EU’s LNG storage space runs out as Brussels braces for winter without Russian gas
By Drago Bosnic | October 14, 2022
The European Union’s self-imposed energy crisis is taking a turn for the worse. The political elites in Brussels and their suicidal subservience to Washington DC is breaking records day by day. The latest energy hurdle the bloc is facing is a chronic lack of transport ships carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States to EU countries. According to Bloomberg, as the bloc is trying to prepare for a winter without Russian natural gas and other crucial commodities, LNG shipping rates are surging, but this will not be enough to meet the EU’s energy needs this season. The report states that European countries are now paying to keep the LNG transport ships loaded with natural gas in ports as onshore LNG storage facilities are full.
As companies are racing to charter entire fleets of LNG transport ships, there is a growing fear that there will not be enough vessels capable of transporting natural gas from the US. This problem is further exacerbated by those ready to pay for the already-loaded ships to stay in ports. Gas Market Report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), released on October 3, states that the demand for LNG in EU member states surged by 65% for the first three quarters of 2022 when compared to the same period last year.
In the aftermath of anti-Russian sanctions, the EU was forced to import less from Russia. According to OilPrice.com, in June, the bloc imported more natural gas from the US than from Russia for the first time in its history. A Reuters report claims that up to 70% of US LNG exports were sent to the EU in September, which was a 7% increase in comparison to August. In the meantime, countries in East Asia and South America are also trying to acquire more natural gas in preparation for the winter season, which is adding even more pressure on shipping companies. Worse yet, US states in New England, which are dependent on LNG imports, are now forced to compete with EU buyers, which further drives up prices, according to Seeking Alpha.
The October 11 report published by Bloomberg states that the cost to charter a transport ship loaded with LNG and set to sail across the Atlantic Ocean rose to $397,500 per day. This new record for Atlantic LNG shipping rates represents an increase of over 6% in less than a week, as the previous record of $374,000 per day was set on October 3. However, to better understand just how mind-boggling the shipping prices are now, it’s better to compare on a yearly basis. In 2021, the Atlantic LNG freight rate was $91,000 per day. With the newest record, which has very likely already been topped, this is an increase of over $306,500 per day, or 337%, and an approximately 500% increase since January 2022, according to Spark Commodities.
The LNG shipping price assessor reports that this broke the 2021 all-time record high for the Pacific Ocean freight rates which happened at the height of the supply chain crisis. The price is expected to surge further as traders are hoarding even more natural gas. The scramble to buy more LNG and charter additional transport ships to carry it is very likely to create the next big shortage in the energy market, experts and traders agree.
The shortage has become so severe that LNG exporters in Asia are now selling natural gas directly from their ports instead of offering to ship it to buyers. However, many buyers lack LNG shipping vessels of their own and are forced to pay exorbitant prices to get natural gas to their own ports, while in some cases they can’t even find a way to transport the LNG they already paid for. According to LNG traders, there are very few transport ships left to charter for the rest of 2022 and they are charging astronomical rates.
The shipping issues for LNG are a clear indicator that pipelines have no viable alternatives. However, with NATO countries and satellite states being involved in sabotage operations against Russia-EU pipelines, be it through sanctions or terrorist acts such as the Nord Stream 1 and 2 explosions, Brussels is now forced to contend with both US LNG producers and freight companies and their exorbitant prices.
There’s growing frustration in the EU as it is painfully obvious that the US is making astronomical profits thanks to the escalation of tensions between Brussels and Moscow. Global demand for LNG transport vessels is driving freight rates even higher, which will make pipelines even more important. The EU will have a clear choice – either come to an agreement with Russia and stop acts of sabotage or continue paying several times more for LNG and brace for certain shortages as storage space runs out.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Carbon proles ruled by carbon kings: Welcome to Planet Schwab
By David Craig | TCW Defending Freedom | October 12, 2022
In his 2020 book The Denial , journalist Ross Clark describes a dystopian future in which everything we buy or do has a carbon (CO2) value and each household or individual has a maximum allowance to use each month. Only the elite have no restrictions.
Now, disturbingly, it looks like that fiction is edging closer to becoming fact – as outlined in an article by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum entitled My Carbon: An approach for inclusive and sustainable cities.
The writers, Kunal Kumar and Mridul Kaushik, see the ground for a carbon-controlled future as having been laid by what happened during the pandemic, and how willingly we submitted to the Project Fear clampdown on our freedoms.
