The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Israel Shamir ArchiveBlogview
Trump’s Pilgrimage
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_632737265
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Life is not boring with President Trump. Perhaps he hasn’t yet fulfilled many wishes of his voters, but he definitely has made their news much more entertaining. Standing a few inches from impeachment, surviving lynch by media, hunted down by rogue Republican senators, the US President broke three taboos established by his predecessors: he removed the major fear of climate change, he voided the trans-pacific and trans-atlantic trade treaties, and he undermined NATO. Those three achievements would win any president his place in the history books.

Before his unexpected electoral victory, the West was rolling towards a Brave New World, led by the United States and followed by Western Europe. Trade treaties were supposed to eliminate democracy and impose governance by major companies. The Transhuman agenda had been prepared to embark upon an audacious project of completely remaking Homo Sapiens. Our life was about to turn for the worse: with greater expenses, as heating without oil would cost more; with less income, as more immigration would lower salaries; and and with less security for workers.

Trump unhooked the US engine from this train speeding to the inferno. The European train keeps rolling on without its American engine. France celebrated a necrophiliac “marriage” of a cadaver to his same-sex (if dead men have sex) partner in the presence of former French President François Hollande. Such a pagan travesty of the natural human order would become normal all over the world, but for Trump. After Trump, this weird act remained a signifier of what could happen in the New World Order.

Trump did these great things in the aftermath of his pilgrimage to the sources of faith. He went to the Guardians of the Two Mosques. He walked to the greatest church of Christendom, the Holy Sepulchre. He visited the Jewish Wall. He had a private audience with the Pope. Afterwards, he teased the heads of the European states, incurring their hostility. At the end, he came back to his capital to be hunted again.

A man of his own will and designs, nobody’s puppet, Donald Trump had been the first ruling American president to visit the Holy Sepulchre. This great church, first built by the Queen Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD, and rebuilt by the Crusader Queen Melisende in the 12th century, harbours the sites of the Crucifixion, of the Burial and of the Resurrection of Christ. Crusades had been launched on its behalf, and its liberation from the yoke of infidels had been the best wish and dearest dream of the shining knights whose names – Godfrey of Bouillon, Tancred, Richard Cœur de Lion – are not entirely forgotten.

ORDER IT NOW

Usually, American statesmen stay away from the Holy Sepulchre. They go to the Jewish Western Wall, for a photo op that will do them a lot of good with their Jewish voters or supporters. Trump began his pilgrimage in the Holy Land with the Church, where he had met with the Latin and Orthodox Patriarchs and only afterwards, he went down to the Wall. Moreover, he refused Netanyahu’s request to let him accompany the President. “The Wall has nothing to do with the state of Israel – it is a part of East Jerusalem, a part of Palestine”, his people said to Israeli officials. His visit to East Jerusalem and to Bethlehem hadn’t been presented to the Israeli Foreign Office nor of Israeli government. Thus he stated in the visible form that the Church is more important for him, that despite his positive attitude to the Jews, he is not their obedient servant.

His audience with the Pope in Rome was dignified and sincere. The President and the Pope had a long private talk, and only after that, he departed to political meetings with the NATO leaders.

During his election campaign, Trump declared NATO obsolete, and indeed he was right. NATO had been created in the days of Cold War I to confront the mighty USSR, a superpower with 50,000 tanks and 5 million soldiers. The border went west of Prague and Berlin. Now the border runs east of Kiev and Tallinn, Russia has about one thousand tanks, and its army is of an ordinary European size. NATO is superfluous to deal with Russia.

Perhaps if Trump’s hands were free, he would give NATO his Paris accord treatment, and just walk out, but that was plainly impossible. The allegation of Putin-Trump conspiracy is the last and best defence of NATO, and of the New World Order. While being accused of illegal dealings with the Kremlin, Trump could not dump NATO, drastically cut his military expenditure and attend to friendly relations with Russia. He was even forced to say he changed his mind and became a new believer in NATO.

But his plans did not change. Instead of slamming the door, he accused his NATO partners of not paying their dues. He quarrelled with them, until Mrs Merkel said that “Europe will defend itself by its own means”. The result was the same desirable one: NATO is on its way to dissolution.

But his greatest strike against hidden world governance was in Washington when he dumped the Paris climate accord. The man-made GW (Global Warming) doctrine had been located in the very pinnacle of the single unified narrative impressed upon mankind by the Masters of Discourse, right next to the Holy Holocaust. Ten years ago, a prominent columnist of Boston Globe Ellen Goodman stated that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”. Since then, the twain were frequently compared as examples of what “thou shalt not”.

And now, all of a sudden, Trump broke the taboo and gave us freedom. We do not have to profess our fear of rising seas, melting ice and scorching heat when we live through the coldest spring on living memory. It was snowing today, June 2, in Moscow, and in Sweden, the apple trees came to bloom only now, instead of early May, but without Trump, we’d never dare to admit loudly that man-made climate change theory is sheer bunkum.

ORDER IT NOW

Actually, I have never met a climate scientist who believed in the GW theory, though few would say that openly in company, for fear of losing their job and being ostracised. In private, they all laughed off the idea that people are able to influence climate. The climate changes all right all the time, but human contribution to the change is negligible. Russian scientists (the same ones who imposed Trump upon Clinton-loving Americans, perhaps?) had made a working model of climate, and they concluded that the main factor of change is solar activity. Carbon dioxide (CO 2) is rather a by-product of warming than the cause, and anyway it is beneficial for vegetation.

As opposed to historical events, physical effects are observable. We shall see with our own eyes who is right. According to the Russian climate model, we are in the beginning of a minor Ice Age. Observations of the Antarctic ice fields confirm that ice is building, not receding. It will not become warmer, as official scientists claimed; it will be much, much colder, at least for the next thirty years. Winter is coming! The fathers of the Kyoto and Paris treaties will surely congratulate themselves with winning the battle against global warming when we freeze. Our influence on climate is very minor, whether for good or for ill, but we shall need oil and coal to survive.

Why, then, has such a doubtful theory gained importance and forced business-minded nations to pay through the nose or lay off workers? This is not a question of science. By the Paris accord, the World Bank had full control over its implementation. Bankers, the hidden wannabe government of the world, could rule over industries. Besides, bankers’ mind control matrix needed some defining points. Once, there was belief in royal prerogative and in Christ the Saviour, then profit and family, and recently market forces, global warming, gender shift, mass migration (“antiracism”) and Jewish superiority. If you doubt a defining point, your opponent will act insulted and will try to insult you. He may weep and cry and break down in tears.

In my childhood, love to Stalin has been a defining point for the Russians; when Khrushchev removed it, people cried – but eventually they were freed. Even if they came back to their admiration of Stalin, they did it as free men of their own free will.

Perhaps we, or our children will reassess the climate theory, but it will be done by our own free will, and not under bankers’ guidance. The fateful decision of Trump removed the defining point of last twenty years.

I have noticed that prominent scientists who debunked the GW conspiracy tend to be Russians, even if they worked in the West, such as Prof Zharkova of Northumbria University, or Dr A Kosovichev of Stanford University. The Russians aren’t scared by the word “denier”; like Lorelei Lee, the blonde of the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, they lack mental inhibitions. Their Soviet system was rough but people were free to think what they want. “The Russians did not care what I think, but the Americans did. They wanted me to think as they did”, observed Carl Schmitt, the great German philosopher of law. He had spend time in Russian and in the American occupation zones of Germany after 1945, so he could compare, and he found that in Russian-ruled East Germany minds were free. The Russians – whether in Russia or elsewhere – are still rather independent of mind, as they haven’t been properly brainwashed by the Masters of Discourse.

ORDER IT NOW

The Russians never believed in the man-made GW; Russia didn’t ratify the Paris accord, Vladimir Putin didn’t condemn Trump for withdrawing from the accord despite being pushed to do so. He doubted whether the countries of the world were really in a position to halt climate change. This is Putin’s personal point of view: the world climate changes all the time, but human factor is negligible.

“Somehow we here aren’t feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St Petersburg], it’s rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American imperialism,” Putin joked. Trump referred to the whole GW scheme as “hoax”. Indeed there were many surprising revelations like Climategate, when emails of leading British climate scientists were leaked and the emerging picture has been best described as hoax. The revelations made little impact: apparently the forces behind the conspiracy were adamant on carrying their plot through.

In 2003, Senator James Inhofe asked his famous question: “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?” He further stated, “some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor.” Inhofe has suggested that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol are aiming at global governance. Perhaps he was right.

Symbolically, a man who spent a lot of money and effort on imposing the Global Warming dogma upon mankind, died just very recently in March at the ripe old age of 102. This was old David Rockefeller who had changed six hearts, according to popular belief. The geezer was very keen on the idea. Two years ago, when Rockefeller has been but an energetic 100 y.o., Dr John Spritzler of The New Democracy wrote that Rockefeller wants us to believe in Global Warming for nefarious reasons, namely he needs a “new Big Idea with which to get the masses to follow the leadership of the upper class”. They want to frighten us – with GW or terrorism or whatever – into submission.

The European train keeps rolling; the European leaders insist on following the Paris Accord. It will cost more money for their populace, but until now, they had their defence cost-free by gracious leave of the American taxpayer. That’s why Trump’s GW rejection is strongly connected with NATO rejection.

Now the European clowns are running under their own steam. They continue to enforce the NWO program. They manufactured a new line of leaders: youngish, homoerotic, childless, good-looking. And Russia-bashing. Hostility to Russia and to Trump, total loyalty to their defining points – this is the bankers’ writ to Europe. How far will they go without the US?

Their first trial is the UK elections, where the wonderful Jeremy Corbyn weathers the same media assault that Trump survived in the US. Corbyn has a chance: the media now publishes endless streams of fake news about and against him. But as we learned on the US example, this trick doesn’t always work. If Corbyn wins, the NWO Europe will shrink down to the EU core.

ORDER IT NOW

Unless they can get rid of Donald Trump. The photo of Kathy Griffin in the role model of Judith presenting Trump as Holofernes is a terrible reminder that things are very serious. In our culture codes, Judith was a righteous woman who beheaded the enemy of her nation. Griffin presented Trump as Holofernes, as the enemy who should be killed. Such a presentation can unhinge a would-be assassin. This is very dangerous – bearing in mind the endless media assault and betrayal by Republican Congressmen and Senators. Will he survive?

