Is the Cimate Change lie now exposed and failing

It’s a fairly simple question but some of us have known the answer for some time and that is the climate agenda falling apart and the answer is yes because it is, and always was a cacophony of lies, disinformation, misinformation and pure fiction to force people into one thing, fear on a worldwide scale.

Doubts were cast in many free thinking individuals minds when something called the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change was formed and instantly it was staffed with uneducated and unqualified people with one agenda and this was to promote the climate change fear, sorry, agenda to the masses and organisations such as the BBC came straight on board as they have been deceiving people for decades and being protected by successive Governments. Then all the other news outlets came on board and the IPCC began its work, first they took reports from well renowned and qualified scientists with decades of experience and where they clearly stated they could find no evidence of climate change they changed this to they found evidence of climate change and thought they could get away with this pure lie, right up the point where one scientist claimed he would sue them and they laughed, right up the point he filed his claim in the High Court. This encouraged others to come on board and suddenly this became so big the Government couldn’t ignore it (class action) and backed down, paid them off, and removed all the work they had submitted.
What happened next was a total shift as most of this work is funded directly by the Government, all these people‘s funding disappeared and over about 3 years they all disappeared and suddenly a new wave of people and companies were employed and were paid around an average of 3 times more and suddenly all the reports found evidence of climate change. What was of note was the fact that most of this was particularly vague, open to interpretation and none of the facts (alleged facts) could be substantiated, proven, or replicated which instantly shouts fraudulent. Next we had those pathetic fools called students who have lived no life, never been away from home before university and think because they go to university, they know it all and they can dictate to the majority of their narrow minded, bigoted and prejudiced views and hope we will believe it; interestingly one Labour MP has openly stated that many of these people go to university, then into the charity or voluntary sectors and then become Labour MP’s and have no life experience other than there little fluffy, hypothetical bubble.

Suddenly you get specific affluent individuals who never have student loans as they live off bank of mum and dad and they learn control of people and they indoctrinate these people into their ways and claimed beliefs and get other people to do their bidding without getting their hands dirty, so plausible deniability. Meanwhile their little minion’s do all the donkey work, take all the risks, get caught and face the consequences and the fines and are too stupid to realise they are being used and then get totally indoctrinated by many off the wall lecturers who aren’t bothered by facts, only impressing their warped views on the gullible and easily indoctrinated.
Suddenly we were hit with the snowflakes usually arising from these university students and their hypothetical clap trap and claiming “their rights” but not recognising others have rights, the same rights as them, but want to dismiss and ignore the majority’s rights and claim they have no authenticity or validity when most universities are more concerned with rights and feelings and not educating which is what they are there for. Ask anyone if they can change their gender and the majority will say yes and then ask them can they change their race and they usually cannot answer and go into their meltdown waffle; if you have the right to change your gender then you must have the same right to change your race. My favourite question concerns abortion and ask if a man gives a woman an abortion pill should they be prosecuted, and what for and invariably the answer is yes and it should be murder; ask if the woman took an abortion pill and should she be charged, and what for the answer is usually no, so why is it alright for a woman to kill a baby but not a man?

Look at all of this logically as this is merely a sideshow as the real agenda is total control and nothing less and covid was a useful tool and most likely deliberately started to further the agenda, so how is it working? Most things attributed to climate change are fictitious clap trap and to date nobody has given be irrefutable proof of climate change and they are working on the premise of tell the lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe and while the BBC jumped on this and every other agenda, the main media outlets also jumped on it so the public are totally greenwashed, they switch the TV on and greenwashing, read a newspaper and greenwashing, turn the radio on and greenwashing and even go online and more greenwashing, you cannot escape it. If their claims had any legitimacy or validity you wouldn’t need any greenwashing as the facts would be irrefutable and speak for themselves, but they don’t as they generate new pronouns.