‘A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world,’ they say. ‘There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health.’
They claim that our caving in to Covid dikats ‘demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility’. But perhaps all it really demonstrated is how bullying authorities, using Project Fear backed up by heavy-handed policing and mainstream media panic-peddling, coerced us into abject, cowering submission.
In a section on ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the authors discuss how advances in emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain and digitisation, can enable tracking personal carbon emissions – one being a smartphone app. There are ‘a significant number of programs and applications enabling citizens to contribute towards carbon emissions by providing them in-depth awareness on the choices of personal carbon for food, transport, home energy and lifestyle choices.’
Perhaps most chilling is a proposed model showing how our rulers plan to control our individual carbon usage. It falls into three main approaches:
Economic Behaviour: The price of carbon will increase so ordinary people will eat less, heat their homes less, buy fewer products and restrict their travel.
Cognitive awareness: We will have to monitor our personal ‘carbon footprints’ so we can reduce our usage as part of the transition to a Net Zero society. This will cover most areas of everyday life.
Social norms: We will all be given fixed allowances of what are called a ‘fair share’ and ‘acceptable levels’ of personal emissions, which will be set by the ruling elites.
However, there is one part of this wonderful carbon-controlled future the WEF article doesn’t mention. I suspect the allowances scheme will include a carbon trading facility. This will allow ordinary people to sell parts of their allowances to companies which will sell them on to the political, business and media elites.
This will ensure the privileged can continue to live lives of unrestricted luxury with unlimited travel, the most expensive foods and other life pleasures. Meanwhile, the rest of us are likely to be huddling in our tiny, barely-heated homes, eating locally-grown potatoes, cabbage, insects or lab-produced fake meat.
It’s a grim picture. But perhaps we should be grateful to Klaus Schwab and his cohorts for so clearly describing the future they are preparing for us.
Saskatchewan drafting legislation to protect economic autonomy
By Jorgen Soby | The Counter Signal | October 12, 2022
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has begun drafting Alberta-style Sovereignty Act legislation.
Moe says it’s time to defend and assert Saskatchewan’s economic autonomy by “drawing the line.” He wants to take several steps, including introducing provincial legislation to clarify and protect Saskatchewan’s constitutional rights.
The proposal would give the province exclusive use over their resources like electricity and any emissions associated with fertilizer, oil and gas.
Like all provinces, Saskatchewan has exclusive areas of jurisdiction under the Constitution, but Moe’s government is accusing the Trudeau Liberals of infringement.
“Saskatchewan is taking action to unlock our economic potential and defend Saskatchewan’s economy, families and jobs from federal intrusion that could cost our province as much as $111 billion by 2035,” Moe wrote on Twitter.
According to the Saskatchewan government, new climate change policies could cost the province over $110 billion within the next thirteen years.
The Alberta government called proposed federal environmental laws a “Trojan Horse.”
Chief of Justice Catherine Fraser, who spent 30 years serving as the Chief of Justice for Alberta, described the proposal as an unconstitutional legislative scheme. Fraser retired shortly after providing her statement.
Saskatchewan’s SaskPower says the Canadian federal government proposed Clean Electricity Standard is not achievable.
While the Canadian government has debated additional energy costs, many EU countries face an ongoing energy sector supply crisis. Some people in Scotland have been burning their energy bills to protest aggressive energy price increases. Law enforcement in France has been refusing gas station access to some citizens.
Biden’s HHS and CDC Paid Screen Writers and Comedians To Mock the Unvaccinated
By Baxter Dmitry | NEWS PUNCH | October 8, 2022
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been exposed running the most disturbing and elaborate propaganda campaign in living memory. Screen writers, comedians, influencers and church leaders, among others, were recruited and paid to promote Covid-19 vaccines to the masses, while ridiculing and shaming those who refuse the jab.
Judicial Watch has nailed it yet again, suing HHS to acquire a treasure trove of documents that reveal the world’s most exhaustive and heavily funded propaganda campaign to try to convince the oblivious masses to be injected with an experimental mRNA concoction.