This depends on the American people. Changes produced by Trump amount to revolution; he will do many good things if he has a chance. Luckily, the Americans have their guns. This is the best defence for the Donald. Vladimir Lenin in his most important and short book The State and the Revolution calls for arming people the American way. This is the real leftist attitude. The American pseudo-left calls for disarming, but the real left is for people with guns who decide their future. I am surprised that supporters of Trump haven’t yet formed their militia, call it the Trump Guard, to prevent any attempt at a coup d’état. If they won’t do it, I’d say, they do not need guns at all.

The Republican Party should be cleansed of traitors. People who do not support the President should be kicked out of the Party. Let them be independent, if they were already elected, and vote them out at the first occasion.

Donald is doing well, but he should think more of his voters. More populism! He should give his supporters something they wouldn’t like to lose. Not the rich people – the ordinary working class Americans should be given a bonus. A compensation for so many years without pay rise. Pay their debts, their student loans. This is the right time to build a good steady base of support.

His military pursuits won’t help him, nor America. After unnecessary involvement in Syria and Iraq, where American bombers kill civilians by hundreds, now Trump goes deeper into the Afghanistan quagmire, sending troops and supplying the Taliban with weapons. Afghanistan is already a very unhappy and ruined country, 16 years under American occupation. CIA thugs have made billions smuggling and selling drugs produced there. Given that the CIA is hostile to Trump, does it make sense to pump more money, arms and soldiers to Afghanistan? Better forget about the place, take the soldiers back home and let the Afghans sort their problem out themselves. His anti-Iranian posture is equally useless: Iran isn’t looking for trouble, but it is not a soft target. Saudis, with all the weapons in the world, will never be able to fight Iran. Ditto North Korea. War-mongering in Korea will give Trump no brownie points, just troubles.

Trump should concentrate his mind on his survival, on reshuffling the government, on promoting his supporters, and undermining the Deep State. This task is big enough without going to unnecessary wars.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

 
76 Comments to "Trump’s Pilgrimage"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. sadness says:

    Mr Shamir doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ but he believes in ‘religion’…might I shake my head in disbelief, thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Israel Shamir
    Right! I prefer God to Al Gore!
    , @schmenz
    I'm shaking my head in disbelief also....at your unimaginably tiresome comment.
    , @MBlanc46
    You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between belief and faith.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /ishamir/trumps-pilgrimage/#comment-1894339
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. It’d be fun to watch Trump visit Philippines

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/05/united-states-philippines-joseph-mussomeli.html

    France celebrated a necrophiliac “marriage” of a cadaver to his same-sex (if dead men have sex) partner in the presence of former French President François Hollande.

    Read More
    • LOL: Ivy
    • Replies: @Ace
    Now that was a loss when he was killed. The homosexuals got to him after a while and he had to reign in his ridicule of them. Fantastic comedian.
  3. @sadness
    Mr Shamir doesn't believe in 'global warming' but he believes in 'religion'...might I shake my head in disbelief, thank you.

    Right! I prefer God to Al Gore!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    LOL. Now that's a good ad fontem.
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You do not know enough to prefer Avalokiteshvara to Arrhenius. (Which is a statement as inane as yours is).
  4. […] This article was first published at The Unz Review. […]

    Read More
  5. macilrae says:

    Well, it’s a point of view and certainly worth expressing. Upon the whole I hate bandwagons and there isn’t much doubt there are some pretty dubious entities hitched up to the global warming one.

    There is also no doubt that Trump is right about NATO and also TPP and TAP – as well as his unpopular stand on Russia and Putin – I give him a lot of credit for these at least.

    I have been watching the sanctimonious outpourings from most British politicians following the events in London last night – how we have to show the world “our way” and “our values” – I thought “we” did that pretty effectively when we invaded Iraq and bombed Libya; killing and maiming countless innocents for political gain.

    The establishment has much to answer for and just maybe the Trump revolution is not such a bad thing as they are trying to make us believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Davis
    "...and just maybe the Trump revolution is not such a bad thing as they are trying to make us believe."

    All the old "narratives" are dissolving. Those reassuring "truths", which of course were never true (thus the quotes around "narrative"), are gone and the world is drifting in uncertainty, waiting for new "truths" -- not -- to congeal, and calm the waters. The world is changing. Sanders/Trump/Brexit are manifestations of that change. Interesting times as the Chinese say.
    Fueled by the digital revolution and its destruction/liberation by the internet of control of "the narrative".

    The Trump-hate is strong, but the truth is stronger. People will come 'round. Be patient and enjoy the spectacle.
    , @Windwaves
    Sure hope you are right about israel as I feel we as a nation are their puppet and trump has them in its home checking his every move.
  6. Ace says:
    @Priss Factor
    It'd be fun to watch Trump visit Philippines

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/05/united-states-philippines-joseph-mussomeli.html

    France celebrated a necrophiliac “marriage” of a cadaver to his same-sex (if dead men have sex) partner in the presence of former French President François Hollande.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ0sNZ5M1nE

    Now that was a loss when he was killed. The homosexuals got to him after a while and he had to reign in his ridicule of them. Fantastic comedian.

    Read More
  7. Ace says:

    Mr. Shamir could you please give that tired old “CIA thugs have made billions smuggling and selling drugs” a rest? The weapon smuggling is what we need to focus on. The arming of al-Qaida scum in Libya and Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I would have thought that the one funded the other, no?
  8. Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Indeed. Is this what Trump got for the $$$audi arms deal?

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-idUSKBN18W0DQ
    Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE sever ties to Qatar over 'terrorism'
  9. From my blog:

    May 7, 2017 – California Leaders Deny Climate Change

    Climate change (aka Global Warming) is a complex subject. The Earth is becoming warmer, but our climate has always been changing, becoming warmer at times and then colder. Pollution causes warming, but the impact is debatable.

    Denying this threat has become a sin to many Americans. Anyone who expresses doubts is branded a greedy idiot who refuses to accept science. There are many cities, counties, and states whose leaders express great concern about climate change, but they refuse to do anything! They should ban construction in areas that might be flooded and build levees and dams to prepare. Yet none have undertaken any serious preparations.

    For example, California leaders are quick to denounce anyone who doubts the impact of climate change, but are doing nothing to prepare!

    http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/The-Bay-Area-must-act-together-against-sea-level-9961153.php

    Their climate change models show that the San Francisco and Oakland airports will be underwater in a few years, and some of downtown San Francisco will be flooded. Scientists tell them this, yet California leaders ignore them, so they are really climate change deniers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Whether man induced GW is true or not (Exxon & other oil Co's apparently believed so back in the early 80's ) it should not interfere with further research into renewables. As we are barreling towards a world of 9 billion odd people, the need for cheap, clean energy sources will only grow. We are no where near where we need to be with renewables --yet.
  10. RobinG says:
    @Priss Factor
    This is big news

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/05/saudi-arabia-and-bahrain-break-diplomatic-ties-with-qatar-over-terrorism

    Indeed. Is this what Trump got for the $$$audi arms deal?

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-idUSKBN18W0DQ

    Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE sever ties to Qatar over ‘terrorism’

    Read More
  11. Blaming Russia Goes Deeper Than Hillary Clinton & the Democrats

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    Thank you for sharing and here are some more good links on this topic.

    March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate

    Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/5582211

    Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State’s Voter Database

    While most of the country frets over Russia’s role in the 2016 election, the state of Georgia has come forward saying that they’ve traced an IP from a hack of their voter database right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government.

    https://youtu.be/o02YPRErF8o
  12. @Ace
    Mr. Shamir could you please give that tired old "CIA thugs have made billions smuggling and selling drugs" a rest? The weapon smuggling is what we need to focus on. The arming of al-Qaida scum in Libya and Syria.

    I would have thought that the one funded the other, no?

    Read More
  13. @Carlton Meyer
    From my blog:

    May 7, 2017 - California Leaders Deny Climate Change

    Climate change (aka Global Warming) is a complex subject. The Earth is becoming warmer, but our climate has always been changing, becoming warmer at times and then colder. Pollution causes warming, but the impact is debatable.

    Denying this threat has become a sin to many Americans. Anyone who expresses doubts is branded a greedy idiot who refuses to accept science. There are many cities, counties, and states whose leaders express great concern about climate change, but they refuse to do anything! They should ban construction in areas that might be flooded and build levees and dams to prepare. Yet none have undertaken any serious preparations.

    For example, California leaders are quick to denounce anyone who doubts the impact of climate change, but are doing nothing to prepare!

    http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/The-Bay-Area-must-act-together-against-sea-level-9961153.php

    Their climate change models show that the San Francisco and Oakland airports will be underwater in a few years, and some of downtown San Francisco will be flooded. Scientists tell them this, yet California leaders ignore them, so they are really climate change deniers.

    Whether man induced GW is true or not (Exxon & other oil Co’s apparently believed so back in the early 80′s ) it should not interfere with further research into renewables. As we are barreling towards a world of 9 billion odd people, the need for cheap, clean energy sources will only grow. We are no where near where we need to be with renewables –yet.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Israel Shamir
    It is cheap OR clean, not both.
    , @Wally
    Nonsense, "renewables' are a scam:

    Hilarious: Renewables Won’t Work – Even If Climate Claims are True
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/08/hilarious-renewables-wont-work-even-if-climate-claims-are-true/

    British Energy Crisis: OFGEN Official Warns Renewables Will Leave Poor Britons “Sitting in the Dark”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/british-energy-crisis-ofgen-official-warns-renewables-will-leave-poor-britons-sitting-in-the-dark/

    Germany’s impossible and impractical wind and solar goal
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/09/germanys-impossible-and-impractical-wind-and-solar-goal/

    Offshore Wind power: Even Germany Can’t get it Right
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/13/offshore-wind-power-even-germany-cant-get-it-right/

    more here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=renewables

  14. Miha says:

    In the UK we can see and hear Cobyn speaking directly without the help of ‘fake news’ and unless you’re in favor of the Chevez solution for Venezuela, it’s not a pretty picture.

    Read More
  15. Global warming is already beyond arguments. It is here. What’s being debated is whether it is mostly natural or man made phenomenon. Were Russians to believe new ice age would be imminent soon while all those preparations for resources extraction in their North and military build up there. In any case, any attempt to control the pace of GW is akin ants trying to reduce elephant speed by pulling at elephants ears.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Hmm... I wondered what the Russians were up to in the Arctic, frankly. All that combat training and specially modified helicopters, vehicles, etc didn't jive with any visible threat requiring combat troops. Early warning radars, comms etc made sense, but Canadian/American troops marching across the Arctic ice is laughable.