Look at this logically as this is the first entire world agenda and the world aren’t buying it as many still remember coal for electricity and home heating as coal miners got 10 tons of concessionary coal or 6 tons of coke or anthracite which was usually enough to heat their homes in the UK and as we as the UK contribute less than 1% of the worlds emissions anything we do is irrelevant and immaterial, yet we have done away with coal fired power stations and lost the coal mining industry so why are the UK’s levels continually rising, and why is everyone focused on CO2 as this is a minor greenhouse gas. Then we get the fake ideologies such as fusion which is, and always has been a misnomer as 40 years ago it was only 10 years away; 30 years ago it was 10 years away; 20 years ago it was 10 years away; 10 years ago it was 10 years away and currently it is still 10 years away, so clear lies. How many people in third world countries still rely on open fires for heating and wood for their wood fuelled stoves for cooking and if this all contributing to the alleged climate crisis then why is nothing being done to resolve these issues first if they are so concerning and so important and why are these countries still allowed to do it. More importantly why are countries still allowed to have barbecues and fire pits, yet they try to ban wood burners and limit their use when barbecues emit more emissions than ever log burners do, or is it down to money again as people can pick up wood from almost anywhere and pay little to no tax as they may buy some petrol and oil for their chainsaws, or they may buy a reciprocating saw and a battery or simply use a hand or bow saw to cut their timber for their fire.

We have lost most of our heavy industry such as coal mining and pretty much of our steelmaking and other heavy industries to other countries and their huge supporting companies and yet with so much less heavy industry then why are people still proclaiming we are killing the planet when the real facts are that they have no facts, only lies, more lies, and greenwashing to make people believe these lies. Next were the current saviours, the heat pumps which required you to have a garden and not a small one so they could dig it up with a mini digger with you paying them a fortune to trash your garden so they could lay lots of environmentally unfriendly plastic pipe to heat your incoming water to save you money, so how much did it save? Actually nothing and it took years to recoup your losses, if at all. Next we called these ground source heat pumps and suddenly the air source heat pumps appeared and unlike ground source heat pumps they sat in the garden or attached to a wall and made so much noise they kept neighbours awake and in blocks of flats they kept everyone around awake and they had to be removed, yet they removed your gas which is cheaper and used electricity and the heat pump to heat your home and your electric bill rocketed and you spent much more on heating your home than you did with gas. What is the obvious question and the answer is simple, to maintain your heat you merely have to have radiators providing the same heat as your heat losses and not open any doors or windows and have the latest insulated home, to heat your home you have to provide more heat from your radiators and in sufficient quantities to heat the air quickly, you could open a door or window and once closed the rooms would heat up quickly.
How does this happen? When people speak of houses they speak of older houses made from stone or masonry and older houses were made from stone, newer houses were built from bricks and even newer houses were built from bricks with cavity walls and the purpose of the cavity is to prevent thermal transfer which is the transfer of heat and generally older houses are over 100 years old and newer houses are 20 years old, so what is the difference, insulation values and thermal leakage. Older stone houses suck up a lot heat through and into their walls and a large proportion of this is emitted outside of the walls to form a lot of thermal loss, next is the roof and single slate roofs keep the water out but also let a lot of rising heat out and as many are built straight onto the ground a lot of this heat is sucked into the ground and the thermal losses are huge and the amount of heating required is massive and expensive. Take a newer brick built house with single brick walls and they suck up less heat and emit less heat, they generally have a plasterboard ceiling which is a layer of insulation between the ceiling and house roof and this reduces the losses further and as many had suspended wooden floors with a cavity underneath them it reduced the amount of losses into the ground; therefore they were not thermally efficient by today’s standards, but were much more thermally efficient than earlier houses. Modern building standards moved on again and the cavity wall was introduced and houses with them were thermally more efficient and remember many were designed to run coal fires in many rooms and downstairs living rooms had fires as did bedrooms and essentially you have many points of heat throughout the house which led to the radiator which meant most rooms had a radiator and replicated multiple coal fires. Many experts became involved and heating engineers understood thermal dynamics, thermal loads and transfer and how efficient houses were and the coal fired heating systems gave way to the modern gas central heating named because the heat came from one central source of heat which is the gas boiler and was transferred to multiple outlets called radiators and their size was dictated by the size of space they had to heat and how quickly they heated it and the optimum water temperature from the boiler was, and still is around 80°C as this reduced the radiator sizes to acceptable levels and gave the optimum thermal efficiency to all property types and gave an easy formula for central heating system designers to work to in designing your heating system to work efficiently in your home. Enter proclaimed Government experts with a Degree in stupidity from that little known university of experts in stupidityland who began saying turn your boiler output down to 60°C and save money; only it cost more because the boiler was set to its optimum efficiency and people moved it away from its optimum efficiency and it took so much longer to raise the heat at 60°C that it cost an average of one third more.

