Is all of this nonsense just to further their agenda?
What message are they sending?
Would be great if they were dancing to re-instating God's Law, help reverse the curses upon us?
Is all of this nonsense just to further their agenda?
What message are they sending?
Would be great if they were dancing to re-instating God's Law, help reverse the curses upon us?
The UN has appointed popular Korean girl group as SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) ambassadors in order to help with their global promotion of the 17 SDG goals:
This will help to further increase the awareness of environmental issues and SDG among the younger generation especially.
On the surface, SDG goals may appear to many to be positive and to be changes that are needed.
However, the question that should always be asked and used as a criterion, is if goals are in harmony with and in line with God's Laws.
Scripture teaches that only as far as the goals of people line up with and are brought into harmony with the Laws of God, can any of it ultimately be a success, and that will apply to solving environmental issues as well.
. . . Our politicians and governments don't seem to be too concerned about the environmental catastrophes of recent years. They seem to be more concerned about lining their own wallets and getting as much for free as they can from the 'System', without being so blatant and obvious about it that they lose their much needed votes which keep them in their positions of power over the people.
Welcome to the JAH "Politics" page.
Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples (the Apostles), saying, "The scribes (lawyers) and the pharisees (politicians) sit in Moses' [Law] seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe of God's Law, that observe and do; but do not ye after their example: for they say, and do not (and make up their own laws against God's Orders - Deut. 4:2).
Ladder manufacturers are making the space between rungs larger due to people getting taller. ...manufacturers are blaming climb it change.
How EVs Don’t Save You Money
May 19, 2022
The headline probably has you thinking about the high cost of the EV – so high that whatever you “save” by not buying gas ends up costing you a great deal. But that is only one of the ways EVs don’t save you money.
Another one is tires.
EV tires wear out faster because EVs are much heavier than other cars – because EVs are weighed down by 1,000-plus pounds of batteries. For example, a Tesla Model 3 – which is a compact-sized car about the same size as a Honda Civic – weighs close to 3,900 pounds (two tons) empty. The Civic weighs just shy of 2,900 pounds – a difference of . . . 1,000 pounds.
That weight weighs down on the tires, which must absorb the load – which increases when the car goes around a curve or runs over a pothole. There is also the increased friction that comes from stopping that load, once set in motion. EV touters like to tout the fact – which is one – that EV brakes last longer because the EV uses regenerative braking to partially slow the car, rather than brake pads. Basically, the electric motors that propel the car are used to slow it – and convert inertia back to electricity, to help top off the batteries.
But the tires are still scrubbing against the asphalt.
Driving – and braking – a Tesla 3 is like driving (and braking) a Civic with my old Pontiac Trans-Am’s fully dressed (and cast iron) 455 V8 plus its transmission loaded into the trunk – and back seats.
EV tires are also expensive – in and of themselves. A Tesla Model 3, for instance, is shod with 18×8.5 inch wheels shod with P235/45/18 tires – and these are the standard tires. The optional 20 inch wheels are shod with P235/35/20 tires. Either of these are short-sidewall tires meant to emphasize performance, including sharp steering feel. Which they do. They also do not last very long – because they’re not meant to – and they aren’t inexpensive to replace. A quick look at Tire Rack bears this out. Replacement tires for a Tesla 3 range around $300-$370 per tire.
That works out to about $1,200 for tires – probably once every 25,000 miles or so. At that rate, you’ll be spending about $5k on tires over 100,000 miles – assuming the Biden Thing doesn’t cause that cost to increase to $10k, via further devaluation of the currency.
A Civic comes standard with 16-inch (steel) wheels that mount ordinary all-season tires you can buy for around $100 each that are usually good for 40,000 miles.
Also by buying the Civic, itself – which stickers for $22,550 or less than half the price of a new Model 3 ($44,990) and that’s for the base model with the crappy battery that provides about half the range that the Civic comes standard with. There is also the matter of the time you’ll save – by not wasting it at a charging station, including the “fast” ones – put in air-fingers quotation marks to highlight the etymological abuse of styling a 30-45 minute wait as “fast,” especially relative to the less than five minutes it takes to fuel up a non-electric car.
But – wait! – if I buy an electric car, I will save money on oil and filter changes! Certainly. In the manner of “saving” on utility bills via the purchase of a $500,000 house with triple-pane Andersen casement windows in place of a $250,000 house with double-pane standard-type windows.
Also, you will be spending money on other things related to the weight of the electric car, such as suspension components apt to need repair/replacement sooner because of the load they’re under. Electric trucks may be different – being trucks – and being fitted with heavy-duty truck suspension components such as coil and leaf springs, things which haven’t been installed in cars in years – even decades. The Tesla 3 has an adaptive (air-adjustable) front suspension with coil-over/twin-tube shocks suspension and a multi-link rear suspension, also with twin-tube shocks – similar to the suspensions found underneath other high-performance luxury-sport sedans. Plus the additional 1,000-plus pounds weighing down on it.
These suspensions are designed primarily for sporty handling attributes, not low-cost or longevity. The likelihood is that components will need to be replaced sooner – and it is a certainty the cost will be higher. Ask the man who owns a Mercedes – or a Lexus.
