Month: July 2020

WHO Now Says China Didn’t Report Coronavirus – Corrects Timeline

After implying for months that China followed international rules, the World Health Organization backtracks.

From April to June of this year, a COVID-19 timeline appeared on the website of the World Health Organization (WHO). That timeline has now been repudiated. If you visit the page today, you’ll be cryptically advised:

This statement is no longer maintained. An updated version was published on 29 June 2020. [hyperlink in the original]

That’s a fancy way of saying the WHO has made significant corrections.

For months, this organization misled us all. It implied that authorities within China had sounded the coronavirus alarm. The original WHO timeline said the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission had reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia. Here’s a screenshot:

old timeline; source here

The turquoise-coloured text is a hyperlink to the WHO’s first COVID press release, which likewise began with this misleading statement:

On 31 December 2019, the WHO China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology (unknown cause) detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. [bold added]

Every nation is legally obligated to promptly inform the WHO when medical cases of this kind arise. The procedure is straightforward. Designated individuals in national governments (not municipal health commissions) must contact designated WHO officials. In this case, information was supposed to flow from the top tier of the Chinese government to an individual in the WHO’s Western Pacific Regional Office, based in Manila.

But that didn’t happen. The new, much longer text, admits the alarm was actually raised by members of the WHO’s own office in China, located in the diplomatic district of Beijing, just down the street from the Canadian and German embassies. That office wasn’t informed, as the press release puts it. Instead, it noticed, entirely of its own accord, a media statement posted on the Internet by Wuhan health authorities hundreds of miles away.

That same day, a different arm of the WHO noticed a news report on an online platform that monitors infectious diseases. It said an “urgent notice” had been issued by Wuhan health officials, due to hospitals having already treated a series of patients with “pneumonia of unknown cause.”

corrected timeline; click to enlarge

The WHO is supposed to “prevent the international spread of disease.” It does so via International Health Regulations (IHR) dating back to 1969. A new version of those rules came into force in 2007, in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS outbreak.

Article 6 of the IHR says countries must notify the WHO “within 24 hours” of unusual medical issues that have the potential to become international health emergencies. But the new timeline makes it clear that, as happened with SARS, the WHO had to ask China what was going on.

new version of timeline; click to enlarge, source here

.

old version of timeline; click to enlarge, source here

 

The old timeline contained no entries for January 2 or 3rd. The updated version tells us the WHO repeated its request for information on January 2nd. It says the first time the WHO heard from China was January 3rd.

.

When a United Nations body misleads the world, the damage isn’t easily fixed. We are now awash in inaccurate accounts of what actually happened.

Here’s MSN in January, republishing a CNN story that declares: “The first cases were reported to the World Health Organization on December 31.”

Here’s Le Monde in April: “On December 31, China notified the World Health Organization.”

Here’s a BBC timeline from June. Under the date ’31 December,’ clearly referencing China, it says: “The authorities alert the World Health Organization.”

 

.

If what you’ve just read is useful or helpful,
please support this blog

please support this blog

LINKS:

 

 

 

.

 

via Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

https://ift.tt/32IceFk

July 20, 2020 at 06:07AM

Lib Dems’ Ed Davey calls for zero carbon domestic flights by 2030

Experimental E-plane [image credit: Siemens]

If only batteries could lose some of their heavy weight during flight, matching the reductions achieved by burning fuel, he might be onto something. But as they can’t, this looks like more pie in the sky.
– – –
Exclusive: Acting Liberal Democrat leader calls for green short haul flights to be UK’s next “moon landing mission”, reports i-news.

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey is calling for all domestic flights to be zero carbon by 2030, arguing the target must become the UK’s new “moon landing mission”.

Commercial planes run mainly on fossil fuels, and engineers are struggling to design a zero carbon passenger jet to replace them.

Electric planes are in their infancy, hampered by the need for large, heavy batteries.

Hydrogen-powered planes could be an option, if the costs of sustainable production processes can be curbed.

Becoming the first nation in the world to solve these problems and master zero carbon flight would cement the UK’s green technology prowess and expand its green manufacturing base, Sir Davey said.

Green technology

“If we harness the power of green technology we can save jobs and create jobs, and give hope to people in communities across our country,” he said. “Green flight could be one of the next transformational technology shifts, and the UK must be at the forefront of this new era of aircraft.”

Continued here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/30tQt9F

July 20, 2020 at 03:39AM

Want To Cripple America? Have the Democrats Got A New ‘Green’ Deal For You!

New ‘Green’ Deal Democrats, headed by AOC’s Squad are determined to destroy the USA from the inside. Presidential hopeful, Sleepy Joe Biden appears equally determined to help them.