“Judicial Watch Uncovers Biden Administration Propaganda Plan to Push COVID Vaccine,” reads the Judicial Watch press release: Judicial Watch announced today that it received 249 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing the extensive media plans for a propaganda campaign to push the COVID-19 vaccine. One document in the released records was entitled, “PEC (Public Education Campaign) Plan April 19 – May 31 2021” and featured all the following bullet points and more:
- Vaccine engagement package to all entertainment talent and management agencies
- Vaccine engagement package to all media companies and show producers
- Outreach to major culture event producers
- Produce HHS question-and-answer videos featuring local Black doctors discussing the vaccines, how they work, and why the public should get vaccinated
- Request that Tom Brady create a video with his parents encouraging vaccination
- Create custom partnerships with the social media platforms with algorithms to hit the audience
- Launch Hollywood comedy writers video content
- Work with YouTube on an original special about vaccinations targeted to young people
- Work with Instagram to produce a series about vaccines for @Instagram (the largest social media account in the world, 387 million followers)
- Request major TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram influences to create videos of themselves being vaccinated
- Request a vaccination special on Christian Broadcast Network featur[ing] Evangelical leaders
- Request that the major live TV entertainment shows feature hosts being vaccinated on air (ex: the hosts of The Voice)
- Request that the TV morning and daytime talk shows feature special vaccination reunion moments with everyday Americans
- Convene an editorial meeting with the publishers of Catholic newspapers and newsletters across the country
- Place a trusted messenger on the Joe Rogan Show and Barstool Sports to promote vaccination
- Work with the NFL, NASCAR, MLB, CMA to request they create content with their talent and release through their broadcast and social channels
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated, “These records show a disturbing and massive campaign by the Biden administration to propagandize and politicize the controversial COVID vaccine. It seems as if the entire entertainment industry was an agent for the government!”
CONFIRMED: HHS and CDC paid comedians and screen writers to mock the unvaccinated
These documents confirm what many of us have long suspected: That HHS and CDC paid stand-up comedians to mock the unvaccinated in their comedy routines. Screen writers and production companies were also bribed to push vaccine propaganda in their episodes, and social media influencers were paid off to pimp the untested jabs.
Part of the Covid-19 stimulus push included a cool $1 billion to the CDC for propaganda payoffs and bribes. They used this money to flood tech platforms, Hollywood writers and influencers with dark money, and in return they had to sell their soul by promoting the mRNA jabs.
Hollywood has always been in on the depopulation agenda
This was all taxpayer money, used to brainwash Americans with a monstrous, coordinated vaccine propaganda campaign coordinated by HHS and the CDC.
At the same time, Big Tech targeted anyone who disagreed with the propaganda, banning them from platforms and destroying their reputations. All because they dared to take a stand against the propaganda.
The media was in on it the whole time, of course, and they refuse to report on this bombshell HHS document even now. They’ve been complicit the entire time. Watch:
Qatari and US gas won’t save Europe
By Vladimir Danilov – New Eastern Outlook – 11.10.2022
Experts estimate that in order to avoid a catastrophic fall in GDP and the risk of a prolonged economic depression, the total public spending by European countries to mitigate the energy collapse unleashed by Washington will have to exceed €1 trillion! A crisis of this magnitude would result in more bankruptcies and a domino effect in the finance sector, the scaling back of investment programs by businesses and a drop in consumer demand. The main negative effect will be that a number of the most energy-intensive industries will become uncompetitive due to gas shortages and rising energy costs. Depending on what scenario will unfold, such industries would be forced to reduce production by up to 60% compared to 2021. In turn, the shutdown would result in job cuts that could affect upwards of 1.5 million people.
Under these circumstances, objective No. 1 for Europe is to make its way out of the energy crisis as quickly as possible along with finding gas suppliers to the EU market that are not affected by the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the Europeans themselves.
Under pressure from Washington, Europe has ditched cheap and guaranteed pipeline gas supplied via Nord Streams 1 and 2. It even acquiesced to the terrorist attack by the US and its accomplices to undermine the two pipelines in the Baltic Sea. Under these circumstances, the EU has been forced to turn its attention to global LNG suppliers in the hope of improving its disastrous energy supply situation by increasing cooperation with them.
Qatar is famously the world’s leading LNG market now, accounting for 26.5% of all shipments. Australia is in second place with 26%, while the US (14.7%) and Russia (10%) are in third and fourth place, respectively.
However, the US, despite its pompous declaration when initiating the gas war with Russia that it would provide Europe with gas, after the Europeans did expel Russia from their market, has already declared that it in fact cannot provide the EU with gas. US shale investors have admitted that the amount of production they have so far is all they can hope for. Therefore, as The Financial Times reported, US shale oil and gas producers have already warned that they will not be able to increase production to help Europe deal with the energy crisis this winter.
