SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1426256)11/23/2023 9:34:18 PM
From: Wharf Rat2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Eric
pocotrader

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574548
 
Plimer is a great non sense guy.

News Corp columnist Ian Plimer's climate denialism called out by press council
This article is more than 3 years old

Amanda Meade

Council finds November piece was inaccurate and misleading on weather records and polar ice caps. Plus: ABC millennials respond to Ita Buttrose

Fri 24 Jul 2020 00.21 EDT

An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in the Australian, which was condemned as blatantly false by climate scientists, has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. In November, his column titled ‘“ Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears” argued that there “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims.”

The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing of past weather records” and “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, as well as “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated”.

Despite a chorus of criticism at the time, the former editor John Lehmann defended Plimer’s article, saying “his voice is one of many which are important in the mix”.

In a lengthy adjudication the Oz was forced to publish on page two on Friday, the press council said the article contained inaccurate and misleading material in its claims that the Bureau of Meteorology had fraudulently changed weather records and that Plimer’s claims that there was no evidence polar ice was melting were misleading.

The newspaper breached two of the general principles of reporting: ensuring factual material is accurate (principle 1) and ensuring facts are presented with reasonable fairness and balance and opinion is based on fact (principle 3).

The council found that while it would have preferred Plimer’s links to the mining industry were disclosed in the column, the Australian did not breach guidelines in not disclosing because Plimer’s “past or present directorships of mining companies and advocacy in the debate around climate change were so well known” that it was not required.

Plimer is a professor of geology and well-known climate change denier who has served as a director of a number of mining firms, including Gina Rinehart’s Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments.

In reviewing the article last November, University of New South Wales professor Katrin Meissner wrote: “This article is an impressive collation of the well known, scientifically wrong, and overused denier arguments. It is ideologically motivated and, frankly, utter nonsense.”



To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1426256)11/23/2023 10:33:09 PM
From: Land Shark1 Recommendation

Recommended By
pocotrader

  Respond to of 1574548
 
Wrong



To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1426256)11/24/2023 12:46:44 AM
From: isopatch2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Maple MAGA
Mick Mørmøny

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574548
 
Agree.



To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1426256)11/24/2023 10:50:48 AM
From: IC7201 Recommendation

Recommended By
Maple MAGA

  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1574548
 
Another green environmental myth debunked. On forum EV’s were previously debunked when total life cycle environmental impacts of EV’s are compared to ICE vehicles. Currently 65% of energy to charge EV’s comes from fossil fuels.

The green environmental myth debunked here is offshore wind generation.

Article: wattsupwiththat.com

“Often overlooked are the other factors associated with wind energy that actually drive-up emissions. For example, supply chain emissions from constructing offshore wind facilities to replace existing generation facilities will be very large. Supply chain emissions include those arising from all the steps required to create an offshore wind facility: mining and processing the necessary metals and minerals, manufacturing components, constructing turbines and substations on site, and operating, maintaining, replacing and ultimately decommissioning and landfilling worn out, damaged and obsolete equipment. They also include the myriad transportation steps along the way, via ship or truck.”

Reasons for debunking offshore wind energy very similar to debunking EV’s. Life cycle environmental impacts of green energy compared to fossil fuel alternatives when compared “honestly” do not pan out.


Oops, almost forgot, wind energy kills millions of birds and I like birds.

****

The Polluter Elites:

The very people flying to Davos annually on their private jets are responsible for the majority of environmental pollution. The globalists are the “ polluter elites” who want to implement prohibitions on consumption for the masses. The Guardian recently reported that the top 1% produce more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%. The climate change agenda is purely a control tactic, control over our tax spending, energy and food consumption, and freedom of movement. The very people preaching that we must abandon our way of life to save the world KNOW that it is a sham.

sham.



The Guardian partnered with Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Institute, for “The Great Carbon Divide” study. As of 2019, the top 1% were responsible for 5.9bn tonnes of CO2 emmissions or 16% of all emissions. “The report found it would take about 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99% to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires do in a year,” the article notes. “This elite also wield enormous political power by owning media organizations and social networks, hiring advertising and PR agencies and lobbyists, and mixing socially with senior politicians, who are often members of the richest 1%,” the report stated. Furthermore, 25% of Congress owns stocks in fossil fuels worth between $33 million and $93 million.



So the very people who want to ban gas stoves, kill off livestock, end private car ownership, and force the public to consume insects are the same people responsible for these so-called deadly carbon emissions.

Take Jeff Bezos. He owns the Washington Post and can adjust the public narrative as billions yield untold power. He had a bridge deconstructed so that his mega yacht could push through, and he owns numerous jets, yachts, you name it. Yet he also pledges millions each year to support the climate change agenda geared toward punishing the average person for weather patterns. His paper publishes articles warning of the coming end of the world due to the Great Unwashed simply existing. Worse still, the corporations these polluter elites own are responsible for more CO2 emissions than any amount the average person could expend in their lifetimes.

Rules for thee, but not for me. Hence it is absolutely ridiculous that there is current legislation in place aimed at limiting our energy and food consumption that was written by the very people responsible for their proclaimed crisis. armstrongeconomics.com