You will not be saving money, regardless.
Then there is the biggest maintenance cost of all – the battery pack. Which will cost you more, because it’s so huge – in order to move the EV at highway speeds for any significant distance. This, in turn, results in it being so heavy – which increases the amount of power needed to move it plus the car it’s installed in, reducing efficiency.
You do get the power – and the acceleration – but it costs you. Especially if you use either as doing so discharges the battery, rapidly – which means needing to recharge it more regularly. The “faster” you do that, the greater the load/stress imposed upon the battery, costing you battery life. And when the time comes to replace the battery, that’ll cost you more than it costs to replace a non-electric car’s transmission or engine – and maybe both, together.
Plus the oil and filter changes.
Buy an EV if it floats your boat. But don’t kid yourself that doing so is “saving” anything – including the Earth.
. . .
Some excerpts from this post about Charles being the green king:
We are at war - Good vs Evil.
Yes, we are.
After a summer of intense heat and record temperatures across many parts of Europe, the focus on climate change has again been intensified, and the Minister for the Environment, Sustainability, and Climate Change Dr John Cortes is concerned over Gibraltar’s progress on this pivotal issue.
Dr Cortes reflected on his frustration with the current state of play in terms of combating the changing weather patterns: “It should not surprise anyone that I feel that we need more progress on climate change. I have often stated that I will never feel that enough is being done on the environment.”
“This is part of who I am. I am worried about the future of our planet and it frustrates me that some people still need convincing, or simply won’t act with the urgency that we need.”
“A government cannot achieve the ambitious and important aims in a climate change strategy, which to me sets a minimum of what needs to be done, on its own.” He added.
“There has been significant progress including in the private sector, but society as a whole has to embrace the climate emergency with more vigour.
“Private individuals, business and all those in the private sector, and those directly or indirectly working in the public sector need to do more, more quickly, and be more ambitious.”
It is now closing in on a year since COP26 was held in Glasgow, where the main goals included limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees this century, and to secure net zero carbon emissions by the middle of this century.
Meeting the net zero target will be a Herculean task of accelerating the phase-out of coal and other fossil fuels that are major part of the global energy base, curtailing deforestation, speeding up the switch to electric vehicles, and also to escalate the investment in renewable energy.
Charles said "with trillions at his disposal". Who is "his"?
# Carbon dioxide isn’t a “pollutant” causing global warming, it’s the elixir of life itself
Thursday, November 17, 2022 by: Ethan Huff
Without CO2, all plant life would die – which means all humans and animals would also die. CO2 is plant food, after all, facilitating photosynthesis and the life cycle itself.
Removing CO2 from the planet like the climate cultists are demanding would render the entire world barren of life. It would quickly become a wasteland marked with death and destruction – and would certainly not be a paradise.
For the past several years, the corporate-controlled media, leftist politicians, and members of the Church of Global Warming have been telling us all that CO2 is a “pollutant.” Nothing could be further from the truth. (Related: CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures.)
“CO2 emissions from industrial processes of the last two centuries have been highly beneficial to plant growth,” writes Vijay Jayaraj.
“Scientific studies show that CO2 has played a significant role in the re-greening of the earth after abnormally low CO2 levels had limited much of the planet’s vegetation due to CO2 starvation.”
The massive increase in food production over the past century, which allows for the feeding of eight billion people worldwide, would also not have been possible without CO2 – not to mention slightly warmer temperatures in some areas that are more suited for agriculture.
Ironically enough, CO2 is also responsible for keeping the planet green, as in rich and lush with trees, fauna, and other plant life. Without CO2, the entire planet would be brown and barren.
For all of their talk about embracing a “green” agenda, the greenies are fighting against the very things that actually keep the planet green in color. Talk about insanity.
According to Scientific American, CO2 acts as a fertilizer to keep natural ecosystems intact. Forests, jungles, savannahs, tundra, and everything in between all rely on CO2 to thrive, keeping animals and humans alive as part of the food chain.
Amazingly, increases in CO2 from the pre-industrial age until now have allowed for “increased trees” productivity of around 23 percent. This means that CO2 is actively greening the planet and making it more livable.
“For most of the other plants humans eat – including wheat, rice and soybeans – having higher CO2 will help them directly … Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent,” says Francis Moore, a professor at the UC Davis.
Particularly in areas of the world that were not traditionally as favorable to agriculture, rising CO2 levels have helped to make their land more arable and productive for food. This means more people are able to eat.
In India, studies have found that farmers using greenhouses have been able to grow seven times more food using 90 percent less water, all thanks to rising CO2 levels.
“Eighty-two per cent of farmers in India have small-scale operations of less than five acres,” Jayaraj notes. “For them, greenhouse farms with elevated CO2 levels can prove to be a life-altering endeavour, especially when the entire greenhouse setup costs just $2,500.”
“I am celebrating CO2 not just for the greenhouse produce it feeds but for enabling and enriching life on our planet,” he concludes. “To demonise this elixir of practically all living things is pure insanity.”
