Scientism, Solar Panels and False Accounting

No the ecologically destructuve solar farms are not cheaper than a coal plant.

Wednesday, February 8, 2023 by StFerdIII
Full Article

An often-quoted Scientism declaration, is that solar panels and wind turbine or bird choppers, are less expensive than coal plants.  The Scientism than concludes that industrialised nations should de-industrialise and focus the energy needs of a modern economy on unreliable solar and wind power, which of course, provide very poor value in output for the roughly US$500 million to $1 Trillion, per annum investments which feed the ‘climate change’ industry.  The accounting fraud in declaring that solar is cheaper than coal for example, is similar to the Corona fraud and data manipulation of death rates from the ‘virus’ and the death rates post the stabbination programs in which the latter in reality, is 5 times higher, than the former.  

In reality wind and Solar ‘energy’ are NOT less expensive than Coal.

The claim by Scientism that poor value for money solar panels or bird-chopping turbines is ‘cheap’ is rather tendentious and full of the usual fraud one finds with cults of ‘The Science’.  These declamations clog up search engine inquiries and dominate the fake-science mass media.  As with Corona, the Quacksines, and other cults of ‘The Science’, the claim that digging up tonnes of earth to find rare materials for solar panels, and the related manufacturing, shipping and distribution of said panels, or the hydrocarbon manufacturing process and related operational costs and management of said useless wind turbines which run on diesel gas, being cheaper than a coal plant is ridiculous.

Solar Panel creation

Setting up a Solar Farm costs roughly U$115.000 per 5 MW of produced energy.  That is just the setup.  The total costs are in the region of $1 million per 1 MW of produced energy including operations, replacement costs and upgrades.  1 MW of energy supports 200 households.  To produce 1 MW of energy these solar farms will consist of roughly 72 solar cells linked over 6-10 acres, comprising some 500-1000 panels.  The total costs do not include soil degradation, ecological devastation, or the loss of farmland or other productive uses, which is called an ‘opportunity cost’ in accounting.  You will never see ‘opportunity costs’ included in the total cost of solar farm deployments.  Just as rare are the calculated costs for on-going maintenance, both material and human.

By contrast a single coal plant costs less than US$ 1billion to setup with maintenance costs of about $100 million per annum and produces 4.000 MW of energy and coal stations provide 40% of the world’s electricity.  We can do a simple comparison of coal versus solar energy.

Total costs over 10 years for a coal plant:  U$ 2 billion.

Energy produced over 10 years from a coal plant:  40.000 MW

Cost per MW produced over 10 years:  U$50.000

Total costs of a solar farm, over 6-10 acres, for 10 years:  U$ 10 million

Energy produced over 10 years: 10 MW

Cost per MW produced: U$ 1 million

So, in reality, coal plants are 20 times more efficient per MW than a solar farm.

The UK consumes 300 Terawatts of energy, each year.  Does anyone with a shred of common sense believe that a constellation of 6-10 acre solar farms, producing 1 MW of year is going to satisfy such a demand?  Solar panels may contribute 3% of UK energy usage today or a meagre 9 Terawatts.  Please note that official UK statistics vary the output of ‘renewables’ between 28 and 43% depending on the agency or reporter.  This includes nuclear energy.  Solar by itself is a small fraction of total output. If we strip out nuclear energy, and focus on solar, the zealots usually demand that solar should comprise 30% or more of energy output, necessitating the building of an almost unlimited number of solar panel farms.  100 Terawatts of energy produced by solar panels is equivalent to 1 million Megawatts. 

This means that the UK would need to have roughly, 1 million solar farms of roughly 10 acres in size, or 10 million acres under solar panels.  The current agricultural land availability in the UK outside of cities and forests is approximately 17 million hectares or roughly 40 million acres.  The eco-fanatics are demanding that ¼ of UK agricultural land be torn up and polluted by solar panel farms.  Or, they are demanding that some of the 8 million acres of woodland, already under pressure due to insatiable housing demands, be put under solar racks and despoiled.  On the other hand, the Gaia cult of course laments the loss of wild, forested or undeveloped land which are the exact targets for solar farm deployments.  Many farmers in the UK are offered government largesse to employ solar farms on their acreage and these subsidies of course are never accounted for in the cost of solar energy.  The UK government is also bribing farmers not to farm and to turn over their acreage to the bird and bat choppers.