As for Qatar, this small state in the Middle East prefers to trade gas with Asia rather than with Europe for a number of reasons. First, because there is a smaller shipment distance. And second, the Qatari leadership is highly sensitive to political demands from the EU regarding energy exporters. In addition, it is also important that China, the main consumer of Qatari gas, pays a premium for every 1,000 cubic meters of LNG.
Against this background, as well as the imposition of sanctions against Russia and a significant reduction in Russian fuel supplies, the cost of gas in Europe continues to rise at a galloping rate. To do something about the rise, the EU has made the utopian decision of reducing gas consumption by 15% from August 1, 2022 to the end of March 2023, even though many Europeans refuse to do so. In addition, the European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen, who is far removed, among other things, from the economic laws in force in the world, has announced that the EU will consider introducing a ceiling price for imported Russian gas amid the energy crisis. However, as might be expected, so far the EU member states have not been able to agree on this measure, which runs counter to any supplier of goods, and indeed to WTO rules.
Under these circumstances, European leaders doubled down on their attempts to, at least on the individual country level, reach an agreement with Qatar on additional gas supplies. For this reason, a number of European politicians of various ranks have already paid repeated visits to Qatar over the past six months.
The US has become involved in persuading Qatar to supply more gas to Europe, including at the expense of its commitments to provide gas to Asia. According to “Washington’s strategists,” it is not difficult for the US to put pressure on Qatar, considering that the largest US military base in the entire Middle East is stationed in that country. This means there is no need to smuggle in, similar to the terrorist attacks against North Streams 1 and 2, appropriate “saboteurs,” explosives, organize the operation, etc. Furthermore, it was with the aim of fully tying Qatar to the US that, during the visit of the Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to the White House in early February this year, US President Joe Biden called Qatar a “major non-NATO ally” and the Emir a “good friend and a reliable and capable partner.” In addition, the US leader promised that Qatar would soon be assigned a “major non-NATO ally” status.
Right now Qatar sells about 5-10 million tons of LNG to Europe. Over the next 5 to 10 years, as Saad al-Kaabi, Qatari Minister of Energy, promised at the Energy intelligence forum conference in London, 12-15 million tons of Qatari natural gas will flow steadily into Europe if the situation remains as it is and if European countries continue to struggle with other sources of energy. For its part, however, Qatar is demanding that the EU sign a long-term contract for LNG supplies, which Doha was encouraged to do by a recent 15-year agreement Germany signed on LNG supplies from the US. Doha is also being persuaded by Europe’s plans to find an alternative to gas from Russia, in which Qatar, with its plans to invest tens of billions of dollars in boosting production over the next five years, could be a key part of the solution. At the same time, Qatar imposes rather stringent conditions, giving buyers little scope to divert supplies, unlike contracts with the US. However, EU leaders have been demanding shorter contracts, demagogically explaining their position by the desire to reduce pollution, which has already brought negotiations on import deadlines to a standstill since March. And as for the EU’s “drive to reduce pollution,” this demagogy by European leaders is nothing short of hilarious, given that more and more EU countries are actively switching to coal.
In a bid to reach a gas deal with Europe, the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, came to the Czech Republic on October 5 at an official invitation from President Miloš Zeman. This meeting with the Emir of Qatar was important for the Czech and European authorities at large, as the EU hoped that, if the negotiations turned out to be successful, they could establish alternative routes for gas supplies amid the energy crisis. Alternative to Russia, that is. In this regard, the Qatari leader was also scheduled to speak at an informal meeting with EU member state leaders on October 7, and the visit itself was to last several days. However, the meeting turned into a major scandal: on October 5 the sheikh only had time to meet with Miloš Zeman immediately after his arrival in the country and Prime Minister Petr Fialla, before his plane left Prague. As Czech diplomatic sources explained, “the Qatari side has put forward demands that the Czech side cannot meet.”
