Top Tweets for #CO2SCAM

We live on a largely pleasant, yet historically cool world, where average temperatures hover around 15C. This current baseline includes the 1.4C rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution 250 years ago. We are rarely reminded Earth's climate is roughly 10 degrees 'colder' than the long-term global average of 18C to 26C across hundreds of millions of years. A warmer climate would not be a crisis, and never has across the history of biological life. Humans and our unique, symbolism-based culture evolved against this cooling, drying backdrop of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which has lasted 34 million years since the glaciation of Antarctica. We are currently in its coldest phase — the Quaternary glaciation — which has endured for 2.58 million years. Almost all human civilisation - and our acute sense of modernity - arrived during a brief, 11,700-year warm interglacial oasis known as the Holocene. This demonstrates that we are an 'ice age adapted' species, as are all modern mammals. Yet the current climate crisis is built around an institutional dogma, which ignores this vast geological history, operating as if the earth works just like a greenhouse, which it doesn't. It's all complex. While orbital cycles dictate the 'macro' climate epochs of the Earth over millennia, the current debate focuses entirely on the 'micro' trend of the last 250 years. Our planet is constantly responding to the orbital aberrations identified by Milutin Milanković. Over the short term, this changeability comes from natural variability in solar radiance, ocean currents, atmospheric water vapor and volcanic activity; over the deeper long term, it is guided by the ponderous tectonic creaking of continental plates. The world's oceans, water vapor and clouds contribute 50% to 70% of atmospheric warming. The geological record reveals that only after the oceans — especially the Southern Ocean — have warmed for centuries does dissolved CO₂ outgas from the deep waters, a process unfolding over 5,000 to 10,000 years. To focus exclusively on a trace gas like CO₂ is to ignore the true scale and power of these natural systems. Furthermore, the narrative completely missed the biological utility of this gas: NASA satellite data has shown a significant increase in global green foliage over recent decades, largely driven by elevated CO₂ levels acting as an airborne fertiliser. This green wave, alongside booming global agriculture, was entirely unanticipated by backers of the crisis agenda. Today, this narrative runs directly counter to thermodynamic reality: we simply cannot run a modern economy without high-density fossil fuels, a baseline power that wind and solar cannot replicate. To pretend otherwise is to forget our place in the natural world, where we live largely by chance, and only as invited guests — not as Overlords.

The Labor government definitely has a ballpark figure for the cost of Net Zero, but they refuse to disclose it. If they were truly transparent, they’d release the full costings. The problem? Their “cheapest option” selling point would collapse the moment the public saw the numbers.

Germany currently has about 26 gigawatt hours of battery storage. Most of it sits in home batteries with only 4.3 gigawatt hours actually serving the grid. Building that storage already cost more than 10 billion euros and at national demand levels it only covers roughly 30 minutes of summer electricity usage. The winter months bring what's known as "Dunkeflaute" - cold dark windless periods and higher energy usage. To survive a 10-day winter lull (the minimum realistic requirement), Germany would need about 12,000 gigawatt hours of batteries, 470 times today's storage. Such a system would weigh roughly 60 million tons and would be made from vast quantities of lithium, nickel, graphite, copper, aluminum and steel, all requiring intensive mining. At current battery prices, the system would cost trillions of euros. And batteries last only 10 to 15 years, meaning the entire system would need constant replacement. The conclusion is unavoidable... Wind and solar require reliable backup power, renewables need oil, coal, gas and nuclear.