David Craig wrote a very good book There is No Climate Crisis.  In the Daily Sceptic he takes the latest solar propaganda: “New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States.“ to task highlighting the fraudulent analysis and data used. 

He notes the massive government subsidies which are omitted from the costs of the beloved solar panels. 

“Here’s a U.S. Treasury ‘Factsheet‘ about the Inflation Reduction Act. In it we read that: The U.S. Department of the Treasury will be at the forefront of implementation, delivering $270 billion in tax incentives as part of the $369 billion the Inflation Reduction Act dedicates to combating climate change.”  U.S. consumers spend about $1 trillion on energy each year including transport. I did a quick ‘back-of-a-fag-packet’ calculation. If the USA’s 123 million or so households spend around $4,000 a year each on energy (excluding transport) then that’s about $400 billion. Yet the inflation Reduction Act is spending a massive $369 billion subsidising supposed ‘renewables’, which are just a minor part of the USA’s energy use. In fact, wind and solar make up only about 3% of USA energy use:

Yet these almost negligible energy sources are getting $369 billion in subsidies – that’s almost as much as the $400 billion U.S. households pay for in total for energy each year.”

Government accounting.  Xi Biden and his Green Totalitarian policies will pour out subsidies equal to the total energy spend in the US, to generate 3% of its actual production?  This idiocy is repeated in the UK and everywhere else.  Add in the dark side of panels, the ecological devastation of the solar panels, the destroyed farm and forest lands, the effects on wildlife, and you have a massively negative balance sheet.  Only an incompetent, immoral and deluded eco-zealot could possibly try to argue on their behalf. 

Scientism and the cult of Plant-Food as Satan

A trace chemical which falls out of climate processes, cannot cause the same.

Monday, January 9, 2023 by StFerdIII
Full Article

Scientism is the religious worship of ‘Science’, which is never defined, or simply references the ‘Scientific Method’.  There are many variations within any methodology including that of ‘science’, there is no single method of finding ‘fact’, or confirming a ‘natural law’.  Many roads exist within any methodology, a fact supported by anyone who has worked inside a methodological framework.  Scientism in its pure and faith-filled liturgy, simply venerates the authority of the abstract called ‘science’.  The acolyte and scientism laity believe in their deity of ‘science’ and are untroubled by the validity and integrity (or not) of data, the details, the approach, the conflicting interests, or the financial and political beneficiaries from ‘the science’, which is thrust forward and declared as fact.  Scientism is in short, a dogma of ignorance, a belief system that is opposed to rationality and one which demands obeisance, and which does not allow questioning, validation, replication, or data source verification.

We see the absurd insipidity of Scientism within the cult of the Plant Food catastrophists who historically, have ranged from the Ice Age extremists, to the Warming jihadis, and now the re-purposed Climate Change coalition of eco-terrorists and totalitarians.  Even given the morphological changes of the Plant Food-is-Satan-cult, the underlying foundation of this Scientism and associated millenarian theology is its incorruptible stupidity and anti-science.

Co2 in climate

There is such a paucity of Co2 in the atmosphere that we need to measure it in parts per million.  There is now just over 420 parts per million Co2 in our atmosphere, or 0.042% of the total.  This is a rounding error.  Rounding errors cannot cause climate any more than rounding errors in your bank balance will make you a millionaire.  Most of our atmosphere, some 99% is made up of Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (21%) which are not ‘greenhouse gases’ and don’t ‘trap heat’.  The rest are trace chemicals led by the redoubtable Argon (0.9%), and then the terrifying Co2 (0.04%).  Negligible quantities of methane, helium, neon and krypton make up the rest.  Note that the miniscule amount of methane in our atmosphere is also a raving-mad concern of the Plant Food cult, who regularly intone in various ‘scientific’ journals that methane release from a ‘melting Arctic’, would herald the end of the earth.  If the 90.000 seat Wembley stadium was the atmosphere, Co2 would occupy a mere 25 seats.  The Plant food-cult dogma is that (supposedly), Co2 has risen 50% from a ‘safe’ 280 ppm, to about 420 ppm.  Terrifying.  In the 90.000 seat Wembley stadium, Co2 has increased by 8 seats in the past 140 years. 

The main ‘greenhouse gas’, is of course water vapour not Co2, accounting for over 90% of ‘greenhouse gases’.  Even the IPCC admits that humans have no appreciable impact on water vapour.  The Fake News visuals of towers emitting what appears to be a smoky white substance and referring to this stream as ‘pollution’ or Co2 is mildly amusing.  They are showing water vapour of course.  Water, Co2, and methane have different levels of heat insulation.  Water vapour arises out of natural hydrological cycles, especially water released from oceans.  If temperatures were really ‘warming’ (they aren’t), water vapour given its potential to trap heat would be the main gas to worry about, and humans have a next to zero impact on water vapour concentrations.

