My hunch is that the most likely ultimate funder of the global warming scam was the single biggest beneficiary: China.
However, I’ve got an open mind and perhaps Saudi and Russian money were also involved. Russian: because they never really stopped the cold war and causing western economies to rot from the inside due to global warming hysteria was an ideal way to destroy us. Saudi Arabia, because paradoxically, the whole global warming fad has focussed on increasing energy prices – thus increasing profits for oil companies and countries like Saudi rather than reducing use and thereby creating a glut.
However, I think the evidence Saudi and other similar groups are funding anti-fracking protests is beyond doubt. And it is very clear that anti-fracking groups are completely gullible and being led by the nose by their commercial sponsors.
As for feminists – I’m sick and tired of the hypocrisy of feminists. I’ve noticed they are only feminists when the issue is against western men. When any other race is being sexist, even in the most extreme way – they seem to endorse the behaviour even when it occurs in their own country.
And it’s also clear to me men are the true victims as the following stats show:
- Far more men died in WWI and WWII than women. This was a sexist war and I’ve yet to here any mention of women volunteering to die in the place of men.
- Men still die earlier than women even in peacetime. As a result, by rights men should receive disproportionately more funding on healthcare, earlier retirement, etc. to compensate. In fact, we don’t really have equality of retirement let alone equitable treatment (earlier retirement) for men yet.
- Far far more young men die from suicide than women. It’s obvious that we need to address this issue by making a society in which male attributes are valued particularly for younger men.
- Far more men go to prison than women. Again this is clearly a very sexist attitude of society. And again, we need to understand how to give young men the sense of worth and place in society that means they do not commit crimes.
In other words, because men and women are not the same, what we get with feminist based “equality” is a society which is actually totally and wholly unfair to men. Because “equality” doesn’t act equally: it takes away from men what they value: jobs, career, etc. but fails to give us anything “equal” which women have in child care etc. which we value, and so women get equal access to everything they could want from family to career, but men who tend to have a narrower focus have less of what we value … and to cap it all … we still die earlier, retire later, commit more suicide, have more chance of going to jail and for all this how do women treat us? They call us sexist!
To illustrate this, let’s imagine a perfect electricity power store which costs nothing to build and can collect energy from the grid and supply it back at no cost. We charge the “battery” at the average price of electricity and then we supply the electricity back to the grid distributed at the same price slots as the charging so there is no net benefit to the grid and the average price of electricity for that supplied is the same as that when charged.
It is easy to see that this theoretical device in the long run neither consumes nor creates energy and neither consumes nor creates “profit/loss”.
So, let us now replace this theoretical device with a wind machine. This wind machine lasts for a finite time. It takes a certain amount of energy to produce this machine and so money and in the time that it is running it delivers precisely the same energy to the grid as was originally used in its construction. It also costs nothing to run and the only costs are those in the original manufacture and these are entirely energy costs from electricity at an average electricity price and the only income is from energy at that same price.
It is therefore easy to see that this device over its life time neither produces energy nor consumes it. And (allowing for inflation), this device neither makes a loss nor a profit.
Now let’s suppose this device produces 10% more over its lifetime than it takes to produce. It is easy to see that over the lifetime (ignoring inflation) the profit will be 10%. However let us suppose one of these monstrous machines were to fail having only produced 90% of the energy used in installation – then it is easy to see that it will make a 10% loss.
Now let’s suppose that we produce a machine that whilst it alone is not a net consumer or producer of electricity, that it consumes energy when the price is low and it delivers it back when the price is high. By this means it makes the rest of the system more efficient and it is not too difficult to see that the profit this machine will make is not because it produces energy but because of the energy costs it saves for others.
Therefore, one can conclude that for a single energy source, companies make money when their machines increase energy availability or reduce energy consumption providing energy. And by extension, companies make a loss when they reduce energy availability.
So a good rule of thumb is that if an energy source is cheaper than carbon alternatives then the total energy used in securing that source (most of it from carbon sources) is less than the energy it produces. In other words using that energy source reduces CO2 output (e.g. Hydro in Scotland). Or to be more specific, if an energy source needs subsidising, it is very likely it actually increases energy consumption and increases “CO2 emissions”.
This means that in an economy where most energy comes from carbon sources, that the total carbon-based energy used in creating the energy source is less than the carbon based energy it replaces.
If however the cost is higher than carbon alternatives, then it is likely that the sum total cost of energy used in securing that energy source is higher than the carbon-based energy it produces.
That means that if the cost is higher MORE CO2 IS PRODUCED using that energy source.
In other words, wind “energy” isn’t so much a form of energy production, but is instead rather like a battery – the energy is not “free”, but instead energy appears to be “free” but we only have it because more energy goes into producing wind power through the steel work in the machinery and the concrete in the foundations and the transport – and the energy costs of having all those sales-people and consultants.
But like all this non-science, you will never find research into the total energy costs of wind because that doesn’t suit anyone benefiting from this scam.