Billions of solar panels are nearing their end-of-life cycle, and the world is completely unprepared for the coming toxic avalanche. By 2050, the International Renewable Energy Agency projects up to 78 million metric tons of useless and toxic solar e-waste. Where is it all going to go? The industry boasts that solar panels are '95% recyclable'. Technically, yes - because they are made of glass, aluminum and copper. But economics always trumps physics. In Australia and the US, it costs roughly $20 to $40 to disassemble and recycle a single panel, but only around $4 to dump it in landfill. Because there is no financial incentive, up to 90% of decommissioned panels go straight into the ground. There are between 7 and 8 billion solar panels in the world today. This milestone was reached as global solar capacity officially surpassed 2 Terawatts (TW). Because the physical wattage of individual panels varies from small 300W residential rooftop modules to massive 600W utility-scale panels, 2 TW of total energy capacity translates to roughly 7 billion individual panels currently installed worldwide. Each solar panel is an industrial 'sandwich' bound tightly by heavy polymers. To extract the microscopic amounts of valuable silver and high-purity silicon requires energy-intensive chemical and thermal baking. When they are crushed or left to fracture in landfills, heavy metals like lead and cadmium (in thin-film technologies) can leach into the surrounding soil and groundwater, turning 'clean energy' into a multi-generational hazardous waste problem. The crisis is accelerating faster than models predicted. Because solar cells degrade and lose efficiency, and newer, cheaper panels hit the market, consumers and solar farms are ripping out functional systems at least a decade early to upgrade. This compressed lifecycle destroys the narrative of a long-term, stable asset and creates an endless loop of unrecyclable industrial trash.

A staggering 7 to 8 billion solar panels have been deployed globally—but up to 90% of them are currently on a direct trajectory toward disposal. While modern solar panels are technically made of roughly 95% recyclable materials (glass, aluminum, copper, and silicon), recycling currently runs at a steep economic loss. * The cost: Processing runs $500–$1,000 per tonne ($10 to $40 per panel). * The yield: The value of recovered materials doesn't even cover the transport fees. Compared with minimal landfill fees, economics dictate that burial is the default option. But the world is rapidly running out of room, and governments are beginning to panic. We are already seeing a preview of this crisis in the wind sector, where an expected 43 million tonnes of turbine blade waste by 2050 has led several European nations—including Austria, Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands—to actively ban decommissioned blades from landfills. Solar is hitting the same wall. Panels built over two decades ago are reaching the end of their 20-to-24-year lifespans, while many more become economically obsolete and are replaced long before that. This has created a massive regulatory catch-22: To prevent heavy metals like lead and cadmium from potentially leaching into groundwater, jurisdictions like Victoria, Australia, have implemented strict bans on putting solar panels into landfills, classifying them as hazardous e-waste. Yet, with recycling remaining economically non-viable, we are creating an impossible bottleneck. While industry bodies like the IEA maintain that leaching risks from broken panels are negligible and within safety limits, the sheer volume of impending waste tells a different story. If it costs too much to recycle, and it is illegal to landfill, where do several billions of panels go? The 'clean energy' solution is rapidly staring down the barrel of a multi-generational hazardous waste problem. Image: Last year, the world built more new solar capacity than every other power source combined - Shutterstock.

JOHN CLAUSER, 2022 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: "I can very confidently assert, there is no climate emergency. As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. Atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies government have been implementing are totally unnecessary and should be eliminated. So far, [we] have totally misidentified what is the dominant process in controlling the climate, and all of the various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics. The dominant process, is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat mechanism. Clouds are all bright white, and they reflected 90% of the sunlight back into space making them the most crucial yet most overlooked aspect of the climate system. Two-thirds of the Earth are ocean. The Pacific Ocean alone is half the Earth. The average cloud cover for the Earth is 67%; about 50% over land and 75% over oceans. I claim that the above conspicuous properties of clouds are the missing part of the puzzle."

Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "In the complete history of planet Earth, we have had millions of climate changes." "And not one of these... was driven by a change in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." "We see no record of carbon dioxide driving climate in the past, and there is therefore no logical reason to think that climate change in the present is driven by changes in carbon dioxide."

Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer thoroughly refutes the human-induced "climate crisis" narrative. "It was much warmer [than today] a thousand years ago." "And then we entered the Little Ice Age... And since the Little Ice Age ended, what do you think happened?" "It's going to warm up, isn't it? And that's what's happened." "So the real question is, which part of the modern warming is of human origin, and which part is natural? Because we are not as warm as in medieval times, or in Roman times, or in Minoan times."

Over the past 25 years, Germany has pursued an energy transition by phasing out nuclear power and expanding solar and wind—at a cost of around €500 billion in subsidies. The result: installed capacity has more than doubled, yet electricity generation has declined. The reason is structural. Reliable, dispatchable power was replaced by weather-dependent sources. The consequences are severe: rising energy costs, falling competitiveness, and growing pressure on energy-intensive industries. The key question remains: How do you run an industrial economy on a system that produces less when it matters most?