Hot air works by rising and if it is stopped from rising it hits the ceiling and falls lower until it heats the entire room and once there it only replaces the lost heat and brings more heat from the ceiling to the floor, this also dictates the size of the radiator for a room and its location as location can have a huge impact on thermal efficiency as well as the insulation. If you heat downstairs rooms and open internal doors this allows the heat to escape upstairs and if the property is well insulated this heats the upstairs and downstairs.

Therefore the overwhelming evidence conclusively proved shallow ground source and air source heat pumps do not work and in point of fact have been much more expensive to run to achieve exactly nothing.

Now we had the cheap solar panels and reams of experts who read a pamphlet and accepted what it said as fact and did no checks into the claims, the validity of the facts or even if the people writing it were actually qualified, but most people realise these are written by unqualified salesmen and not qualified electrical experts. Sales spiel is just that, spiel and has no relationship to truth as sales spiel is designed from the outset to deceive you into thinking something and ultimately that something being thinking their product is better than anyone else’s so you buy it.
Reality is once again totally different to sales spiel and many people originally bought the polycrystalline solar panels based solely upon fraudulent figures and these figures were based on panel outputs and feed in tariffs and according to the unqualified experts they could make you money and people went out and spent £30-40K on solar panel installations bases solely upon misinformation of sales people as they quoted an exact figure when the sales spiel clearly stated “up to” and gave a specific figure, and the feed in tariff of the day. According to many people they would recoup their investment within 5 years and most people saw through it as solar panels degrade over years and their efficiency drops, but no compensating for this fact or even mentioning it so one miscalculated figure throws everything else out. In reality the Governments own figures showed that for an investment of £15,000 you could get a 2.5Kw system and based upon accurate figures it would take 31 years just to break even and now the biggie, the solar panels only had a warranty of 10-15 years and in this example it was 10 years so you had to expect your solar panels would last for 31 years which is past their warranty period by 21 years. In point of fact it put many people off unless you were an ardent environmentalist and were just starting out in life with your first home as few people live in the same home for over 31 years. What happened if the panels failed? you were left with a huge bill to replace the broken solar panels out of your own pocket without even recouping your losses and were throwing good money after bad, they the double whammy as they dropped the feed in tariff significantly which threw up chaos as people were spending the same on solar panels and getting paid less for their fed in electricity and with solar panels with an efficiency if 15-17% it would be over 40 years before you broke even. This was designed from the outset to cost you and deceive you into thinking you would recover it when you wouldn’t other than selling your house and advertising it as sold with a solar installation.

Next came the advancement and this was with monocrystalline solar panels which cost a lot more then polycrystalline panels but were more efficient as 20-25% efficiency and they were much more efficient and also much more expensive and were often advertised along with lithium storage batteries at over £1000 each then, while prices have dropped they are still expensive and at the time you could get a similar lead acid leisure battery for under £100 and only use half its capacity so you buy 2 and for less than £200 you have the same capacity as the lithium battery at over £1000 so you do the maths.
Now we have the PERC or Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell panels which are even more efficient at 25-30% efficiency and they use reflected solar light to light up the rear of the solar panel and extract more light energy from the same source and are better in less than optimum light conditions and cost the same as the monocrystalline panels, so are worth looking at from that perspective.