To further clarify the situation, it should be recalled that Qatar’s geographical location gives it leeway in terms of gas supply channels. Today, up to 68% of Qatar’s LNG production is destined for Asia and 27% for Europe. Europe consumes about 450 billion cubic meters of gas a year, and Russia used to supply about half that volume. Therefore, the US proposal of 15 billion cubic meters of LNG (at higher prices than pipeline Russian gas) as an alternative to Russian gas, made back when starting the gas war in the European market, can only be regarded as a mockery and as a clear non-competitive struggle for the European gas market. Thus, it was already back then clear to everyone, except for some EU leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel and Josep Borrell who are explicitly subsidized by the US, that the US was firmly putting the EU on the line by forcing it to give up Russian gas altogether.
It is also no secret that Russia has been supplying LNG by tankers to the very Klaipeda, Lithuania, which claims it is receiving Qatari gas. In reality, however, Russia and Qatar have a very simple agreement – Russia supplies LNG from Yamal to Lithuania and it is considered Qatari, while Qatar supplies its LNG to China and it is considered Russian. The scheme benefits Qatar because it saves on transport costs and, in these circumstances, Doha will not abandon it for the “noble idea” of saving Europe.
Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the average volume of standard gas carriers used to transport liquefied gas over long distances is 145,000 cubic meters. From this volume of LNG, 90 million cubic meters of gas are produced after regasification. Each shipping voyage lasts up to 14 days. However, one gas carrier can only make one voyage per month, and the transport itself costs several hundred thousand dollars, which includes fuel, crew salaries and the ship’s rent.
The US does not have that many specialized tankers in principle to at least compensate the EU for Nord Stream 2. Therefore, the people of Europe need to seriously investigate this shady deal by the US to initiate an energy crisis in Europe, namely who was the executor of these blatantly anti-European plans of Washington and how much personal profit have they made from the poverty and misery of ordinary Europeans.
NetZero destroys NetZero: Europe can’t make solar panels because green electricity costs too much
By Jo Nova | October 9, 2022
Ironies don’t get better than this: Thanks to the renewable energy transition, Europe can’t afford to make renewable energy.
When will the message get through that renewable energy is not sustainable?
European photovoltaic plants and battery cell factors are temporarily closing or quitting altogether because of obscenely high electricity prices. When the plants were built they expected to pay €50/MWh, but now they are €300 – 400/MWh. And the situation may last another couple of years, so it’s hard to see how these manufacturers can avoid leaving permanently.
So much for all the solar jobs. Europeans are being reduced to being installers while the production of panels shifts to coal fired China because electricity is so much cheaper. Most of the wind turbine industry has already moved to China.
European solar PV manufacturing at risk from soaring power prices – Rystad
Jules Scully, PV Tech
Around 35GW of PV manufacturing projects in Europe are at risk of being mothballed as elevated power prices damage the continent’s efforts to build a solar supply chain, research from Rystad Energy suggests.
The consultancy noted that the energy-intensive nature of both solar PV and battery cell manufacturing processes is leading some operators to temporarily close or abandon production facilities as the cost of doing business escalates.
It’s not the only thing in jeopardy:
“Building a reliable domestic low-carbon supply chain is essential if the continent is going to stick to its goals, including the REPowerEU plan, but as things stand, that is in serious jeopardy,” [said Audun Martinsen, Rystad Energy’s head of energy service research].
Tell us what “affordable means:
The consultancy revealed that while power prices in Europe have retreated significantly since record highs in August, rates remain in the €300 – 400/MWh (US$297 – 396/MWh) range, many multiples above pre-energy crisis norms.
While Europeans have benefitted from reliable and affordable electricity, the research suggested that low-carbon manufacturers have based their build-up of production capacity on stable power prices of around €50/MWh.
And the country with the most fossil fuels wins:
The high costs of European PV manufacturing were revealed in a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which found China is the most cost-competitive location to manufacture all components of the solar PV supply chain, with costs in the country 35% lower than in Europe.
Eric Worrall | What’s Up With That? | October 9, 2022
… Shortly after the above was published, a French solar module plant was closed;
The obvious question, if renewables are so cheap, why don’t these plants relocate to a large plot of land, disconnect from the grid, and power their manufacturing facilities from their own low cost renewable energy products?
Seems an obvious solution – but for some reason renewable manufacturers seem to be choosing to shutter their plants, rather than switching to consuming their own product.
Satellite Temperature Data Show Almost All Climate Model Forecasts Over the Last 40 Years Were Wrong
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 8, 2022
A major survey into the accuracy of climate models has found that almost all the past temperature forecasts between 1980-2021 were excessive compared with accurate satellite measurements. The findings were recently published by Professor Nicola Scafetta, a physicist from the University of Naples. He attributes the inaccuracies to a limited understanding of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the number of degrees centigrade the Earth’s temperature will rise with a doubling of carbon dioxide.