The Democrats have been doing the bidding of America’s cabal of crony capitalists who designed the wind and solar scam for years; characters who’ve made obscene profits from massive taxpayer subsidies to renewable energy and who are obviously very keen for more of the same.

Back in April, the Democrats went on the offensive in an effort to help America’s renewable energy rent seekers snaffle $billions from Trump’s $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus and failed. AOC and her Squad are still at it.

Paul Driessen takes a look at what might happen in the US in the event that these lunatics ever get anywhere near the controls.

Report renewable energy risks, too
Watts Up With That?
Paul Driessen
9 July 2020

Joe Biden has drifted far to the left and made it clear that, if elected president, he would restrict or ban fracking, pipelines, federal onshore and offshore drilling, and use of oil, coal, natural gas, and thus our economy. He’s selected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his climate and energy advisor and is expected to choose an equally “progressive” woman of color as his running mate (and president-in-reality).

He may also employ federal financial regulations to slow or strangle fossil fuel companies’ access to low-cost capital, further preventing them from producing oil, gas and coal. His official climate plan promises to require “public companies to disclose climate risks and the greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains.” By compelling them to present a litany of climate and weather risks supposedly caused or worsened by fossil fuel emissions, the rules could sharply reduce lender and investor interest in those fuels and hasten the transition to wind, solar, battery and biofuel technologies.

Those risks exist primarily in highly unlikely worst-case scenarios generated by computer models that reflect claims that manmade carbon dioxide has replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have always driven Earth’s climate (including multiple ice ages) and extreme weather. Actual data are often “homogenized” or otherwise manipulated to make the models appear more accurate than they are.

Models consistently predict average global temperatures 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) higher than measured. The 12-year absence of Category 3-5 US-landfalling hurricanes is consistently ignored, as are the absence of any increase in tropical cyclones, the unprecedented absence of any violent tornadoes in 2018 – and the fact that violent twisters were far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that.

However, pressure group mob politics and the refusal of climate alarmists to discuss model failures and contradictory scientific evidence would likely make these realities irrelevant in a Biden administration. That would have devastating consequences for a US economy struggling to recover from Covid-19 and compete in a world where Asian, African and other countries are not going to stop using fossil fuels to improve living standards, while they mine the raw materials and manufacture the wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and other equipment the USA would have to import under a Green New Deal (since no mining and virtually no manufacturing would be permitted or possible under Biden era regulations).

Replacing coal, gas and nuclear electricity, internal combustion vehicles, gas for home heating, and coal and gas for factories – and using batteries as backup power for seven windless, sunless days – would require some 8.5 billion megawatts. Generating that much electricity would require some 75 billion solar panels … or 4 million 1.8-MW onshore wind turbines … or 300,000 12-MW offshore wind turbines … or a combination of those technologies – plus some 3.5 billion 100-kWh batteries … hundreds of new transmission lines … and mining and manufacturing on scales far beyond anything the world has ever seen.

That is not clean, green, renewable energy. It is ecologically destructive and completely unsustainable – financially, ecologically and politically. That means any company, community, bank, investor or pension fund venturing into “renewable energy” technologies would be taking enormous risks.

Once citizens, voters and investors begin to grasp (a) the quicksand foundations under alarmist climate models and forecasts; (b) the fact that African, Asian and even some European countries will only increase their fossil fuel use for decades to come; (c) the hundreds of millions of acres of US scenic and wildlife habitat lands that would be covered by turbines, panels, batteries, biofuel crops, power lines, and forests clear cut to supply biofuel power plants; and (d) the bird, bat and other animal species that would disappear under this onslaught – they will rebel. Renewable energy markets will be pummeled repeatedly.

Public backlash will intensify from growing outrage over child labor, near-slave labor, and minimal to nonexistent worker health and safety, pollution control and environmental reclamation regulations in foreign countries where materials are mined and “renewable” energy technologies manufactured. As the shift to GND energy systems brings increasing reliance on Chinese mining and manufacturing, sends electricity rates skyrocketing, kills millions of American jobs and causes US living standards to plummet, any remaining support for wind, solar and other “renewable” technologies will plummet or evaporate.

Pension funds and publicly owned companies should therefore be compelled to disclose the risks to their operations, supply chains, “renewable energy portfolio” mandates, subsidies, feed-in tariffs, profits, employees, valuation and very existence from embarking on or investing in renewable energy technologies or facilities. They should be compelled to fully analyze and report on every aspect of these risks.