    If the Kremlin is basing its planning on the conclusion that the world is cooling, Arctic preparations suddenly make perfectly good sense. Namely, "all those preparations" may be developing and testing procedures and materiel in anticipation of arctic conditions moving southwards.

    , @Miro23

    In any case, any attempt to control the pace of GW is akin ants trying to reduce elephant speed by pulling at elephants ears
     
    I'm not quite sure how ants pull at elephant's ears, but what is possible, is to rebuild green cover in hot dry countries like Australia and Spain.

    The evidence is that at one time they were fully green and forested with much the same world climate as now.

    Peter Andrews goes into it at some length in his excellent book "Back from the Brink: How Australia's landscape can be saved" showing how full green cover with forest provides a strong ground cooling/water retention effect + fertility + plentiful animal habitats and can be combined with agricultural production.

    https://www.amazon.com/Back-Brink-Australias-Landscape-Saved/dp/0733319629/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496669526&sr=8-1&keywords=back+from+the+brink%2C+andrews

    , @RebelWriter
    Afghanistan produces over 90% of the world's Opium Poppy. This is hardly inconsequential, and does merit attention, and a lot of it. The Taliban did a better job of controlling the Poppy fields than do US forces. Poppy production is now 4 times what it was under the Taliban. At one time the fields came right up to American FOB's, at times, and the fields were destroyed only after Opium began to be sold among the troops on the base. I've little doubt the CIA uses profits from this drug trade to fund black ops, and this is probably the source of much of their animosity to Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

    "Global warming is already beyond arguments."

    Climate change is not even being argued. The climate changes. There seems to be disagreement about whether we're warming or cooling, though. The argument is over mankind's contribution to whatever changes in the climate are occurring. No science is ever settled, but is constantly evolving as we learn more. People tend to focus charts and data over the last several centuries (often excluding, or hiding, the medieval warming period and subsequent cool down), rather than viewing climate across the broad range of time we claim to know about. It has certainly been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, too, in the past.
    , @Wally
    No, it's not warming.

    The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . . So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?
    http://principia-scientific.org/globe-not-warming-called-global-warming/

    NASA Data Proves Trump Right to Exit Paris Climate Accord
    https://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-data-proves-trump-right-to-exit-paris-climate-accord.html
  16. RodW says:

    I put my money where my mouth is on GW and put solar panels on my house. I now enjoy completely free energy for my whole house, clean air inside my home, and my weekends free from waiting for a truck to deliver stinking kerosene. That’s what freedom from fossil fuels means — blessed relief from recurring costs and discomfort.

    On a global scale, relief from fossil fuel should mean peace for large swathes of the world.

    So why are people who claim to be of good will still urging a filthy, dangerous way of life on us?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    How large was the subsidy from you electricity supplier?
    What is the yearly maintenance cost for you setup?
    What is the expected life of the installation and how much do you depreciate each year so you can rebuild your setup when it dies?
    You are neither relieved from recurring costs nor from future discomfort; but you have succeeded in shifting your cost of comfort onto your neighbours, congratulations?
    , @anarchyst
    The term "fossil fuel" was created in the 1950s when little was known about the processes deep within the earth that create petroleum products.
    It was assumed that "fossil fuels" were the result of decaying animal and plant material compressed in layers within the earth.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    It turns out that oil is "abiotic" in nature and is constantly being created by yet unknown processes deep within the earth. Oil deposits are being found much deeper than that of any plant or animal material. In fact, many of our depleted oil wells are "filling back up" with oil migrating from much deeper levels.
    The latest discovery is that of methane hydrate (white oil) which is natural gas sequestered in water. This promises to be a virtually limitless form of energy, once it is harvested in great amounts.
    I would not count out the future use of petroleum products for a very long time...
    , @Avery
    {I put my money where my mouth is on GW and put solar panels on my house.}
    {On a global scale, relief from fossil fuel should mean peace for large swathes of the world.}

    Try flying passenger airplanes on solar panels.
    Or trucks. (~70% of cargo in US is moved by (diesel) trucks).
    Or cargo rail.
    Or oceangoing cargo and passenger ships.
    Or agricultural harvesting machines.
    Or earthmoving equipment.
    Or.........

    Nothing comes close to the energy density of hydrocarbons.
    By orders of magnitude.
    That is why a heavier-than-air contraption made of metal can carry enough fuel to stay in the air and also carry useful cargo - people.

    It is a shame to burn such a valuable substance (oil) for fuel, since pretty much every type of plastic is made from oil. No plastics, no modern life. And plastics can be endlessly recycled and re-used.

    But for the foreseeable future there is no substitute for oil to run a modern world.

  17. Erebus says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Global warming is already beyond arguments. It is here. What's being debated is whether it is mostly natural or man made phenomenon. Were Russians to believe new ice age would be imminent soon while all those preparations for resources extraction in their North and military build up there. In any case, any attempt to control the pace of GW is akin ants trying to reduce elephant speed by pulling at elephants ears.

    Hmm… I wondered what the Russians were up to in the Arctic, frankly. All that combat training and specially modified helicopters, vehicles, etc didn’t jive with any visible threat requiring combat troops. Early warning radars, comms etc made sense, but Canadian/American troops marching across the Arctic ice is laughable.

    If the Kremlin is basing its planning on the conclusion that the world is cooling, Arctic preparations suddenly make perfectly good sense. Namely, “all those preparations” may be developing and testing procedures and materiel in anticipation of arctic conditions moving southwards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    No sense. In case of global cooling and more ice resources cannot be minned.
  18. Israel Shamir

    Here is a list of Donald Trump’s War Crimes and Treason

    1)slaughtered innocent Syrian Children in a cruise missile strike…boasted to Marie Bartalomo on TV that after he ordered the cruise missile strike…that he enjoyed Melania’s scrumptious Chocolate Cake aftterwards!!!

    2)slaughtered innocent Yemeni children in Yemen…cruise missile slaughtered

    3)selling 100 billion dollars worth of weapons to ISIS=Saudia Arabia…As Donald called it:A MAGA JOBS probram for America…

    4)pre-emotive War of aggression against Shia Muslim Iran

    5)Threatens Christian Russia over Crimea

    6)ordered US Military excercises on Christian Russia’s border…

    7)An enthusiast for importing Asian Legal Immigrants….Asian scab labor….into US labor markets=economic and demographic extermination of Native Born White American Tech Workers…

    I see that you are an enthusiast for Jeremy Corbyn….does that include Corbyn’s enthusiasm for importing the young male Mohammadan Gang Rape Army into Merry Old England?

    Read More
  19. Miro23 says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Global warming is already beyond arguments. It is here. What's being debated is whether it is mostly natural or man made phenomenon. Were Russians to believe new ice age would be imminent soon while all those preparations for resources extraction in their North and military build up there. In any case, any attempt to control the pace of GW is akin ants trying to reduce elephant speed by pulling at elephants ears.

    In any case, any attempt to control the pace of GW is akin ants trying to reduce elephant speed by pulling at elephants ears

    I’m not quite sure how ants pull at elephant’s ears, but what is possible, is to rebuild green cover in hot dry countries like Australia and Spain.

    The evidence is that at one time they were fully green and forested with much the same world climate as now.

    Peter Andrews goes into it at some length in his excellent book “Back from the Brink: How Australia’s landscape can be saved” showing how full green cover with forest provides a strong ground cooling/water retention effect + fertility + plentiful animal habitats and can be combined with agricultural production.

    https://www.amazon.com/Back-Brink-Australias-Landscape-Saved/dp/0733319629/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496669526&sr=8-1&keywords=back+from+the+brink%2C+andrews

    Read More
  20. Veritatis says:

    Interesting, wide-ranging article. Have to agree with:

    “Trump should concentrate his mind on his survival, on reshuffling the government, on promoting his supporters, and undermining the Deep State. This task is big enough without going to unnecessary wars.”

    To evaluate the success of a President’s foreign trip, one needs to understand what his goals were, stated or unstated. Those goals could be strategic (ntl interest, major process) or incidental (business deal)Amid all the hysterical media coverage, we can see the following: he went to a major religious area, and ‘visited’ all 3 religions. He also visited all 3 religious states (Saudis, Netanyahu, Pope). He then went to the major Western multilateral forum, G7. He then went back home and announced to Americans a sovereign, controversial decision.

    Let’s say he achieved his goals. What could those have been?
    1) by visiting all three religious sites, he is indeed raising the importance of Christianity in this case. It does not mean he’ll rush to help the Copts, but in politics ‘form is substance’. The media knows this, that’s why that part got little coverage. Maybe that’s also why he took his jewish daughter/son along, since religions coexist peacefully in his family. I think that’s the message: religion is important, we must recognize all three and thus their right to exist.
    2) at the G7 he rattled everybody, and the goal was to leave a de facto deterrent in the war with Russia. He succeeded. Europeans (and greedy groups) will be less trigger-happy now. (He could be killed, as Shamir notes, that much money is involved). By other measures, he lost friends in Western Europe, maybe gained some trust with Putin.
    If he has the stature his ego demands, his medium term goal should be to establish a ‘civilizational alliance’ that includes Russia, fosters Western identity, rolls back Muslim infiltration. Very tough, because that requires time and legal changes in the diplomatic/military int’l system. A second-term goal, then. First he would have to deliver some of his America First promises back home, to get reelected. And maybe, some friends in Western Europe.
    3) I have no idea whether climate change is or is man made. But that Trump made the announcement himself made it a big foreign policy issue for his administration. It seems to me a clumsy move. He could have handled it differently, maybe through Tillerson. But being low-key is not his style, good for campaigning, not always for governing.

    So, goals in the ME maybe reconnaissance of the terrain, building personal good will and a gesture as to the equal status of religions. In Europe, no wars with Russia. The European one was very important, worth perhaps the cost in enmity.

    Read More
  21. Agent76 says:

    February 13, 2017 Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

    Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming. Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible. Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

    http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

    Dec 8, 2015 Climate Change is Unfaslifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

    Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

    Read More
  22. Agent76 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Blaming Russia Goes Deeper Than Hillary Clinton & the Democrats

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3t8ut5r_0U

    Thank you for sharing and here are some more good links on this topic.

    March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate

    Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/5582211

    Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State’s Voter Database

    While most of the country frets over Russia’s role in the 2016 election, the state of Georgia has come forward saying that they’ve traced an IP from a hack of their voter database right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government.