Co2 has been proven to lag temperatures by many years, sometimes hundreds of years (an example is the August 2 2019 Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences paper on the Vostok Ice Cores).  The Earth’s atmosphere contains some ~750 billion tonnes or gigatons of Co2.  The oceans have around 37000 gigatons.  When sea water warms it released Co2 into the atmosphere.  When sea water cools, it absorbs Co2 from the atmosphere.  Instead of Co2 driving temperatures it is rather obvious that Co2 is derived from temperature and climate changes including various climactic cycles.  There can be a lag of several hundred years between the Earth warming and cooling and the level of Co2 responding to those changes, by rising or falling, depending on how long the atmospheric warming or cooling affects, warms or cools the oceans.  This is obviously true given that in times past the Earth’s temperature has been much colder (Ice Ages) when Co2 was much higher than today, or much warmer when Co2 levels were much lower than today.  In fact, according to long-age believers, the Earth’s temperature has declined from 25C to the current level of 13.9C in the past few million years with Co2 levels all over the place, both higher and lower than today’s level.

A real scientific principle is that Co2 greens the planet and allows for more crops to be grown, and for plant, bush and tree life to flourish.  This is why flower growers pump Co2 into their greenhouses, to levels of 1500 ppm, extracting 30-50% more production.  This Co2 concentration level is far above our current level of 400 ppm.  It could easily be reasoned and defended that the ‘natural’ level of Co2 should be double or triple the 400 ppm, which would allow a flourishing of plant and crop growth.  The Plant Food is Satan cult, of course completely ignores the beneficial effects of Co2.

Further reading:

·        Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.

·        Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.

·        Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600

·        Mudelsee (2001) - Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.

·        Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.

·        Excellent summary of the papers on the lag at CO2 science.

ClimateGeddon, Greenhouse Gas Myths and 'Fossil Fuels' propaganda

Scientism and Fake Science

Monday, November 28, 2022 by StFerdIII
Full Article

Scientism and Siberia or would it be Climate Hell?

Scientism is simply a religious devotion to using methods and technology, to understand and manage the material elements of our world.  Scientism as a religious doctrine espouses that only the material exists, and that metrics, mathematics, calibrations, and application technology should be used to understand, manage and control the world and humans.  No other doctrine, point of view, spirituality, faith dogma, emotionality, or Christian observance of the world of the 5 senses and beyond, is allowed.  Everything must be measured, categorised, labelled, using technology and ‘science’.  That is all which matters in life.  Further, the human is not unique according to scientism.  You are simply a node on a system, part of the cybernetics, and the ‘Internet of Things’ and in the ‘things’ on the network of surveillance and control, you the human, are not even the most interesting or worthy.  Far from it.  You are a pestilence, a consumer, an eater, a burden.  Your humanity must be changed, upgraded, hacked and replaced by a post-human, transhumanism.

If ‘science’ is so ‘precise’ why so many failed predictions dating back to 1880 on ‘climate’ and ‘weather’?  Or is science just another viewpoint, prone to egocentricity, fraud, money and lust for power like all other doctrines and systems?

Remember the ‘science’ in 2004 declared that unless action was taken ‘immediately’, Britain would become Siberia by 2024. 

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

The ‘experts’ of course. ‘Abrupt climate change’, from plant food.  2024 is one year away.  The ‘science’, settled and consensus based, has already moved on to the raging fires of climate-hell, with unstoppable increases in temperatures of say 0.5C, resulting in the liquidation of Gaia.  What happened to the 2004 fixation on Siberia for the UK?  Wasn’t the science ‘settled’ back in 2004?

But the ‘science’ was also unequivocal just a few years later, when the former Prince of Wales, now King Charles III famously predicted in 2009 that the world would end in July of 2017.  He assured the peasants that the ‘science’ fully supported his view.  We went from the UK becoming Siberia to a warming hell in just 5 years. 

Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned in a grandstand speech which set out his concerns for the future of the planet.

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the "age of convenience" was over.