Good old facts show us that solar panels were a scam and you cannot recoup your costs and the stark reality is that you would often be better off buying a couple of solar panels of 100-150 watts each and fixing them to your garage, workshop, or shed roof and connect them to a set of lead acid leisure batteries to keep them charged up and available for power cuts so you can run an inverter to run your freezer if the power fails and to run 12 volt LED lighting to light your home. Two solar panels of this capacity would readily provide over 10 amps of charging power to keep your batteries topped up under ideal conditions for around 8 hours per day in summer. Doing this would result in an outlay of less than £500 and you would constantly charge your batteries and maintain them at full charge in readiness for any power cut and you would actually recoup your outlay with a correctly designed system. Is there any benefit to having solar panels? Yes and this would to be totally independent of the grid and having electricity, or being totally off the grid and having no electricity and now actually having something you didn’t have before and being totally independent comes with a huge cost attached which could have been better spent, so do the figures actually add up? In a word NO.

If the Government were actually serious about the environment they wouldn’t have heavily invested in wind turbines as their output is sporadic and the fact they pay electricity producers to run their wind turbines and NOT to run their wind turbines so they don’t really care and they seriously avoid the real questions of who are the real winners. In point of fact it is the land owners who always win as the rents paid for the land for the next 20-25 years is guaranteed by the Government and if the suppliers turbines never spin a blade the Government ring fence these charges and pays the land owners and as many of them are Conservative voters and possibly donors it is a quick and simple way to pay their own and put taxpayers money back into private pockets, its actually that simple.

If Governments were serious about producing electricity they have guaranteed options and one would be the one thing the UK has a lot of and that is water, having a lot of water also means lots of rivers and lots of rivers means lots of weirs and lots of weirs means a lot of water energy as water weighs 1Kg per litre and weirs have lots of water flowing over them and a lot of energy which can be exploited. If a water turbine was installed at every weir in Nottinghamshire along the River Trent where it is bypassed by the Nottingham Canal from Beeston to where it re-joins the River Trent in the proximity if the Nottingham Forest City football ground it is estimated that it would produce sufficient electricity from seven minor generating sites to power most of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire for most of the day and night. These sites are self regulating to a degree as there is more water in winter when electricity demand is at its highest and less in summer when it is at its lowest. These sites would be cheap and easy to construct and maintain and we would potentially have lots of micro sites which could be run 24/7/365 and with a diversion facility the same cheap electricity could be diverted when not in use and utilised to produce green hydrogen or other gasses for gas boilers or cookers so it would not be wasted. This would ensure our energy supplies and if this was replicated among lots of other sites across the UK’s rivers and canals we could build a cheap and efficient energy infrastructure with surpluses of both electricity and clean gasses which we could export any surpluses and make it even more cost effective; but the problem is profits as Governments are only ever concerned with very few people making lots of profits and putting profits over and above critical infrastructure.

Now another option and this is the third radioactive element which is thorium and up until 2012 it was basically useless as it produced so little electricity when compared to the best producer, uranium 252, which is the best producer of electricity which is fairly cheap until you enter the nuclear waste and its secure storage and inherent risks for years, so what happened in 2012? Thorium was molecular modified using a very cheap and easy process making it as efficient as it now became 98% as efficient as Uranium 252 but without all the risks as even exposed to the air Thorium’s radiation was less than the ambient background and so much safer, and you didn’t actually get any nuclear waste to store for years with its associated costs. In addition to this we had the other benefit which was that up to 10% of the rod could be made from nuclear waste and the thorium rod and its 10% nuclear waste from uranium or plutonium would be neutralised and the UK could get rid of all its stockpiled nuclear waste, so why not do this. Simply money again as the pioneers of UK nuclear are long dead and their families now run, and have always run the nuclear storage facilities for the Government and they get paid vast amounts of money to do this to the point they are millionaires and they have this business arrangement in place since the end of the 1950’s and they are the Governments go to for anything nuclear. They don’t live in a 2up and 2 down house or three bedroomed semis as they have taxpayer cash to spare and obviously some goes as donations to political parties, so vested financial interest. We could lower and totally remove all our nuclear waste and save taxpayers a fortune in these payments.