    Read More
  23. […] Première publication: The Unz Review. […]

    Read More
  24. Z-man says:

    Moreover, he refused Netanyahu’s request to let him accompany the President. “The Wall has nothing to do with the state of Israel – it is a part of East Jerusalem, a part of Palestine”, his people said to Israeli officials. His visit to East Jerusalem and to Bethlehem hadn’t been presented to the Israeli Foreign Office nor of Israeli government. Thus he stated in the visible form that the Church is more important for him, that despite his positive attitude to the Jews, he is not their obedient servant.

    As much as I would love to belive this occurred I have my doubts.

    And he still has the evil trinity of Khan, Minuchin and Kushner surrounding him.lol

    Read More
  25. @Erebus
    Hmm... I wondered what the Russians were up to in the Arctic, frankly. All that combat training and specially modified helicopters, vehicles, etc didn't jive with any visible threat requiring combat troops. Early warning radars, comms etc made sense, but Canadian/American troops marching across the Arctic ice is laughable.

    If the Kremlin is basing its planning on the conclusion that the world is cooling, Arctic preparations suddenly make perfectly good sense. Namely, "all those preparations" may be developing and testing procedures and materiel in anticipation of arctic conditions moving southwards.

    No sense. In case of global cooling and more ice resources cannot be minned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    If a mini-ice age is coming, Russian mining, like the the military, needs to know what works in very cold climates if it is to continue doing what its doing in what are warmer regions today. When they get colder, it would be good to be able to employ what one's learned, rather than learning as you go under pressure. In the meantime of course, it profits from the extraction.

    Anyhow, this argument is predicated on the Kremlin's having accepted a mini-ice age theory, and I have no idea if that's true.
  26. @Sergey Krieger
    Global warming is already beyond arguments. It is here. What's being debated is whether it is mostly natural or man made phenomenon. Were Russians to believe new ice age would be imminent soon while all those preparations for resources extraction in their North and military build up there. In any case, any attempt to control the pace of GW is akin ants trying to reduce elephant speed by pulling at elephants ears.

    Afghanistan produces over 90% of the world’s Opium Poppy. This is hardly inconsequential, and does merit attention, and a lot of it. The Taliban did a better job of controlling the Poppy fields than do US forces. Poppy production is now 4 times what it was under the Taliban. At one time the fields came right up to American FOB’s, at times, and the fields were destroyed only after Opium began to be sold among the troops on the base. I’ve little doubt the CIA uses profits from this drug trade to fund black ops, and this is probably the source of much of their animosity to Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

    “Global warming is already beyond arguments.”

    Climate change is not even being argued. The climate changes. There seems to be disagreement about whether we’re warming or cooling, though. The argument is over mankind’s contribution to whatever changes in the climate are occurring. No science is ever settled, but is constantly evolving as we learn more. People tend to focus charts and data over the last several centuries (often excluding, or hiding, the medieval warming period and subsequent cool down), rather than viewing climate across the broad range of time we claim to know about. It has certainly been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, too, in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    FYI- December 3, 1993 The CIA Drug ConnectionIs as Old as the Agency

    LONDON— Recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials - despite protests by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the organization responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/03/opinion/03iht-edlarry.html

    Jan 9, 2015 Opium Production in Afghanistan Sets Record - America Soldiers Helping Heroin Production.

    http://youtu.be/FIkLYlaZ6kY
    , @pogohere
    Re: "The Taliban did a better job of controlling the Poppy fields than do US forces."

    McCoy, in "The Politics of Heroin" gives a more complete picture:

    In 1996, following four years of civil war among rival resistance factions, the Taliban's victory caused further expansion of opium cultivation. After capturing Kabul in September, the Taliban drove the Uzbek and Tajik warlords into the country's northeast, where they formed the Northern Alliance and clung to some 10 percent of Afghanistan's territory. Over the next three years, a seesaw battle for the Shamali plain north of Kabul raged until the Taliban finally won control in 1999 by destroying the orchards and irrigation in a prime food-producing region, generating over 100,000 refugees and increasing the country's dependence on opium.

    Once in power, the Taliban made opium its largest source of taxation. To raise revenues estimated at $20-$25 million in 1997, the Taliban collected a 5 to 10 percent tax in kind on all opium harvested, a share that they then sold to heroin laboratories; a flat tax of $70 per kilogram on heroin refiners; and a transport tax of $250 on every kilogram exported. The head of the regime's anti-drug operations in Kandahar, Abdul Rashid, enforced a rigid ban on hashish "because it is consumed by Afghans, Muslims." But, he explained, "Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs [unbelievers] in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans." A Taliban governor, Mohammed Hassan, added: "Drugs are evil and we would like to substitute poppies with another cash crop, but it's not possible at the moment because we do not have international recognition."

    More broadly, the Taliban's policies provided stimulus, both direct and indirect, for a nationwide expansion of opium cultivation. . . Significantly, the regime's ban on the employment and education of women created a vast pool of low-cost labor to sustain an accelerated expansion of opium production. . . . In northern and eastern Afghanistan, women of all ages played " a fundamental role in the cultivation of the opium poppy"---planting, weeding, harvesting, cooking for laborers, and processing by-products such as oil. The Taliban not only taxed and encouraged opium cultivation, they protected and promoted exports to international markets.

    In retrospect, however, the Taliban's most important contribution to the illicit traffic was its support for large-scale heroin refining.
    . . .
    Instead of eradication, the UN's annual opium surveys showed that Taliban rule had doubled Afghanistan's opium production from 2,250 tons in 1996 to 4,600 tons in 1999--equivalent to 75 percent of world illicit production. (508-509)
    . . .

    War on the Taliban

    All this [heroin] traffic across Central Asia depended on high-volume heroin production in politically volatile Afghanistan. In July 2000, as a devastating drought entered its second year and mass starvation spread across Afghanistan, the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar ordered a sudden ban on opium cultivation in a bid for international recognition. (p.517)
  27. Erebus says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    No sense. In case of global cooling and more ice resources cannot be minned.

    If a mini-ice age is coming, Russian mining, like the the military, needs to know what works in very cold climates if it is to continue doing what its doing in what are warmer regions today. When they get colder, it would be good to be able to employ what one’s learned, rather than learning as you go under pressure. In the meantime of course, it profits from the extraction.

    Anyhow, this argument is predicated on the Kremlin’s having accepted a mini-ice age theory, and I have no idea if that’s true.

    Read More
  28. Agent76 says:
    @RebelWriter
    Afghanistan produces over 90% of the world's Opium Poppy. This is hardly inconsequential, and does merit attention, and a lot of it. The Taliban did a better job of controlling the Poppy fields than do US forces. Poppy production is now 4 times what it was under the Taliban. At one time the fields came right up to American FOB's, at times, and the fields were destroyed only after Opium began to be sold among the troops on the base. I've little doubt the CIA uses profits from this drug trade to fund black ops, and this is probably the source of much of their animosity to Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

    "Global warming is already beyond arguments."

    Climate change is not even being argued. The climate changes. There seems to be disagreement about whether we're warming or cooling, though. The argument is over mankind's contribution to whatever changes in the climate are occurring. No science is ever settled, but is constantly evolving as we learn more. People tend to focus charts and data over the last several centuries (often excluding, or hiding, the medieval warming period and subsequent cool down), rather than viewing climate across the broad range of time we claim to know about. It has certainly been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, too, in the past.

    FYI- December 3, 1993 The CIA Drug ConnectionIs as Old as the Agency

    LONDON— Recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials – despite protests by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the organization responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/03/opinion/03iht-edlarry.html

    Jan 9, 2015 Opium Production in Afghanistan Sets Record – America Soldiers Helping Heroin Production.

    http://youtu.be/FIkLYlaZ6kY

    Read More
  29. […] Shamir | Juin 4, 2017 | The Unz […]

    Read More
  30. CK says:
    @RodW
    I put my money where my mouth is on GW and put solar panels on my house. I now enjoy completely free energy for my whole house, clean air inside my home, and my weekends free from waiting for a truck to deliver stinking kerosene. That's what freedom from fossil fuels means -- blessed relief from recurring costs and discomfort.

    On a global scale, relief from fossil fuel should mean peace for large swathes of the world.

    So why are people who claim to be of good will still urging a filthy, dangerous way of life on us?

    How large was the subsidy from you electricity supplier?
    What is the yearly maintenance cost for you setup?
    What is the expected life of the installation and how much do you depreciate each year so you can rebuild your setup when it dies?
    You are neither relieved from recurring costs nor from future discomfort; but you have succeeded in shifting your cost of comfort onto your neighbours, congratulations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RodW
    @CK That's the usual boilerplate cant from fossil fuel boosters. There's nothing but ignorance and stupidity to stop any of my neighbours doing what I've done.
  31. @animalogic
    Whether man induced GW is true or not (Exxon & other oil Co's apparently believed so back in the early 80's ) it should not interfere with further research into renewables. As we are barreling towards a world of 9 billion odd people, the need for cheap, clean energy sources will only grow. We are no where near where we need to be with renewables --yet.

    It is cheap OR clean, not both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It can be both cheap and clean. Not the false choice you seem to believe in. You wrote an amount of nonsense on GW. Any credible GW scientist knows that Solar influences are the primary determinant. What the scientific community, including Russians, are aiming to do is minimise what Mankind unleashes at the margins.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/india-coal-green-energy-climate.html

    , @Jeff Davis
    "It is cheap OR clean, not both."

    With respect,...actually, no. Though the rapid pace of technology has made it nearly impossible, I'm a lifelong techno-junkie, and I do my best to keep up.

    https://singularityhub.com/2017/05/18/solar-is-now-the-cheapest-energy-there-is-in-the-sunniest-parts-of-the-world/

    With the coming revolutionary reduction in cost, enabled by the cheaper materials and ease of production of square-kilometer quantities of perovskite-based solar-energy-harvesting films -- "cells" is too small a term for the coming perovskite solar revolution -- the clean energy revolution is on our doorstep. Within ten years, conversion to clean, carbon-free, electric everything will moot the whole global warming hysteria, and terminate, as in kill dead, the entire hydrocarbon-based energy paradigm, leaving oil and gas dirt cheap and used primarily for chemical feed-stock. Countries with oil-based economies will become poor, unless they see the writing on the wall and implement an alternate economic model.

    Also, the newly-poor Gulf States, the Saudis in particular, will be unable to continue to fund radical Sunni terrorism, and that phenomenon, starved of paychecks, will come to an end.

