20 Comments
Nov 10, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe

Is it even meant to make sense? Or is the environment/climate used as an excuse to bring in the 'New Normal' that they talk about which gives them more control and covers up the fact that their financial system is bust and they can't pay out people's pensions.

Expand full comment

Great article, as Jonathan Haidt proposes, a situation like this arises because in government and our institutions to a certain degree internal disagreement ceases, either because its people have become ideologically uniform or because they have become afraid to dissent. When going against any climate change policy became seen as climate change denialism or wrong, participants in our key institutions began self-censoring to an unhealthy degree, holding back critiques of policies and ideas, even those they believed to be ill-supported or wrong.

The most pervasive obstacle to good thinking is confirmation bias, which refers to the human tendency to search only for evidence that confirms our preferred beliefs.

The most reliable cure for confirmation bias is interaction with people who don’t share your beliefs. They confront you with counterevidence and counterargument. John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that,” and he urged us to seek out conflicting views “from persons who actually believe them.” People who think differently and are willing to speak up if they disagree with you make you smarter, almost as if they are extensions of your own brain. People who try to silence or intimidate their critics make themselves stupider, almost as if they are shooting darts into their own brain.

Expand full comment
Nov 11, 2022·edited Nov 11, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe

I read a similar analysis from Kenneth Shultz regarding renewable power generation manufacturing, just for Australia (not the larger population countries). The figures are truly eye-watering.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/10/logistics-and-costs-for-australia-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050/

The executive summary reads:

"This study will show that to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, Australia will need to:

1. Decommission an amount of fossil fuel-burning generators, vehicles and equipment that collectively consume 1,085,000 gigawatt hours of fossil fuel annually and replace with zero emission equipment.

2. Install 119,000 wind turbines over an area of 60,000 square kilometres, an area as large as the area of 3 million MCG stadiums. Construction and installation of the turbines will consume 36 million tonnes of steel and 145 million tonnes of concrete.

3. Install 6 million rooftop solar systems.

4. Build 22,000 solar farms.

5. For the 516,000 gigawatt-hours of fossil fuel-burning equipment that cannot be replaced, provide carbon offsets by planting 17 billion trees per annum for a total cost of $238 billion and a total land requirement of 201 million hectares, an area equivalent to 50 per cent of Australia’s total agricultural and grazing land.

6. Build 6 nuclear power stations at a cost of $92 billion

7. Emit 670 million tonnes of carbon dioxide during the manufacture and construction of the infrastructure

8. Spend an estimated total of $1.13 trillion."

Schultz's article helped to cement my view that the push for renewable energy is the second biggest hoax, behind COVID-19 (Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' also contributed!)

Expand full comment
Nov 10, 2022·edited Nov 10, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe

Net zero was always a fantasy. The sums never added up. The astronomical costs of trying (and inevitably failing) to power a developed economy using low carbon renewables were never communicated to the public. It might be argued that the true fanatics never bothered to look at the cost and the total impracticality and implausibility of their 'sustainable' pipe dream, but it is inconceivable that the politicians pushing this agenda have no idea that it can never work and that it will only result in massive societal and economic damage. They must have known. They must surely know now, yet they pursue this criminal Green agenda with dogged persistence, arguing that the alternative (not rapidly phasing out fossil fuels) would be far worse, for which there is no empirical evidence whatsoever. They know also that our efforts here in Western nations to get to net zero emissions will not be emulated by countries like China, Russia and India, therefore any modest drop in total global emissions achieved by us decimating our industries, societies and economies, will be more than made up for by the increasing use of fossil fuels in China especially, so overall, our efforts will not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades. They know this, yet they persist in punishing us with their net zero zealotry. This is not about maintaining a 'habitable climate', it is about top down control of entire populations, the massive redistribution of wealth and the intentional destruction of Western democracies.

Expand full comment

Hi Gary,

Im returning to this old article of yours to say thank you and to plug my new series, "Clean Energy Transition." Your article was inspirational and introduced me to Michaux and the IEA report.

Cheers,

JP

Part 1 - Australia

https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/full-broadsides-clean-energy-transition

Part 2 - Global

https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/clean-energy-transition-part-2

Expand full comment

I liked your article and its tone

Expand full comment
Nov 10, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe

I have campaigned against our delusional climate change policies for years, for far too long under my own delusion that its proponents were just a bit thick and could be persuaded to re-think. Most MPs probably are too thick but the leaders at the top who have been through the WEF training school (Sunak, Hunt, Johnson, May, Hancock …) will know the real truth.

It all becomes clear if you accept that “climate change” is nothing to do with climate, it’s just a tool of oppression.

Expand full comment
Nov 10, 2022·edited Nov 10, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe

I believe you know that I believe your conclusion is totally off-base. Your conclusion talks of (arghhh!!) incompetence and stuff like that:

"our glorious technocratic leaders are operating on anti-knowledge, and had never even thought to the back-of-the-envelope sums in the first place, let alone done them. I am afraid they are likely to drive of us off a cliff in their steadfast pursuit of a solution which appears to be a pipe dream, based on wishful and magical thinking . . . "

FORGET IT. It seems to me you have drunk a fair amount of the kool-aid. To see incompetence rather than, at the core, well-planned malevolence means, to me, something is hugely missing from what your are seeing. Look at my post from yesterday, for instance, which is a tiny demonstration of what is going on - - absolutely not incompetence: https://elsaiselsa.substack.com/p/how-did-we-get-here-how-did-the-education I believe you have looked. But what I show - and there are many more demonstrations of this - is not taken into account in what you write.

By the way, if you'd ever like to talk about this, I think we have loads of interests in common, as I see from my looking at your posts.

Expand full comment
deletedNov 10, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe
Comment deleted
Expand full comment