Carbon dioxide isn’t a “pollutant” causing global warming, it’s the elixir of life itself
It was possible, in the past, to find a balance between low emission-levels and what the trees could recycle into oxygen. It is possible to have low carbon-dioxide levels with lots of trees to recycle it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have high levels with no trees and STAY ALIVE and that is what the Prophecies say. Man has already destroyed more than two-thirds of the world's trees and is rapidly working to destroy the last third, whilst also rapidly increasing emissions, and man THINKS that he is SANE.
The destruction of the Earth's rain forests by cutting (an estimated fourteen acres every minute) is constantly decreasing the production of oxygen (and rainfall) necessary for life, while other forests in Europe and North America are being poisoned by acid rain. The 'green-house' effect of overheating the Earth by excessive hydrocarbons and carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere, contributed to mainly by car-exhausts, is causing global-warming and the melting of the polar ice-caps and glaciers, causing raised ocean-levels and un-seasonal and adverse weather patterns, known as the El-Niño (Christ child), which was prophesied 2,500 years ago in 2 Esdras, as being one of the 'Signs of The End Time' and La-Niña weather effects.
November 9, 2022
THE shindig known as COP27 is now in full swing in the sunny Egyptian resort of Sharm El Sheikh. The great and good gathered there are being sent an open letter by Climate Intelligence (Clintel), an independent foundation launched by two Dutch men, geophysicist Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok, telling them precisely why they are wasting their time and our money. On the contrary, they are doing enormous harm.
It’s a brilliantly clear statement which deserves to be widely circulated to everyone deluded by the climate emergency myth, and particularly to our MPs who appear to have not the slightest idea what the consequences of Net Zero will be. This is the letter:
By the year 2030, historians will wonder with amazement how it could happen that the UN in previous decades had proposed far-reaching climate-related measures that totally failed to arrest global warming, but instead would have the unintended consequence of an unprecedented negative impact on the world’s prosperity and well-being.
They will wonder why many people at that time unquestioningly believed in an ‘existential climate crisis’. That crisis narrative was based on outdated ‘over-heated’ computer models, in turn widely supported by mainstream media. They will consider it beyond belief that a senior UN official in September 2022 audaciously declared that ‘we own the science, and we think the world should know it and the (social media) platforms also’.
Indeed, why did the UN and IPCC ignore Clintel letters (the most recent in October 2021), clearly pointing out serious scientific flaws in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report? Why did IPCC refuse any open debate on these flaws? Does the UN not realise that Clintel’s global network now embodies greater objective scientific knowledge than exists within IPCC?
They will wonder why the world did not loudly protest the spread of the superstition that climate science was fully understood (‘The Science is Settled’, the UN and politicians declared). That superstition regrettably led to legislation on totally unnecessary social engineering measures with net-zero CO2 targets (‘mitigation’).
Indeed, why didn’t the UN then want to let the world see that the mitigation measures they proposed were scientifically nonsensical, technically unfeasible, economically unaffordable and, ultimately, socially unacceptable?
Why did they not admit that mitigation even at a global scale – as already proven in the pandemic of 2020 – would have imperceptible effect on climate?
Why did they also not want the world to know about the fact that CO2 is an essential building block for life on earth? More CO2 is indispensable in making the earth greener. Looking at all the facts, more CO2 is much more likely to bring net benefits than net harm!
They will also wonder why an extremely expensive transition to intermittent renewables was pursued without realising that the transition would lead to major economic problems.
Indeed, why didn’t people then recognise that reliable energy supply with solar panels and wind turbines was technically impossible without the future availability of affordable large-scale electrical energy storage?
Why then didn’t people recognise that mass generation of solar and wind energy would create a serious shortage on materials such as copper and neodymium?
And why then were conventional fossil fuel power plants banned, particularly in Africa, while there was as yet no affordable and reliable alternative? Much of the serious energy crisis was erroneously blamed on the war in Ukraine; the reality however was that world leaders had not promoted investment in conventional reliable power generation to maintain economic well-being and societal stability.
Fortunately, today it is not yet 2030 and we still have time to make the necessary changes. What is needed to make that happen?
Here are three suggestions for you, the global political leaders:
Dear Excellencies, you are meeting at COP27 apparently to promote continuation of failed global climate policy. It would be a crime against the African people to require them to base their energy system on intermittent wind and solar power. After all, that would push the more than 1.3billion people there further into poverty. Economic development cannot happen without affordable and reliable energy supplies.
Africa must make full use of affordable indigenous fossil fuels for power generation, with a future plan for a network of modern nuclear power plants. With plenty of affordable energy, the supply of clean drinking water can also be guaranteed.
Next, full efforts should be made to apply adaptation technology, especially for growing tailor-made crops (‘precision farming’) and for securing against extreme weather (‘risk minimisation’). Those, as you well know, are the real and urgent needs of Africa.
The above points are the messages from Clintel to all of the global political leaders arriving in their private jets to attend the COP27 meeting in the luxury resort of Sharm El-Sheikh. We beg you, our political leaders, to be conscientious of the daily realities of grinding poverty of the forgotten people living on the African continent in the shadow of your flightpath.
one lie always calls for another