  32. Agent76 says:

    Jun 3, 2017 Putin defends Trump – ‘Don’t worry, be happy’

    President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement caused anger and anxiety across the world. But is there more than meet the eye? How many critics have actually read the agreement themselves – as President Putin rightfully points out? The agreement is a framework agreement with no particular obligations. There are no guidelines as to how resources should be spent, and the resources which the US ratified are quite substantial.

    https://youtu.be/EUTsf8o21CE

    Read More
  33. Yes. Trump has blunted the advance of Universal Feudalism. And he has perhaps inadvertently exposed the crimes of the DNC and the Corporate Media and assisted the CIA and FBI to discredit themselves. Perhaps Trumps greatest achievement to date consists in separating the wheat from the chaff in the American electorate.

    But he has only exacerbated the insane march to war with Russia, China and Iran.

    As for global warming, whether it is real or not, the Paris Accords will do nothing to prevent it.

    I always enjoy your contributions to Unz Review. Please keep up the good work.

    Read More
  34. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Israel Shamir
    It is cheap OR clean, not both.

    It can be both cheap and clean. Not the false choice you seem to believe in. You wrote an amount of nonsense on GW. Any credible GW scientist knows that Solar influences are the primary determinant. What the scientific community, including Russians, are aiming to do is minimise what Mankind unleashes at the margins.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/india-coal-green-energy-climate.html

    Read More
  35. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Global warming is already beyond arguments. It is here. What's being debated is whether it is mostly natural or man made phenomenon. Were Russians to believe new ice age would be imminent soon while all those preparations for resources extraction in their North and military build up there. In any case, any attempt to control the pace of GW is akin ants trying to reduce elephant speed by pulling at elephants ears.

    No, it’s not warming.

    The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . . So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?

    http://principia-scientific.org/globe-not-warming-called-global-warming/

    NASA Data Proves Trump Right to Exit Paris Climate Accord

    https://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-data-proves-trump-right-to-exit-paris-climate-accord.html

    Read More
  36. Wally says:
    @animalogic
    Whether man induced GW is true or not (Exxon & other oil Co's apparently believed so back in the early 80's ) it should not interfere with further research into renewables. As we are barreling towards a world of 9 billion odd people, the need for cheap, clean energy sources will only grow. We are no where near where we need to be with renewables --yet.

    Nonsense, “renewables’ are a scam:

    Hilarious: Renewables Won’t Work – Even If Climate Claims are True

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/08/hilarious-renewables-wont-work-even-if-climate-claims-are-true/

    British Energy Crisis: OFGEN Official Warns Renewables Will Leave Poor Britons “Sitting in the Dark”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/british-energy-crisis-ofgen-official-warns-renewables-will-leave-poor-britons-sitting-in-the-dark/

    Germany’s impossible and impractical wind and solar goal

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/09/germanys-impossible-and-impractical-wind-and-solar-goal/

    Offshore Wind power: Even Germany Can’t get it Right

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/13/offshore-wind-power-even-germany-cant-get-it-right/

    more here:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=renewables

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    You didn't read may last sentence, Wally - the one ending with "yet". And, naturally, if funding is removed it will probably be "never".
  37. macilrae says:

    My thanks to Mr Shamir for making me realize that I really ought to look into the counter-argument to the prevailing anthropogenic global warming dogma: instead of swallowing it whole.

    Almost immediately I encountered this:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#111167b28921

    The media had led me to believe that at the current rate the entire arctic icecap would be gone – in a very few years – all polar bears starved and drowned.

    Then I came across the following presentation by the late Prof. Bob Carter:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related

    Fascinating stuff – wish I’d looked into this earlier. I hope they don’t send climate change deniers to jail any time soon.

    Read More
  38. @Israel Shamir
    Right! I prefer God to Al Gore!

    You do not know enough to prefer Avalokiteshvara to Arrhenius. (Which is a statement as inane as yours is).

    Read More
  39. @Wally
    Nonsense, "renewables' are a scam:

    Hilarious: Renewables Won’t Work – Even If Climate Claims are True
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/08/hilarious-renewables-wont-work-even-if-climate-claims-are-true/

    British Energy Crisis: OFGEN Official Warns Renewables Will Leave Poor Britons “Sitting in the Dark”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/british-energy-crisis-ofgen-official-warns-renewables-will-leave-poor-britons-sitting-in-the-dark/

    Germany’s impossible and impractical wind and solar goal
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/09/germanys-impossible-and-impractical-wind-and-solar-goal/

    Offshore Wind power: Even Germany Can’t get it Right
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/13/offshore-wind-power-even-germany-cant-get-it-right/

    more here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=renewables

    You didn’t read may last sentence, Wally – the one ending with “yet”. And, naturally, if funding is removed it will probably be “never”.

    Read More
  40. LauraMR says:

    It is critical to clearly explain why it is financially advantageous for the conspiring puppeteers to exploit a world with a dirt poor population versus one with an economically thriving population. In other words, why is it more profitable for them to have a 1 billion Google than a 100 billion Google or a 1 trillion Google?

    I look forward to those articles.

    Read More
  41. utu says:

    Ivar Giaever “Global Warming Revisited”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V73hc-eMG4M

    This Nobel laureate in physics makes the most reasonable and calm arguments why to be skeptical about the global warming hoopla. He is a good antidote for the over the top arguments made by the pro and anti global warming crowds.

    Read More
  42. RodW says:
    @CK
    How large was the subsidy from you electricity supplier?
    What is the yearly maintenance cost for you setup?
    What is the expected life of the installation and how much do you depreciate each year so you can rebuild your setup when it dies?
    You are neither relieved from recurring costs nor from future discomfort; but you have succeeded in shifting your cost of comfort onto your neighbours, congratulations?

    That’s the usual boilerplate cant from fossil fuel boosters. There’s nothing but ignorance and stupidity to stop any of my neighbours doing what I’ve done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    I am certain that a commenter so much less ignorant than his neighbours can answer the questions I asked.
    How large was the governmental subsidy/tax break, how much was the electrical company subsidy?
    What is the annual depreciation or conversely what is the expected life of the installation?
    How much do you depreciate/set aside each year to replace the system when it reaches EOL?
    Not boilerplate nor cant, just three questions each with an easy to calculate answer for a man so much less stupid than his neighbours.
  43. utu says:

    The Russians – whether in Russia or elsewhere – are still rather independent of mind, as they haven’t been properly brainwashed by the Masters of Discourse.

    There was this joke about the homo sovieticus that was told in communist countries. A Soviet man is interviewed by a western journalist and asked about his position on various political issues. On one issue he gives an answer that line by line of Pravda position. On another he gives Izvestia position, and so on. The journalist gets exasperated and asks him “Don’t you have your own opinions?” The Soviet man answers: “Sure I do, but I do not agree with them.”

    People found this joke very funny and thought that the reality that created such a pathetic figure like this Soviet man was the most awful. Well, after 40 years of living in America I think that the homo sovieticus from the joke was on much higher level of awareness than the present homo americanus.

    American are unprepared to hold two opposing views in their heads. I suspect this is because of the Protestant tradition. So they must believe in one thing. It is almost impossible to go on living w/o believing to some extent in the mainstream official reality, so they do believe but w/o leaving a room for the alternate reality as the homo sovieticus managed to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    American are unprepared to hold two opposing views in their heads. I suspect this is because of the Protestant tradition. So they must believe in one thing. It is almost impossible to go on living w/o believing to some extent in the mainstream official reality, so they do believe but w/o leaving a room for the alternate reality as the homo sovieticus managed to do.
     
    wow

    keen insight
  44. Veritatis says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You do not know enough to prefer Avalokiteshvara to Arrhenius. (Which is a statement as inane as yours is).

    He meant the source of authority for believing.

    Read More
  45. @utu
    The Russians – whether in Russia or elsewhere – are still rather independent of mind, as they haven’t been properly brainwashed by the Masters of Discourse.

    There was this joke about the homo sovieticus that was told in communist countries. A Soviet man is interviewed by a western journalist and asked about his position on various political issues. On one issue he gives an answer that line by line of Pravda position. On another he gives Izvestia position, and so on. The journalist gets exasperated and asks him “Don’t you have your own opinions?” The Soviet man answers: “Sure I do, but I do not agree with them.”

    People found this joke very funny and thought that the reality that created such a pathetic figure like this Soviet man was the most awful. Well, after 40 years of living in America I think that the homo sovieticus from the joke was on much higher level of awareness than the present homo americanus.

    American are unprepared to hold two opposing views in their heads. I suspect this is because of the Protestant tradition. So they must believe in one thing. It is almost impossible to go on living w/o believing to some extent in the mainstream official reality, so they do believe but w/o leaving a room for the alternate reality as the homo sovieticus managed to do.

    American are unprepared to hold two opposing views in their heads. I suspect this is because of the Protestant tradition. So they must believe in one thing. It is almost impossible to go on living w/o believing to some extent in the mainstream official reality, so they do believe but w/o leaving a room for the alternate reality as the homo sovieticus managed to do.

    wow

    keen insight

    Read More
  46. The kind of science we must necessarily apply to make a claim of anthropogenic global warming is necessary never absolutely certain. The argument for global warming is a simple one, but does not provide certainty. It never can. Global warming deniers should address the actual argument for global warming rather than trotting out authorities.

    1) The paleo-record shows a correspondence between CO₂ concentrations and rises in temperature.

    2) It can be shown in the laboratory that CO₂ absorbs and re-radiates heat.

    3) CO₂ is increasing in the atmosphere due to human use of fossil fuels.

    4) The earth is warming.

    5) Variations in solar irradiance do not correspond to periods of warming, nor do any other possible known causes except CO₂ concentrations.

    Some possible objections:

    A) The amount of warming due to CO₂ is insufficient to account for the present warming.
    This is irrelevant given the Paleo-record. All that is necessary is a correspondence of CO₂ levels and warming. Other contingent mechanisms, in particular increased evaporation can be due to the effect of CO₂ and account for the additional warming

    B) Some other factor corresponds to paleo-records of warming better than CO₂.

    C) Disagreement with the factuality any of the four claims above.

    Read More
  47. […] Première publication: The Unz Review. […]

    Read More
  48. CK says:
    @RodW
    @CK That's the usual boilerplate cant from fossil fuel boosters. There's nothing but ignorance and stupidity to stop any of my neighbours doing what I've done.