Notice the conflation of unrelated factors.  Capitalism with environmental collapse.  The most modern societies are the most environmentally aware.  A former Prince, now a King, who flies in private jets, sails in private and quite massive yachts, has enormous palaces and estates kitted out with the latest and most expensive technology, is hectoring people over their lifestyle and ‘consumerism’ because of ‘climate’.  Why would anyone put up with this charade?  When King Climate sells his assets, dons the hairshirt and goes shoeless into nature, maybe then his declarations might carry some validity. 

Consensus fraud and making a sausage

Why the litany of climate-geddon forecast failures?   Fake models, faker data, and philosophy parading as factual science for starters.  Then we have the operational aspects of producing reports outlining the impending climategeddon of the week, month or year, all of which are akin to making a sausage, and all which must use the most ‘extreme’ language possible to get ‘attention’ with each year battling the year previous for outrageous statements of doom and gore.  And in each case the well paid, comfortable, upper middle class and elite which write such reports, happily imbibing almost every minute of their lives the benefits of hydrocarbon energy, mightily declaim against ‘capitalism’ and ‘consumerism’ as they work on $1000 laptops, sitting in upholstered chairs, warm in their heated and quite large homes, overlooking their BMWs and Land Rovers parked outside.

These well clothed Prophets of Climate doom all agree that the end is nigh due to ‘capitalism’ or ‘consumerism’ which somehow has destroyed climate.  Usually, they give us 12 years.  The 12 years charade dates to 1988.  Sometimes the religious intensity is so powerful that 5 years is given, or as a recent UK Prime Minister intoned, the one-minute-to-midnight imagery is invoked.  This has an old history dating back to the 1990s.  Apparently, it takes a very long time for that minute to expiry.  As with most fake-news reporting on ‘climate’, a large part of the material and sermons on the end times, are simply recycled from previous announcements and declarations, many of those can be found as far back as the 1920s (peak oil for example).  A reading from the Old Testaments of Climate as it were, interspersed with some new gospels from the New Testament of Climate such as a recent weather event, or a warmer or colder season than usual. 

The climate true in their righteous Jihad against Satanic Co2 and the ‘climate-denying’ heretics who believe not; also believe that they have the overwhelming power of ‘consensus’ on their side.  Real science however is not a game of numbers.  Einstein’s theories were denounced by hundreds of Nazi scientists.  Copernicus was opposed by hundreds of academics whose power and livelihoods were based on Ptolemy’s universe.  Abiogenesis was supported by most post ‘enlightenment’ science.  Semmelweis was murdered for challenging ‘the science’ which disagreed with his views on hospital hygiene, clean sheets and the washing of hands to reduce infection and death.  It is even worse for the climate cult.  They had to invent their consensus, creating yet another fraud.

In 2014 John Cook and some Australian university researchers conducted a search of 11,944 peer reviewed papers on ‘climate change’.  They evaluated the papers position on the same and concluded quite implausibly, that 97% agreed on AGW or anthropocentric global warming which was causing the climate to change for the worse.  But none of it is true.

Richard Tol lead author in the 2014 IPCC report, analysed the data and found quite the opposite.  His research found that only 64 papers out of the 11,944 supported AGW (Energy Policy 73, October 2014 p. 709).  Antony Watts, a meteorologist who runs the world’s most viewed site on Climate Change (Wattsupwiththat.com) asked Cook for his data and was refused most of it.  What he did receive was full of errors, poor data quality, and inconsistent ratings.  This is nothing new with the climate cult, it is famous for fraudulent data.

Englishman Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation analysed Cook’s data commenting on the data errors and that, ‘The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate’ (thegwpf.org 2013 ‘What Consensus’).  Another Englishman Sir Christopher Monckton analysed Cook’s data and found that only 41 of the 11,944 endorsed the claim that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic.  This means that only 0.5% of the papers analysed by Cook’s team actually supported the idea of AGW. 

A consensus means nothing in science.  However, the fraud of the 97% claim that ‘thousands of scientists’ support AGW or climate change is nonsense and irrelevant anyway.  Very few support AGW and those who do may do so more to get grant money or funding from vested interests, than supporting an objective analysis using a scientific method (there are variations on said method).

Fossil fuels as an example of scientism

Fossil Fuels is a chimera or lie, set up to give the impression of limited supply.  Fossils are only made from a rush of water (a flood) and sand mixing to form a cement.  That has nothing to do with ‘hydrocarbon’ fluid which is the second most plentiful fluid on the planet.  Oil and gas are self-regenerating resources, and we have hundreds of years of supply if not more.  ‘Peak oil’ has been a failed forecast every year since 1920.

