executive director of both SERDP and ESTCP. “That’s a win for the American people.”
SERDP funds research and development work done in the lab, and is the Defense Department’s only environmental R&D shop. ESTCP funds the demonstration and validation of environmental and energy technology in the field, to help technology developers overcome the barriers to commercialization, according to Dorothy Robyn, the Pentagon’s former deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.
Together, the offices’ combined $211 million budget is a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s budget of roughly $800 billion. Yet they provide a vast range of projects that seek to conserve coral reefs, protect military equipment from extreme temperatures and corrosion, quickly detect heavy metals in drinking water, model the impacts of saltwater intrusion in anticipation of sea-level rise, retrofit vehicles to reduce fuel use while idling, develop low-cost photovoltaic devices, and more.
Return on Investment
The ultimate goal of SERDP and ESTCP is to help projects get to the commercial market so the military can buy and use them, said Robyn, now a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
“There are certain requirements that we know we’re going to need—let’s say, in volume or at scale—that we cannot afford to do alone,” confirmed Michael McGhee, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for environment and energy resilience. “We literally cannot afford to pursue boutique solutions to a unique set of requirements. So we’re looking to find the commercial applicability at the same time, to see if that technology is transferable, so that we can then find it in the marketplace and buy it back.”
“We have to have a return on investment dollars,” Spangler added. “It may be a different return on investment than the commercial sector would seek. Ultimately we’re looking for installations to be resilient so that we can project power from the homeland.”
In some cases, the Pentagon’s environmental work to support the military mission can cross into areas that don’t immediately seem relevant. For example, managing endangered species on DOD-owned land can help avoid regulatory restrictions that would limit the use of the land for military training, McGhee said.
Path to Commercialization
It’s notoriously hard to predict the commercial viability even of well-proven technologies, but the Pentagon has a strong track record of seeding research that later found wide use outside the military, such as GPS, satellites, jet engines, and microgrids, according to Robert Atkinson, a former program director at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
And while other agencies—most notably, the Department of Energy—may be bigger spenders on research and development that could help decarbonize the economy, the Pentagon’s advantage is that it has the buying power to prop up a new product or technology, Robyn said.
“The problem for DOE historically has been that they don’t have a clear customer,” she said. “They’re trying to anticipate the commercial market, and that’s hard to do. For DOD, you have supply and demand under one roof. And they’ve also got a budget with which to buy the stuff. It’s hard to beat that within the federal government.”
That strategy has worked in the past, according to William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
“Just because the Pentagon is such a big purchaser, if all they do is solarize their facilities and buy some EVs, that could bring some things to scale that would be harder to do otherwise,” he said.
Some of the military’s work has also been driven by Congress.
For example, lawmakers recently asked DOD to act on climate change issues, so the Pentagon produced a greenhouse gas mitigation plan earlier this year as a statutory reporting requirement. The military has also started developing tools to capture the possible impacts and consequences of climate change on its planning cycles, McGhee said.
Those types of investments are likely to grow even more in the future. The Pentagon started a new installation climate resilience program area in fiscal 2023, pouring $14 million into the development of advanced technology, and recently started a national innovation landscape network that looks at the impacts of different climate threats on military installations across the country.
Bloomberg columnist and retired Navy admiral James Stavridis is a former NATO supreme allied commander. He is dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He has never used "Wichita" as a screen name or pseudonym.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-02-2024).]
Offshore wind farms are causing (or will cause) whales to die in extraordinary numbers.
It' s a lie that's told by the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute and other people and groups.
It's a lie because there's no evidence to support it.
This easy-reading report eviscerates this lie, and describes how developers are working with public regulatory agencies to protect whales from the hazards of offshore wind energy construction and subsequent operations.
quote
One reason [that] whale advocates [are pushing] for renewable energy [including wind energy] is that they say climate change is harming the animals—and less reliance on fossil fuels would help solve that problem.
Scientists say global warming has caused the right whale’s preferred food—tiny crustaceans—to move as waters have warmed. That means the whales have strayed from protected areas of ocean in search of food, leaving them vulnerable to ship strikes and entanglements.
Large whales play a vitally important role in the ecosystem by storing carbon, so some scientists say they are also part of the solution to climate change.