The White House, Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Committee on Financial Stability, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and other relevant agencies should immediately require that publicly owned companies, corporate retirement plans and public pension funds evaluate and disclose at least the following fundamental aspects of “renewable” operations:

  • How many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, biofuel plants and miles of transmission lines will be required under various GND plans? Where will they go? Whose scenic and wildlife areas will be impacted?  How will rural and coastal communities react to being made energy colonies for major cities?
  • Will the same laws and court decisions apply to wind, solar, battery, biofuel and “renewable energy” transmission projects as have been applied to the Keystone, Atlantic Coast and Dakota Access pipelines?
  • To what extent will policies, laws, regulations, court decisions, and citizen opposition, protests, legal actions and sabotage delay or block wind, solar, biofuel, battery, mining and transmission projects?
  • How much concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements and other materials will be needed for every project – and cumulatively? Where exactly will they come from? How many tons of overburden and ore will be removed and processed for every ton of metals and minerals?
  • What per-project and cumulative fossil fuel use, CO2 and pollution emissions, land use impacts, water demands, family and community dislocations, and other impacts will result? Where will they occur?
  • What wages will be paid? How much child labor will be involved? What labor, workplace safety, pollution control and other laws, regulations, standards and practices will apply in each country? How many illnesses, injuries and deaths will occur in the mines, processing plants and factories?
  • What “responsible sourcing” laws apply for these materials, to ensure that all materials are obtained in compliance with US wage, child labor and environmental laws – and how much will they raise costs?
  • For ethanol and biodiesel, how much acreage, water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels will be required? For power plant biofuel, how many forests will be cut down, and how long they will take to regrow? How many birds, bats and other wildlife will be displaced, killed or driven to extinction?
  • What costs and materials will be required to convert existing home and commercial heating systems to all-electricity, upgrade electrical grids and systems for rapid electric vehicle charging, and address the intermittent, unpredictable, weather-dependent realities of Green New Deal energy sources?
  • What price increases per kWh per annum will families, businesses, offices, farms, factories, hospitals, schools and other consumers face, as state and national electrical systems are converted to GND sources?
  • How often and severely will wind and solar installations (and household solar panels linked to the grid) cause uncontrolled surges and power interruptions? How will they be protected against Trojan horse viruses and hackers installed or enabled by overseas manufacturers, perhaps especially in China?
  • What economic, productivity and public health impacts will repeated power interruptions cause?
  • How many solar panels, wind turbine blades, batteries and other components (numbers, tons and cubic feet) will have to be disposed of every year? How much landfill space and incineration will be required?

These issues illustrate the high risks associated with Green New Deal energy programs. They underscore why it is essential for lenders, investment companies, pension funds, manufacturers, utility companies and other industries to analyze, disclose and report renewable energy risks – and why significant penalties should be assessed for failing to do so or falsifying any pertinent information.
Watts Up With That?

Economy wrecker takes another little break.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

via STOP THESE THINGS

https://ift.tt/32CiNcS

July 20, 2020 at 02:30AM

Europe’s ‘Green Recovery’ In Disarray

In May, the European Commission published its proposal for a €750 billion Green Deal which promised to boost economic growth, create millions of new jobs and save the planet. Yet at their current meeting, EU leader are struggling to save their green recovery plan.

After the meeting on Saturday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron were seen haggling with members of the Dutch-led camp, who are demanding cuts to the 1.8 trillion euro ($2.06 trillion) package [Francois Lenoir/Pool Photo via AP]

When she presented the Green Deal, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed that “the European Green Deal and digitalization will boost jobs and growth, the resilience of our societies and the health of our environment. This is Europe’s moment. Our willingness to act must live up to the challenges we are all facing.”

Meeting in Brussels, EU leader are deadlocked over its Green Recovery plan which is prioritising climate hysteria over economic reality and which is now threatening to deepen Europe’s economic and political crisis.

European leaders were struggling last night to save a €750 billion coronavirus rescue fund after three days of deadlock in Brussels that pitted north against south and east against west.

Wide differences remained at the first face-to-face summit for five months. The Dutch were leading five “frugal” allies demanding tougher terms for handing billions in loans and outright grants to Italy, Spain and Greece, the southern nations that they regard as inveterate profligates with their state finances.

As the sun dipped behind the council building in Brussels, Xavier Bettel, the Luxembourg prime minister, said that after seven years of European summits, “I have never seen positions as diametrically opposed as this”.

Postponement to a fresh summit was being floated last night by Charles Michel, the European Council president. Diplomats said that if the talks failed, the summit would be adjourned until August, throwing the German EU presidency’s timetable to agree a virus plan and a long-term EU budget into disarray — and underlining bitter divides.

In the worst economic crisis since the Second World War the bloc’s leaders are unwilling to contemplate failure to deliver a fund that symbolises the solidarity among members that the EU is supposed to embody.

Full story (£)

The post Europe’s ‘Green Recovery’ In Disarray appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2CrNZk4

July 20, 2020 at 02:00AM