Hydrocarbon formation is abiotic not organic:

Oil comprises 85% carbon, 13% hydrogen and 0.5% oxygen with traces of sulphur and nitrogen. Most chemists used to believe it originated from the decomposition of organic matter – layers formed from the remains of dead animals. Hence the name ‘fossil fuel’.

Oil comes from ‘basement rock’, a mile underground, and is well below the fossil layer. Despite conventional wisdom around fossil fuels, the argument for non-biologically produced oil was not a new one.

In 1951, the Russian scientist N.A Kudryavtsev, announced the theory that deep petroleum was produced abiotically. His theories were consolidated with the exploration of the oil fields of Dneiper-Donets in the early 1990s.

World-renowned geologist, C Warren Hunt’s ‘Anhydride’ theory of 1996, asserted the idea of biogenesis from living microbial forms, as opposed to fossilized forms. If oil is constantly replenishing, why should it run out?

The bottom line is that using the term ‘fossil fuels’ is anti-science and irrelevant but is employed for a reason to give the impression of great scarcity and long ages.

Greenhouse Myth

Another pernicious and quite obvious lie is the idea of a ‘Greenhouse’ ceiling, or effect.  In 2007 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.  He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2 and …It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."  Indeed.

The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes, from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages and dramatic shifts in solar radiation. And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.

A recent study by MIT researchers in Science Advances confirms that the planet harbours a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to pull the climate back from the brink, keeping global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

Just how does it accomplish this? One mechanism is “silicate weathering” — a geological process by which the slow and steady weathering of silicate rocks involves chemical reactions that ultimately draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into ocean sediments, trapping the gas in rocks.

Scientists have long suspected that silicate weathering plays a major role in regulating the Earth’s carbon cycle.  But not much is known about it until recently.  In any event it is ridiculous that any serious person poses the view that Co2, a trace chemical, which falls out of climate processes, is somehow acting as a blanket or ‘greenhouse’ and smothering Gaia with heat. 

Much of the propaganda around GHG is simply junk science, based on a proposition that feedback loops are only positive and multiply at a high rate based on trace chemical accumulation. This theory is simply not backed up by historical records or common sense.  There is much myth and little fact with this argument including the inconvenient truth that 75-90% of ‘greenhouse gases’ is water vapour.  Co2 is maybe 6% of the total, methane 3 or 4%.  There is simply little to no impact from rising Co2 levels.  Also, in the physical, real world, neither water vapour, nor Co2 ‘trap heat’.  It is an outrageous non-science claim to say they do.

Consider your backyard greenhouse.  It works by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside - the same effect that heats the inside of your car when it's parked in the sun on a hot day.  Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate. Neither the atmosphere nor "greenhouse gases" block convection, so there is no atmospheric "greenhouse effect."  Currents and flows are allowed to occur and this naturally would dissipate any ‘heating’.  How does the atmosphere actually work?

·        Incoming solar radiation is partly absorbed by the Earth's surface, partly absorbed by various atmospheric gases (particularly oxygen and ozone) and partly reflected back out to space.

·        Solar radiation isn't significantly absorbed by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere and so doesn't directly cause the greenhouse effect.

·        The ‘greenhouse effect’ is largely caused by energy emitted by the Earth's surface, most of which is subsequently absorbed by greenhouse gases and clouds.

·        The greenhouse gases and clouds transform that absorbed energy into heat that warms the lower atmosphere and into energy that is radiated back to space and also back to the Earth's surface.

These radiative processes, if they acted alone, would warm the Earth's atmosphere to about 77 degrees Celsius.  Fortunately, other atmospheric processes including updrafts and circulation carrying heat upwards and toward the poles facilitate energy escape into space so that our atmosphere cools to around 15 degrees Centigrade.  The earth’s average temperature in 2022 is still under 15 C.  Without these complex negative and positive feedback loops and systems, we would indeed be fried on Gaia’s tender, delicate skin.  In essence the idea that humans and our eco-system live in a greenhouse which uses Co2 to grow plant life in controlled conditions, is to be diplomatic, ignorant.

NASA even admits that the most abundant GHG is water vapour….yet Co2 is the trace chemical that controls ‘all climate’ and is ‘blanketing’ poor little Gaia in endless heat.  The nonsense overwhelms.  But scientism is primarily a religion of blind and ignorant dogma.  Worse, it lies and deceives to push its anti-human agenda.