    I am certain that a commenter so much less ignorant than his neighbours can answer the questions I asked.
    How large was the governmental subsidy/tax break, how much was the electrical company subsidy?
    What is the annual depreciation or conversely what is the expected life of the installation?
    How much do you depreciate/set aside each year to replace the system when it reaches EOL?
    Not boilerplate nor cant, just three questions each with an easy to calculate answer for a man so much less stupid than his neighbours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RodW
    When you answer me those same questions for the fuel you use, I'll answer you them for mine. However I can tell you without doing any tiresome calculations that the equipment with the shortest expected lifespan has already exceeded it.
  49. anarchyst says:
    @RodW
    I put my money where my mouth is on GW and put solar panels on my house. I now enjoy completely free energy for my whole house, clean air inside my home, and my weekends free from waiting for a truck to deliver stinking kerosene. That's what freedom from fossil fuels means -- blessed relief from recurring costs and discomfort.

    On a global scale, relief from fossil fuel should mean peace for large swathes of the world.

    So why are people who claim to be of good will still urging a filthy, dangerous way of life on us?

    The term “fossil fuel” was created in the 1950s when little was known about the processes deep within the earth that create petroleum products.
    It was assumed that “fossil fuels” were the result of decaying animal and plant material compressed in layers within the earth.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    It turns out that oil is “abiotic” in nature and is constantly being created by yet unknown processes deep within the earth. Oil deposits are being found much deeper than that of any plant or animal material. In fact, many of our depleted oil wells are “filling back up” with oil migrating from much deeper levels.
    The latest discovery is that of methane hydrate (white oil) which is natural gas sequestered in water. This promises to be a virtually limitless form of energy, once it is harvested in great amounts.
    I would not count out the future use of petroleum products for a very long time…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RodW
    Wherever hydrocarbons come from, getting them out of the ground and transporting them is unlikely to be more efficient than harvesting renewable energy. And if, like me, you reckon that the science of climate change is more persuasive than that of abiogenesis, then supporting and using renewables is not a difficult decision. Not that I'm not open to persuasion.
  50. RodW says:
    @CK
    I am certain that a commenter so much less ignorant than his neighbours can answer the questions I asked.
    How large was the governmental subsidy/tax break, how much was the electrical company subsidy?
    What is the annual depreciation or conversely what is the expected life of the installation?
    How much do you depreciate/set aside each year to replace the system when it reaches EOL?
    Not boilerplate nor cant, just three questions each with an easy to calculate answer for a man so much less stupid than his neighbours.

    When you answer me those same questions for the fuel you use, I’ll answer you them for mine. However I can tell you without doing any tiresome calculations that the equipment with the shortest expected lifespan has already exceeded it.

    Read More
  51. RodW says:
    @anarchyst
    The term "fossil fuel" was created in the 1950s when little was known about the processes deep within the earth that create petroleum products.
    It was assumed that "fossil fuels" were the result of decaying animal and plant material compressed in layers within the earth.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    It turns out that oil is "abiotic" in nature and is constantly being created by yet unknown processes deep within the earth. Oil deposits are being found much deeper than that of any plant or animal material. In fact, many of our depleted oil wells are "filling back up" with oil migrating from much deeper levels.
    The latest discovery is that of methane hydrate (white oil) which is natural gas sequestered in water. This promises to be a virtually limitless form of energy, once it is harvested in great amounts.
    I would not count out the future use of petroleum products for a very long time...

    Wherever hydrocarbons come from, getting them out of the ground and transporting them is unlikely to be more efficient than harvesting renewable energy. And if, like me, you reckon that the science of climate change is more persuasive than that of abiogenesis, then supporting and using renewables is not a difficult decision. Not that I’m not open to persuasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    "Climate change" is a scam of epic proportions. Earth's weather is more dependent on solar activity than anything else. CO2 levels are a reaction of solar activity--nothing more.
    In fact, two long-term solar cycles were recently discovered. When they are "in phase", they compliment each other and reinforce increased solar activity. When they are "out of phase", they "cancel out"--the "Maunder minimum" and the "little ice age" are the result. It turns out that we are about to see colder weather--NOT "warming"...a "solar induced" climate change.
    Your penchant for "renewables" will not be enough...
    Regards,
  52. Avery says:
    @RodW
    I put my money where my mouth is on GW and put solar panels on my house. I now enjoy completely free energy for my whole house, clean air inside my home, and my weekends free from waiting for a truck to deliver stinking kerosene. That's what freedom from fossil fuels means -- blessed relief from recurring costs and discomfort.

    On a global scale, relief from fossil fuel should mean peace for large swathes of the world.

    So why are people who claim to be of good will still urging a filthy, dangerous way of life on us?

    {I put my money where my mouth is on GW and put solar panels on my house.}
    {On a global scale, relief from fossil fuel should mean peace for large swathes of the world.}

    Try flying passenger airplanes on solar panels.
    Or trucks. (~70% of cargo in US is moved by (diesel) trucks).
    Or cargo rail.
    Or oceangoing cargo and passenger ships.
    Or agricultural harvesting machines.
    Or earthmoving equipment.
    Or………

    Nothing comes close to the energy density of hydrocarbons.
    By orders of magnitude.
    That is why a heavier-than-air contraption made of metal can carry enough fuel to stay in the air and also carry useful cargo – people.

    It is a shame to burn such a valuable substance (oil) for fuel, since pretty much every type of plastic is made from oil. No plastics, no modern life. And plastics can be endlessly recycled and re-used.

    But for the foreseeable future there is no substitute for oil to run a modern world.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Try flying...
     
    Hell, try running an aluminium smelter (or other metals)! Or, try making the silicon for solar panel cells from solar power. It's been done, but...

    Nothing comes close to the energy density of hydrocarbons.
     
    Wholly agreed, nothing, absolutely nothing, beats the energy density and transportability of HCs. However, (E.G.) Shenzhen, China has already converted the majority of its city buses to autonomous (battery storage) electric, and there's little to be done technically to migrate that to trucks. They run an 8hr shift of some 350km between battery exchange. The city I grew up in had electric trolley buses and streetcars operating from overhead lines on all central routes more than 60 yrs ago. It still does. The city I live in today has a large network of electric streetcars that are 100 yrs old still operating. It takes little engineering to migrate that "ancient" technology to cargo trains as all cargo trains today are diesel-electrics anyway. Of course, most passenger trains and all Metros (subways) today are electrically driven.

    But for the foreseeable future there is no substitute for oil to run a modern world.
     
    That, however, begs the question how long the world will stay "modern"? My own guess is not long. A few decades? The issue ain't just energy, it's everything else that HC energy helps extract. Including food from depleting topsoils that were put on steroids (HC based fertilizers) for big agra's "green revolution" and are now almost sterile.

    One quibble. Plastics cannot be endlessly recycled. Most cos don't allow more than 10% re-grind in 1st tier production products for cosmetic reasons, so mass re-grinds, or re-cycled material generally goes into 2nd tier products like garbage cans, pallets etc.
  53. anarchyst says:
    @RodW
    Wherever hydrocarbons come from, getting them out of the ground and transporting them is unlikely to be more efficient than harvesting renewable energy. And if, like me, you reckon that the science of climate change is more persuasive than that of abiogenesis, then supporting and using renewables is not a difficult decision. Not that I'm not open to persuasion.

    “Climate change” is a scam of epic proportions. Earth’s weather is more dependent on solar activity than anything else. CO2 levels are a reaction of solar activity–nothing more.
    In fact, two long-term solar cycles were recently discovered. When they are “in phase”, they compliment each other and reinforce increased solar activity. When they are “out of phase”, they “cancel out”–the “Maunder minimum” and the “little ice age” are the result. It turns out that we are about to see colder weather–NOT “warming”…a “solar induced” climate change.
    Your penchant for “renewables” will not be enough…
    Regards,

    Read More
    • Replies: @macilrae


    CO2 levels are a reaction of solar activity–nothing more.
     
    While I find myself rapidly becoming an "AGW denier" I need to check you on this one. I suggest it's extremely easy to make the case that CO2 levels are rising due to human activity - simply by knowing the approximate volume of the earth's atmosphere and the mass of CO2 being released.

    The case that is not being made is that the resulting (and also undeniable) greenhouse effect is as strong as the computer models predict and that the "positive feedback factors" such as the (also undeniable) release of methane from warming tundra are similarly powerful.

    An eighteen year stasis in the otherwise inexorable rise of global temperature (0.94 Celsius in 137 years per NASA) - during a time of major CO2 increase - is, to most physicists, suggestive of a diminished role of CO2: reinforced by the fact that neither ice cap is actually shrinking.
  54. schmenz says:
    @sadness
    Mr Shamir doesn't believe in 'global warming' but he believes in 'religion'...might I shake my head in disbelief, thank you.

    I’m shaking my head in disbelief also….at your unimaginably tiresome comment.

    Read More
  55. Erebus says:
    @Avery
    {I put my money where my mouth is on GW and put solar panels on my house.}
    {On a global scale, relief from fossil fuel should mean peace for large swathes of the world.}

    Try flying passenger airplanes on solar panels.
    Or trucks. (~70% of cargo in US is moved by (diesel) trucks).
    Or cargo rail.
    Or oceangoing cargo and passenger ships.
    Or agricultural harvesting machines.
    Or earthmoving equipment.
    Or.........

    Nothing comes close to the energy density of hydrocarbons.
    By orders of magnitude.
    That is why a heavier-than-air contraption made of metal can carry enough fuel to stay in the air and also carry useful cargo - people.

    It is a shame to burn such a valuable substance (oil) for fuel, since pretty much every type of plastic is made from oil. No plastics, no modern life. And plastics can be endlessly recycled and re-used.

    But for the foreseeable future there is no substitute for oil to run a modern world.

    Try flying…

    Hell, try running an aluminium smelter (or other metals)! Or, try making the silicon for solar panel cells from solar power. It’s been done, but…

    Nothing comes close to the energy density of hydrocarbons.

    Wholly agreed, nothing, absolutely nothing, beats the energy density and transportability of HCs. However, (E.G.) Shenzhen, China has already converted the majority of its city buses to autonomous (battery storage) electric, and there’s little to be done technically to migrate that to trucks. They run an 8hr shift of some 350km between battery exchange. The city I grew up in had electric trolley buses and streetcars operating from overhead lines on all central routes more than 60 yrs ago. It still does. The city I live in today has a large network of electric streetcars that are 100 yrs old still operating. It takes little engineering to migrate that “ancient” technology to cargo trains as all cargo trains today are diesel-electrics anyway. Of course, most passenger trains and all Metros (subways) today are electrically driven.