Enter thorium nuclear power stations and costs, as it is so much safer than uranium or plutonium it means the power stations don’t need the safeguards of traditional nuclear stations and this means a huge saving to the taxpayer and at 2023 prices a traditional nuclear station cost £250M and a thorium station cost £45M meaning you could build 5.5 thorium power stations and still have change. Recently several contractors have refused to build thorium power stations and given no reasons and if we look back it reveals some interesting facts, normally on a project of this scale profits would be 10-15% and often nearer to 10% but the builders of these taxpayer funded ventures operate on a 20% profit margin and this is significant as 20% of £250M is £50M profit while 20% of £45M is £9M and here is your answer, they want £50M profit and not £9M profit.

Thorium is much cheaper than uranium and much more plentiful and is easier and safer to mine and its only negative had been overcome.

If we move on to my pet hate which is electric cars and the only electric cars there should be are remote controlled models or those going round a Scalextric track and they certainly shouldn’t be used for transporting people around as everyday the uneducated bigots see yet another nail in their coffin as it has emerged they are dirtier than diesels and so unreliable they make Land Rover’s seem reliable. They are disposable vehicles which are overpriced and written off for any reason and even a speed hump can write them off, then of course the fires caused by thermal runaway are a problem as fire fighters cannot fight their fires as they are a chemical reaction and generate their own fuel and oxygen and produce so much heat and toxic emissions they should be banned under clean air laws. Imagine if your garage is attached to your house and one goes up, firefighters are worthless and cannot fight the fire and due to the ferocity of the fires they will burn your house down and both your car and home insurance costs rise excessively and we all saw what happened at Luton airport and their fire and the lies which spewed out of their lying mouths when they claimed it was not a battery vehicle and then admitted they didn’t know what type of vehicle it was, but it was a Range Rover Hybrid which still has a lithium battery which had thermal runaway.
Yet despite all this they still persisted with their agenda and even more emerged, electric cars have to be stored with at least 15M between then and other vehicles, and between them and buildings and car recovery companies refusing to transport them, auction houses refusing to let them remain on site, car salvage dealers refusing to accept them and even hospital car parks refusing to let them park in their car parks because of the fire risks and the intensity of any lithium fire being so intense it ruins the structure. We have car park operators refusing them entry due to their weight and their risks of fire and the resulting costs of rising insurance premiums and more and more mechanics refusing to work on them due to the risks.
Recently Hertz have dumped 20,000 Teslas as they do not financially stack up as people don’t want to pay inflated prices for things which don’t work and Volvo selling off their share in Polestar because electric vehicles are not selling and Hertz claiming they will dump another 10,000 and take a £1.2billion hit. We have Norway compiling actual figures and they show 80% of new car sales are electric cars and that their oil consumption has not fallen as these electric cars are bought as second cars and due to the cold and their hilly terrain they go straight to the ICE vehicles for any meaningful journeys and consume petrol and diesel exactly as before.

Now we have the clown Musk rat claiming it is stupid using electricity to power cars while owning Tesla, the same Tesla which only this week sacked all their supercharger teams and this is about 10% of their worldwide work force and the same Tesla whose sales slumped by half in Europe and are having many of their rubbish cars go straight to landfill and has realised the world has said NO.

Put this all together and it leaves only one conclusion and this is:

Heat pumps do away with gas and use masses of ELECTRICITY.
Doing away with your gas cooker means you have to use ELECTRICITY.
Doing away with gas central heating means you have to use ELECTRICITY.
Doing away with petrol and diesel engines means you have to use ELECTRICITY.

He who controls the electricity controls the world and this means they control you or they switch it off and you cannot cook, heat your home or use your car, getting it now?