"Contrary to [some] politicians’ claims, offshore wind farms don’t kill whales. Here’s what to know." Christina Larson, Jennifer McDermott, Patrick Whittle and Wayne Perry for AP News; December 23, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/...f5ef9e1530564ff791a9
It should be noted that there are a couple of them (contracts), but this was one of the bigger ones. BP and another company cancelled the project because of viability. Their "closing statements" were positive... but for anyone who's in business, this is to not bite the hand that feeds. They basically don't want to piss off the Biden administration, but are essentially saying it's not economically viable (meaning it will cost more than the return).
I still say we need more nuclear power... specifically, Gen-3 and Gen-4 power plants.
Some will scoff. Some will deny. Some will prejudge.
Who will watch with an open mind?
open to CORP-RAT PROPAGANDA ????
DO THEY PAY YOU ? MR [F s/b] ucker snarlson sure gets paid to spew lies he lies for putin he really really really loves putin even after the war started he still loves putin and lied for putin and lied for BIG OIL OR ANY ONE WHO PAYS HIM
NOTE A TREND YET ?
i DO
BTW NEW RECORD 2.5 OVER F SO SPIN AND LIE THE TREND IS REAL IT IS HOT IT WILL BE HOTTER IT WILL GET HOTTER AND HOTTER
THE TIPPING POINTS ARE FALLING
SHE IS A BETTER MAN THEN YOU
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 01-10-2024).]
Some will scoff. Some will deny. Some will prejudge.
Who will watch with an open mind?
I scrolled through it. I won't say that I watched it attentively from start to finish, but I sampled enough of it to satisfy myself that it's a nothing-burger.
Tucker Carlson interviews Willie Wei-Hock Soon, and Dr Soon—PhD in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Southern California, 1991—has nothing to undermine my confidence in what I guess could be called "canon" among mainstream climate scientists: that human-attributable greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at an alarming rate, and that the "percentage play" is for governments and societies all around the world to strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, always with an eye to "getting the most bang for the buck" in terms of how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. should strive for a leading role, internationally, and we should do our utmost to encourage other major greenhouse gas emitting nations like China and India to line up with us on this, and not against us.
I don't think that Dr Soon is saying anything important from a science perspective about global warming, and I don't think that he has any useful ideas for government and business leaders, or for the general public, in terms of how to think about global warming, and what to be for or against, where there are options to choose from.
"2023 Was the Hottest Year on Record"
quote
“Global temperatures reached exceptionally high levels in 2023,” said a new report out on January 9, 2024. The data is from Copernicus, the European Union space program’s Earth-observing program. We overtook the previous warmest year on record, 2016, by a large margin. We also had daily global temperature averages that surpassed pre-industrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius for the first time. And, in 2023, Earth had its hottest month on record. What drove the unprecedented heat? A combination of greenhouse gasses, El Niño and other natural variations.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-11-2024).]
You are both so close minded....both of you believe everything the media tells you, no questions asked.
Live in your self induced ignorance.
🎣
I have specific disagreements with what this Willie Soon was saying to Tucker Carlson.
About the sun and solar energy, for example. Dr Soon was talking about variations in the amount of solar energy as if it were some "X" factor that mainstream climate researchers were purposely or maybe inadvertently overlooking. But the fact is that there's been continuous monitoring of solar energy for the last "umpteen" years, with ground-based observatories that are designed specifically for that purpose.
I can't get into all the details of this, without reallocating the rest of my day here to research what's online about it, but I think this Willie Soon is sounding a "false note" when he talks about variations in solar energy as a way to debunk or undermine the "canonical" consensus of mainstream climate researchers that human greenhouse gas emissions are the only significant factor behind the recent, current and continuing observations that confirm global warming
This Willie Soon is talking up the perspective that says "We don't know enough, yet, to justify aggressive national and international measures to try to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions."
I disagree. I think we already know enough to say with confidence that reducing human greenhouse gas emissions is the "percentage play." It's better than not reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because whatever else is coming our way, and whatever else may yet be discovered, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is more likely than not to hold up as having been a good decision, when people look back on it in year 2050 and again in year 2100. It's a better bet than just waiting on it, as if something is going to happen that makes reducing human greenhouse gas emissions either undesirable, or easier to achieve in the future if we hold off on it, instead of working hard on it right now.
Sam Adams reducing human greenhouse gas emissions... always a good decision!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-11-2024).]
.