    But for the foreseeable future there is no substitute for oil to run a modern world.

    That, however, begs the question how long the world will stay “modern”? My own guess is not long. A few decades? The issue ain’t just energy, it’s everything else that HC energy helps extract. Including food from depleting topsoils that were put on steroids (HC based fertilizers) for big agra’s “green revolution” and are now almost sterile.

    One quibble. Plastics cannot be endlessly recycled. Most cos don’t allow more than 10% re-grind in 1st tier production products for cosmetic reasons, so mass re-grinds, or re-cycled material generally goes into 2nd tier products like garbage cans, pallets etc.

    Read More
  56. MBlanc46 says:
    @sadness
    Mr Shamir doesn't believe in 'global warming' but he believes in 'religion'...might I shake my head in disbelief, thank you.

    You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between belief and faith.

    Read More
  57. @macilrae
    Well, it's a point of view and certainly worth expressing. Upon the whole I hate bandwagons and there isn't much doubt there are some pretty dubious entities hitched up to the global warming one.

    There is also no doubt that Trump is right about NATO and also TPP and TAP - as well as his unpopular stand on Russia and Putin - I give him a lot of credit for these at least.

    I have been watching the sanctimonious outpourings from most British politicians following the events in London last night - how we have to show the world "our way" and "our values" - I thought "we" did that pretty effectively when we invaded Iraq and bombed Libya; killing and maiming countless innocents for political gain.

    The establishment has much to answer for and just maybe the Trump revolution is not such a bad thing as they are trying to make us believe.

    “…and just maybe the Trump revolution is not such a bad thing as they are trying to make us believe.”

    All the old “narratives” are dissolving. Those reassuring “truths”, which of course were never true (thus the quotes around “narrative”), are gone and the world is drifting in uncertainty, waiting for new “truths” — not — to congeal, and calm the waters. The world is changing. Sanders/Trump/Brexit are manifestations of that change. Interesting times as the Chinese say.
    Fueled by the digital revolution and its destruction/liberation by the internet of control of “the narrative”.

    The Trump-hate is strong, but the truth is stronger. People will come ’round. Be patient and enjoy the spectacle.

    Read More
  58. […] Première publication: The Unz Review. […]

    Read More
  59. macilrae says:
    @anarchyst
    "Climate change" is a scam of epic proportions. Earth's weather is more dependent on solar activity than anything else. CO2 levels are a reaction of solar activity--nothing more.
    In fact, two long-term solar cycles were recently discovered. When they are "in phase", they compliment each other and reinforce increased solar activity. When they are "out of phase", they "cancel out"--the "Maunder minimum" and the "little ice age" are the result. It turns out that we are about to see colder weather--NOT "warming"...a "solar induced" climate change.
    Your penchant for "renewables" will not be enough...
    Regards,

    CO2 levels are a reaction of solar activity–nothing more.

    While I find myself rapidly becoming an “AGW denier” I need to check you on this one. I suggest it’s extremely easy to make the case that CO2 levels are rising due to human activity – simply by knowing the approximate volume of the earth’s atmosphere and the mass of CO2 being released.

    The case that is not being made is that the resulting (and also undeniable) greenhouse effect is as strong as the computer models predict and that the “positive feedback factors” such as the (also undeniable) release of methane from warming tundra are similarly powerful.

    An eighteen year stasis in the otherwise inexorable rise of global temperature (0.94 Celsius in 137 years per NASA) – during a time of major CO2 increase – is, to most physicists, suggestive of a diminished role of CO2: reinforced by the fact that neither ice cap is actually shrinking.

    Read More
  60. @Israel Shamir
    It is cheap OR clean, not both.

    “It is cheap OR clean, not both.”

    With respect,…actually, no. Though the rapid pace of technology has made it nearly impossible, I’m a lifelong techno-junkie, and I do my best to keep up.

    https://singularityhub.com/2017/05/18/solar-is-now-the-cheapest-energy-there-is-in-the-sunniest-parts-of-the-world/

    With the coming revolutionary reduction in cost, enabled by the cheaper materials and ease of production of square-kilometer quantities of perovskite-based solar-energy-harvesting films — “cells” is too small a term for the coming perovskite solar revolution — the clean energy revolution is on our doorstep. Within ten years, conversion to clean, carbon-free, electric everything will moot the whole global warming hysteria, and terminate, as in kill dead, the entire hydrocarbon-based energy paradigm, leaving oil and gas dirt cheap and used primarily for chemical feed-stock. Countries with oil-based economies will become poor, unless they see the writing on the wall and implement an alternate economic model.

    Also, the newly-poor Gulf States, the Saudis in particular, will be unable to continue to fund radical Sunni terrorism, and that phenomenon, starved of paychecks, will come to an end.

    Read More
  61. utu says:

    The cheapness of PV cells will not change the fact that it still will take about 5 years for a PV cell to produce net energy output above the energy that was put into making it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Davis
    With respect. That is indeed true in the case of single crystal or amorphous silicon, which was the old -- call it "legacy" -- solar cell technology. Silicon solar cells, like silicon integrated circuits, requires silicon of ***exceptionally high*** purity. That costs.

    The cost of silicon as a starting material is insignificant: as cheap as sand. However "reducing" silicate to silicon and then purifying it is quite expensive. The purification process in particular involves repeatedly heating an ingot of solid silicon to the melting point, which is, as your comment implies, very energy intensive.

    However, no such energy requirement is necessary for the production of perovskite solar cells.
  62. @utu
    The cheapness of PV cells will not change the fact that it still will take about 5 years for a PV cell to produce net energy output above the energy that was put into making it.

    With respect. That is indeed true in the case of single crystal or amorphous silicon, which was the old — call it “legacy” — solar cell technology. Silicon solar cells, like silicon integrated circuits, requires silicon of ***exceptionally high*** purity. That costs.

    The cost of silicon as a starting material is insignificant: as cheap as sand. However “reducing” silicate to silicon and then purifying it is quite expensive. The purification process in particular involves repeatedly heating an ingot of solid silicon to the melting point, which is, as your comment implies, very energy intensive.

    However, no such energy requirement is necessary for the production of perovskite solar cells.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Even so, the economics of solar will remain in doubt. Solar is super labour intensive compared to standard technologies.
    See https://mises.org/blog/more-solar-jobs-curse-not-blessing

    It’s even more glaring when you look at the amount of electricity generated per worker. Coal generated an incredible 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per worker; natural gas 3,812 MWH per worker; wind a measly 836 MWH for every employee; and solar an abysmal 98 MWH per worker.
     
    Now, some of that is due to the fact that solar is still building its base generation capacity, but the spread between coal and solar is 30x. That's not gonna be made up in a foreseeable future. The article goes on to point out the extent to which solar also requires vastly more acreage and raw material resources to generate the same power. It's as Avery said, you can't beat HCs for energy density, or economic "density" either.
    Harnessing the energy in HCs is how the modern world was built in little over a century. We simply couldn't have built it with any of the alternatives.
    , @utu
    However, no such energy requirement is necessary for the production of perovskite solar cells.

    Yes and no. It seems that they are nowhere near the production stage. Stability is a serious issue. Moisture, temperature and ultraviolet kill the cells. As they are working on it the solutions become more exotics and possibly more costly. By I agree that energy input probably will be lower than in silicon cells.
  63. Windwaves says:
    @macilrae
    Well, it's a point of view and certainly worth expressing. Upon the whole I hate bandwagons and there isn't much doubt there are some pretty dubious entities hitched up to the global warming one.

    There is also no doubt that Trump is right about NATO and also TPP and TAP - as well as his unpopular stand on Russia and Putin - I give him a lot of credit for these at least.

    I have been watching the sanctimonious outpourings from most British politicians following the events in London last night - how we have to show the world "our way" and "our values" - I thought "we" did that pretty effectively when we invaded Iraq and bombed Libya; killing and maiming countless innocents for political gain.

    The establishment has much to answer for and just maybe the Trump revolution is not such a bad thing as they are trying to make us believe.

    Sure hope you are right about israel as I feel we as a nation are their puppet and trump has them in its home checking his every move.

    Read More
  64. Erebus says:
    @Jeff Davis
    With respect. That is indeed true in the case of single crystal or amorphous silicon, which was the old -- call it "legacy" -- solar cell technology. Silicon solar cells, like silicon integrated circuits, requires silicon of ***exceptionally high*** purity. That costs.

    The cost of silicon as a starting material is insignificant: as cheap as sand. However "reducing" silicate to silicon and then purifying it is quite expensive. The purification process in particular involves repeatedly heating an ingot of solid silicon to the melting point, which is, as your comment implies, very energy intensive.

    However, no such energy requirement is necessary for the production of perovskite solar cells.

    Even so, the economics of solar will remain in doubt. Solar is super labour intensive compared to standard technologies.
    See https://mises.org/blog/more-solar-jobs-curse-not-blessing

    It’s even more glaring when you look at the amount of electricity generated per worker. Coal generated an incredible 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per worker; natural gas 3,812 MWH per worker; wind a measly 836 MWH for every employee; and solar an abysmal 98 MWH per worker.

    Now, some of that is due to the fact that solar is still building its base generation capacity, but the spread between coal and solar is 30x. That’s not gonna be made up in a foreseeable future. The article goes on to point out the extent to which solar also requires vastly more acreage and raw material resources to generate the same power. It’s as Avery said, you can’t beat HCs for energy density, or economic “density” either.
    Harnessing the energy in HCs is how the modern world was built in little over a century. We simply couldn’t have built it with any of the alternatives.

    Read More
  65. utu says:
    @Jeff Davis
    With respect. That is indeed true in the case of single crystal or amorphous silicon, which was the old -- call it "legacy" -- solar cell technology. Silicon solar cells, like silicon integrated circuits, requires silicon of ***exceptionally high*** purity. That costs.

    The cost of silicon as a starting material is insignificant: as cheap as sand. However "reducing" silicate to silicon and then purifying it is quite expensive. The purification process in particular involves repeatedly heating an ingot of solid silicon to the melting point, which is, as your comment implies, very energy intensive.

    However, no such energy requirement is necessary for the production of perovskite solar cells.

    However, no such energy requirement is necessary for the production of perovskite solar cells.

