Month: January 2022

Leading German COVID Policy Critic, Professor, Gets Detained By Police For Walking Without Mask

Dark times return to Germany

Police randomly target, pick off peaceful demonstrators. Symbol photo. Source: Freie Niedersachsen

As Germany scrambles to stifle the growing grassroots movement against COVID restrictions and vaccine mandates, authorities are resorting to ever more extreme tactics to shut down the fundamental right to dissent.

One retired German professor recounts his own experience:
===========================

Detained, charged and barred – for going for a walk …out of control authorities 

By Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg
Originally published at Reitschuster.de

[Hanover] Yesterday, the Monday after New Year’s Day, 2022, I wanted to watch for the first time one of the “walks” now taking place by the thousands all over Germany since authorities have banned demonstrations.

I know from the newspaper that the police have issued a general order on FFP2 masks to make it easier to take tougher action against walkers. The medical bogus arguments are no longer used, so I put a mask in my pocket.

At the Town Hall, the designated meeting place, I can only see a huge police contingent. I stroll alone to the state parliament, where a large group of people are being detained and requested to designate a leader of the gathering. I stay away from that and continue to Hanover’s Kröpcke central square, where on this mild January evening several hundred people can be found, most of them on their way to or from the shops.

Keeping an eye out for possible walkers, I stop for a moment and a lady standing next to me abruptly says she hasn’t been downtown for ages because of lockdowns and masks. As I feel the same way, we admire the Christmas decorations together for half a minute. As I want to move on, there are suddenly five police officers in front of us and, as I turn around, about ten to fifteen behind us, forming a ring around the lady, myself and maybe eight other, mostly elderly people. Asked what this means, a blonde policewoman answers me that she hereby declares us an [illegal] assembly. I immediately put on my FFP2 mask, am honestly shocked and reply that this is probably a civic prank. As a result of the police presence and the crowd that has formed, there are now many spectators in the square, and basically any lot of persons could be surrounded from behind and declared an “assembly”.

An acquaintance who happens to be passing by wants to join me, but she is not allowed into police surrounded group, and I am not allowed out. More and more police officers arrive, also spectators, and the whole scene is getting filmed many times over. I also receive shouts from people who recognize me and express their surprise at this strange measure. The term “fascism” gets used and the police officers are verbally attacked harshly by the bystanders.

After about a quarter of an hour, things get serious: I am taken away by three men, and when I ask what I am accused of, I get the answer: violation of the obligation to wear a mask. I reply that I am wearing one, even FFP2, and have been since the group formed. But it is of no use: I should have been wearing the mask before the group formed, and that they have photos to prove that this was not the case.

Now that I am away from the others, I only notice out of the corner of my eye that others who are not wearing masks are worse off. Maybe because they just wanted to walk through the city and for that reason didn’t have one with them. In any case, I hear commotion and screams, but as a detained person I cannot investigate. After taking my personal details, the police tell me that proceedings will be taken against me and that I am banished from the entire city center. Yet, the police officer in charge is unable to define the boundaries of the area. Instead, he threatens me with imprisonment in case of a violation.

Two conclusions

Firstly, the police can, through underhanded singling out, pin a case on anyone who is outside their home, and that is probably the point of the action. Secondly, if this cannot be called fascism, where does it actually begin? Or to put it another way, what more do we actually want to put up with?

Dr Stefan Homburg is a retired university professor of public finance at Leibniz University in Hanover, Germany, and has advised numerous governments, politicians and parliaments and provides information on the Corona crisis at twitter.com/SHomburg.

Donate – choose an amount

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/3ERHz7Z

January 4, 2022 at 10:18AM

Vaccine Efficacy In The UK

Fully injected people in the UK are much more likely to test positive than uninjected. COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – week 51

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/3mWFba6

January 4, 2022 at 10:01AM

Heat Pumps v Hydrogen: (Scalded Or Burned!!)

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

JANUARY 3, 2022

By Paul Homewood

The energy study also revealed that hydrogen-fuelled boilers “will never be a cost-effective option”. According to Bloomberg, the average annual running cost for a heat pump stands at £743, compared to £2,784 for a hydrogen boiler.

————————

The Government has produced a landmark green scheme to provide families with a £5,000 grant to buy electric heat pumps for their homes.

But, in a poll of 5,605 Express.co.uk readers, held from December 24 to 30, a staggering 90 percent of voters said they would not buy a heat pump in the next five years, while six percent said they would, and four percent were undecided.

Many readers disagreed with the research produced by The European Consumer Organisation, and insisted heat pumps are a poor energy source.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/not-heat-pumps-furious-backlash-at-european-study-on-cost-effective-energy-sources/ar-AAShtV0

The study referred to comes from the European Consumer Organisation. Although it says that heat pumps are the cheapest “green option”, they are coy about how much dearer they are than gas boilers!

https://www.beuc.eu/publications/goodbye-gas-heat-pumps-will-be-cheapest-green-heating-option-consumers/html

It is based on four European countries, but below is the analysis for Czech Republic, which is probably the most comparable to the UK:

1758 euro equals £1465, which looks on the side, but is based on a pre-1970 home, which will no doubt be hugely energy inefficient. Presumably Czech winters will be much colder too!