    Yes and no. It seems that they are nowhere near the production stage. Stability is a serious issue. Moisture, temperature and ultraviolet kill the cells. As they are working on it the solutions become more exotics and possibly more costly. By I agree that energy input probably will be lower than in silicon cells.

    Read More
  66. pogohere says: • Website
    @RebelWriter
    Afghanistan produces over 90% of the world's Opium Poppy. This is hardly inconsequential, and does merit attention, and a lot of it. The Taliban did a better job of controlling the Poppy fields than do US forces. Poppy production is now 4 times what it was under the Taliban. At one time the fields came right up to American FOB's, at times, and the fields were destroyed only after Opium began to be sold among the troops on the base. I've little doubt the CIA uses profits from this drug trade to fund black ops, and this is probably the source of much of their animosity to Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

    "Global warming is already beyond arguments."

    Climate change is not even being argued. The climate changes. There seems to be disagreement about whether we're warming or cooling, though. The argument is over mankind's contribution to whatever changes in the climate are occurring. No science is ever settled, but is constantly evolving as we learn more. People tend to focus charts and data over the last several centuries (often excluding, or hiding, the medieval warming period and subsequent cool down), rather than viewing climate across the broad range of time we claim to know about. It has certainly been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, too, in the past.

    Re: “The Taliban did a better job of controlling the Poppy fields than do US forces.”

    McCoy, in “The Politics of Heroin” gives a more complete picture:

    In 1996, following four years of civil war among rival resistance factions, the Taliban’s victory caused further expansion of opium cultivation. After capturing Kabul in September, the Taliban drove the Uzbek and Tajik warlords into the country’s northeast, where they formed the Northern Alliance and clung to some 10 percent of Afghanistan’s territory. Over the next three years, a seesaw battle for the Shamali plain north of Kabul raged until the Taliban finally won control in 1999 by destroying the orchards and irrigation in a prime food-producing region, generating over 100,000 refugees and increasing the country’s dependence on opium.

    Once in power, the Taliban made opium its largest source of taxation. To raise revenues estimated at $20-$25 million in 1997, the Taliban collected a 5 to 10 percent tax in kind on all opium harvested, a share that they then sold to heroin laboratories; a flat tax of $70 per kilogram on heroin refiners; and a transport tax of $250 on every kilogram exported. The head of the regime’s anti-drug operations in Kandahar, Abdul Rashid, enforced a rigid ban on hashish “because it is consumed by Afghans, Muslims.” But, he explained, “Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs [unbelievers] in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans.” A Taliban governor, Mohammed Hassan, added: “Drugs are evil and we would like to substitute poppies with another cash crop, but it’s not possible at the moment because we do not have international recognition.”

    More broadly, the Taliban’s policies provided stimulus, both direct and indirect, for a nationwide expansion of opium cultivation. . . Significantly, the regime’s ban on the employment and education of women created a vast pool of low-cost labor to sustain an accelerated expansion of opium production. . . . In northern and eastern Afghanistan, women of all ages played ” a fundamental role in the cultivation of the opium poppy”—planting, weeding, harvesting, cooking for laborers, and processing by-products such as oil. The Taliban not only taxed and encouraged opium cultivation, they protected and promoted exports to international markets.

    In retrospect, however, the Taliban’s most important contribution to the illicit traffic was its support for large-scale heroin refining.
    . . .
    Instead of eradication, the UN’s annual opium surveys showed that Taliban rule had doubled Afghanistan’s opium production from 2,250 tons in 1996 to 4,600 tons in 1999–equivalent to 75 percent of world illicit production. (508-509)
    . . .

    War on the Taliban

    All this [heroin] traffic across Central Asia depended on high-volume heroin production in politically volatile Afghanistan. In July 2000, as a devastating drought entered its second year and mass starvation spread across Afghanistan, the Taliban’s leader Mullah Omar ordered a sudden ban on opium cultivation in a bid for international recognition. (p.517)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Thank you for that. Like usual, the real story is richer and more complex than the cartoon version.
  67. Erebus says:
    @pogohere
    Re: "The Taliban did a better job of controlling the Poppy fields than do US forces."

    McCoy, in "The Politics of Heroin" gives a more complete picture:

    In 1996, following four years of civil war among rival resistance factions, the Taliban's victory caused further expansion of opium cultivation. After capturing Kabul in September, the Taliban drove the Uzbek and Tajik warlords into the country's northeast, where they formed the Northern Alliance and clung to some 10 percent of Afghanistan's territory. Over the next three years, a seesaw battle for the Shamali plain north of Kabul raged until the Taliban finally won control in 1999 by destroying the orchards and irrigation in a prime food-producing region, generating over 100,000 refugees and increasing the country's dependence on opium.

    Once in power, the Taliban made opium its largest source of taxation. To raise revenues estimated at $20-$25 million in 1997, the Taliban collected a 5 to 10 percent tax in kind on all opium harvested, a share that they then sold to heroin laboratories; a flat tax of $70 per kilogram on heroin refiners; and a transport tax of $250 on every kilogram exported. The head of the regime's anti-drug operations in Kandahar, Abdul Rashid, enforced a rigid ban on hashish "because it is consumed by Afghans, Muslims." But, he explained, "Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs [unbelievers] in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans." A Taliban governor, Mohammed Hassan, added: "Drugs are evil and we would like to substitute poppies with another cash crop, but it's not possible at the moment because we do not have international recognition."

    More broadly, the Taliban's policies provided stimulus, both direct and indirect, for a nationwide expansion of opium cultivation. . . Significantly, the regime's ban on the employment and education of women created a vast pool of low-cost labor to sustain an accelerated expansion of opium production. . . . In northern and eastern Afghanistan, women of all ages played " a fundamental role in the cultivation of the opium poppy"---planting, weeding, harvesting, cooking for laborers, and processing by-products such as oil. The Taliban not only taxed and encouraged opium cultivation, they protected and promoted exports to international markets.

    In retrospect, however, the Taliban's most important contribution to the illicit traffic was its support for large-scale heroin refining.
    . . .
    Instead of eradication, the UN's annual opium surveys showed that Taliban rule had doubled Afghanistan's opium production from 2,250 tons in 1996 to 4,600 tons in 1999--equivalent to 75 percent of world illicit production. (508-509)
    . . .

    War on the Taliban

    All this [heroin] traffic across Central Asia depended on high-volume heroin production in politically volatile Afghanistan. In July 2000, as a devastating drought entered its second year and mass starvation spread across Afghanistan, the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar ordered a sudden ban on opium cultivation in a bid for international recognition. (p.517)

    Thank you for that. Like usual, the real story is richer and more complex than the cartoon version.

    Read More
  68. A letter from Come Carpentier, Delhi, India: Israel Shamir is pointing to the positive developments that Trump is behind. He is not denying and in fact he talks about the many problems and potential disasters that US policy under Trump harbours. However we all know that presidents cannot do much about overall national policies if they run against the dominant lobbies and interest groups.American friends who support Trump tell me that he, like them, wants to gradually disingage the US from foreign military involvements as far as he can and concentrate on economic revival (of course in the old fashioned American libertarian uber-capitalist mode, Trump is not a socialist peacenik and never claimed to be one). Trump is by instinct an old fashioned nationalist conservative who knows little about the rest of the world and is not very interested in it. His goal is to make the US wealthy and peaceful as far as possible but of course there is many a slip between the cup and the lips; he faces formidable opposition from many quarters and has made made mistakes. He is not a sophisticated and subtle strategist like Putin and has to please a mostly illiterate support base while keeping the Military on his side if he wishes to survive. Not an easy job for anyone. Most people simply surrender to the system and try to enjoy the perks of the presidency. We don’t know yet if Trump will do that or go down in flames instead,

    Read More
  69. A letter from Ken Freeland, Texas: OMG, Shamir, you are truly the ultimate spin doctor. If the Donald is not paying you for this service, he owes you a sizable paycheck!
    Whilst there is for food for thought in some of what you write, your glossing over Trump’s record of military aggression is, in my view, unconscionable. It is also ahistorical. Trump’s ramping up of the military budget, at the expense of (populist) social programs, was not imposed on him, it came at his own initiative, as you might say, “of his own free will.”
    Trump might be incapable of doing wrong in your eyes, but to those of us in the American peace movement his bloodletting sins are egregious, and his infusion of funding to our already bloated military means we should only expect more of the same.

    Read More
  70. ‘Rockefeller wants us to believe in Global Warming for nefarious reasons, namely he needs a “new Big Idea with which to get the masses to follow the leadership of the upper class”. They want to frighten us – with GW or terrorism or whatever – into submission.’

    Interesting article, with the above being the best quote. This Kathy Griffith monster should be put in her place, perhaps in a manner she suggests. Ditto about half the population.
    But Shamir is far too upbeat and positive about Trump, almost naive (not that I believe he’s naive, but playing some politics game more probably). Trump never cared for middle Americans. He’s only ever been interested in himself and his own power. If he had real power he might try to prove it, by doing what he said he would, ie not continuing the sabre rattling, bringing manufacturing back etc. A symbolic gesture here and there, while not bad things, don’t come to much. Halting the insane trade agreements are the only good things he has done so far. Also, like all these cats (Corbyn included), if they were real they would expose the great lie about TERROR. They would let the people know just how deep the lies go. But no, they’re all bullshitters.

    Read More
  71. @War for Blair Mountain
    Israel Shamir


    Here is a list of Donald Trump's War Crimes and Treason


    1)slaughtered innocent Syrian Children in a cruise missile strike...boasted to Marie Bartalomo on TV that after he ordered the cruise missile strike...that he enjoyed Melania's scrumptious Chocolate Cake aftterwards!!!


    2)slaughtered innocent Yemeni children in Yemen...cruise missile slaughtered


    3)selling 100 billion dollars worth of weapons to ISIS=Saudia Arabia...As Donald called it:A MAGA JOBS probram for America...


    4)pre-emotive War of aggression against Shia Muslim Iran


    5)Threatens Christian Russia over Crimea


    6)ordered US Military excercises on Christian Russia's border...


    7)An enthusiast for importing Asian Legal Immigrants....Asian scab labor....into US labor markets=economic and demographic extermination of Native Born White American Tech Workers...

    I see that you are an enthusiast for Jeremy Corbyn....does that include Corbyn's enthusiasm for importing the young male Mohammadan Gang Rape Army into Merry Old England?

    Thank you, excellent!

    Read More
  72. […] This article was first published at The Unz Review […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Israel Shamir Comments via RSS