We can untangle it by looking at the heat demand, which is based on 22615 KWh/yr. Given that a gas boiler works at 85% efficiency, this implies gas usage of 26605 KWh:

The average UK home uses about 15000 KWh, I believe, meaning heat demand of 12750 KWh. We can therefore infer heat pump electricity consumption of 5013 KWh – ie an efficiency factor of 2.54.

The costings seem to be based on energy prices as they were before recent rises; for instance, electricity at 184 Euro/MWh. At this level, the heat pump running cost for our average UK home would be £767 a year (close to that Bloomberg figure). However, based on 2020 gas prices of 2.5p/KWh, a gas boiler would only cost £375 a year to run.

This is broadly in line with my calculations in the last year or two.

By the way, despite the rise in gas prices, heat pumps still remain £406 more expensive to run , because electricity prices have also risen in tandem.

But what really took my eye was the cost of running a hydrogen boiler. The above example reckons 4289 Euro, but we can reduce this in line with lower heat demand. Hydrogen consumption should in theory be the same as gas in our UK example, 15000 KWh.

According to the study, the cost of hydrogen is 147 Euro/MWh, or £122. (This assumes electrolysis).  This of course is more than four times the cost of natural gas, meaning annual bills would rise from £375 to £1830.

This is something which I have been highlighting for years, but most people are still blissfully unaware of it.

Finally, last year Andrew Montford published a factsheet on hydrogen, which concluded that green hydrogen would cost £190/MWh. If he is right, heating bills will rise much higher still.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3zqfILd

January 4, 2022 at 08:18AM

BBC’s Hurricane Misinformation

By Paul Homewood

 

How the BBC lie, cheat and misinform:

 

 

image

Weather events, linked to a changing climate, brought misery to millions around the world in 2021 according to a new report.

The study, from the charity Christian Aid, identified 10 extreme events that each caused more than $1.5bn of damage.

The biggest financial impacts were from Hurricane Ida which hit the US in August and flooding in Europe in July.

In many poorer regions, floods and storms caused mass displacements of people and severe suffering.

Not every extreme weather event is caused by or linked to climate change, although scientists have become bolder in exploring the connections.

One leading researcher, Dr Friederike Otto, tweeted earlier this year that every heatwave happening in the world now is "made more likely and more intense" by human induced climate change.

In relation to storms and hurricanes, there is growing evidence that climate change is also affecting these events.

In August, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the first part of its sixth assessment report.

In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had "high confidence" that the evidence of human influence has strengthened.

"The proportion of intense tropical cyclones, average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming," the study said.

Just a few weeks after that report came out, Hurricane Ida hit the US.

According to Christian Aid it was the most financially destructive weather event of the year.

The slow-moving hurricane saw thousands of residents in Louisiana evacuated out of its path.

That storm brought massive rainfall across a number of states and cities, with New York issuing a flash-flood emergency alert for the first time.

Around 95 people died, with the economic losses estimated at $65bn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59761839

 

We’ll ignore the rubbish spewed out by the far left Christian Aid, which we are used to seeing each year. Suffice to say that they use the familiar trick of picking a bad weather event and blaming it on climate change, with of course the mandatory emotive images.

Their claims about the economic damage are meaningless. As Roger Pielke has documented, normalised economic losses from US hurricanes show no trend since 1900. (Normalised losses take into account economic development – the fact that society now has more “things” to damage):

 

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1333434593836318720

Let’s concentrate instead on the BBC commentary which I have highlighted:

 

In relation to storms and hurricanes, there is growing evidence that climate change is also affecting these events.

In August, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the first part of its sixth assessment report.

In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had "high confidence" that the evidence of human influence has strengthened.

"The proportion of intense tropical cyclones, average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming," the study said.

Anybody reading that would assume that hurricanes are getting worse, and that global warming is to blame. This, of course, is the BBC’s deliberate intention.

Start with this claim:

 In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had "high confidence" that the evidence of human influence has strengthened

What this refers to however is just a catch all, referring to all types of extreme weather:

 image

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

 

But what AR6 says about tropical cyclones is far from “high confidence”. They point up the increase in major hurricanes in the last four decades, but this is due to the AMO cycle. Longer term trends simply don’t exist, as the IPCC themselves admit.

image

NOAA’s own summary of AR6 comes to the same conclusion:

image

image

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Now consider:

"The proportion of intense tropical cyclones, average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming," the study said.

Note the word “will”! It is certainly true that that the IPCC has forecast all sorts of apocalypse. The problem is that they have found no evidence that this is actually happening.

More honest reporting from the BBC would have stated that there is no evidence that hurricanes are getting worse, although they might in future.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/32QLJA5

January 4, 2022 at 06:21AM