Scientists have spent decades trying to find an accurate ECS number, to no avail. Current estimates range from 0.5°C to around 6-7°C. Without knowing this vital figure, the so-called ‘settled’ science narrative around human-caused climate change remains a largely political invention, not a credible scientific proposition. Professor Scafetta has conducted extensive work into climate models and is a long-time critic of their results and forecasts. In a previous work, he said many of the climate models should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”. Along with around 250 professors, he is a signatory to the World Climate Declaration which states there is no climate emergency and also notes climate models are “not remotely plausible as global tools”.
Scafetta’s latest work grouped 38 major climate models into low, medium and high ECS values, ranging between 1.8°C and 5.7°C. He found that models in the medium and high category “ran hot” in over 95% and 97% of cases respectively. The lower models were said to have done better when compared to global warming calculated for the period by the major surface datasets of 0.52-0.58°C. But the UAH satellite data showed warming up to 30% less during this period, suggesting even the low warming models produced “excessive warming” from 1980-2021.
According to Scafetta, these results show that the ECS figure could be as low as 1.2-2°C. Particular concern is expressed about surface temperature records that “appear to be severely affected by non-climatic warming biases”. Scafetta concludes that surface-based temperature records are likely to be affected by warming biases, such as the urban heat island effect due to expanding urban development, and subject to natural oscillations that are not reproduced by climate models. He concludes: “The global warming expected for the next few decades may be even more moderate than predicted by the low ECS-GCMs [Global Circulation Models], and could easily fall within a safe temperature range where climate adaptation policies will suffice.”
Scafetta’s work is vital in providing a realistic insight into the dominant role played by climate models in promoting the command-and-control Net Zero political agenda. Many of the constantly promoted climate thermogeddon scares use forecasts based on high ECS values. The higher values are behind every statement from bureaucrats, politicians, green activists and journalists that we are heading for a 2-3°C increase in global temperature in the near future. In the absence of any definitive ECS figure, these predictions are guesses.
In fact, once the ECS figure falls to around 1°C, it is moving into margin of error territory. However, many scientists have more or less given up trying to calculate ECS, since measuring the non-linear atmosphere is proving as difficult as it ever was. The atmosphere is a chaotic system with many powerful influences reacting unpredictably with each other. The huge heat transfers that obviously have a considerable part to play in climate are far from completely understood. Recent suggestions that modellers can ‘attribute’ single event weather events to human-caused climate change are unprovable, and little more than figments of over-active, agenda-driven imaginations. Furthermore, it is possible that carbon dioxide becomes ‘saturated’ beyond certain levels and its effect as a warming gas rapidly declines.
What we do know is that over the last 20 years, global warming has started to run out of steam. The latest September UAH satellite data, considered in some scientific circles as the most accurate measurement we have, show the current standstill has been extended to eight years. But whereas satellite data are common and invaluable in many geographical fields, these temperature results are less welcome. It is not hard to see why. Scafetta calculates that the results since the start of recordings around 1980 are 30% below surface temperature datasets. As it happens, the two adjustments since 2013 by the U.K.’s Met Office to its HadCRUT global surface temperature record have increased recent warming by a similar amount. Similar upward adjustments are to be found in the other major global datasets. A previous temperature pause from about 1998-2010 is no longer visible in these records.
Claims of ‘record’ heat years and ever higher temperatures are taken exclusively from the surface records. The satellite record is largely ignored. There are even attempts to cancel the inconvenient figures, with Google AdSense recently ‘demonetising’ the site of Dr. Roy Spencer, the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, one of the main compilers of the UAH satellite record. The record, of course, that is a vital part of Professor Scafetta’s work investigating the accuracy of climate models.
Germany’s Green Party In Dire Straits
From most loved, to most hated… audiences are drowning out Green Party speakers at campaign rallies.
By P Gosselin – No Tricks Zone – October 8, 2022
The German Greens, who are partners with the SPD socialists in Germany’s government, are sinking dramatically in the public opinion polls as it becomes clear Green Party leader and Economics Minister Robert Habeck is driving the country’s economy into the ground at a dizzying speed.
Habeck, who currently also serves as Vice Chancellor, recently stunned millions of TV viewers when he appeared not to understand what bankruptcy is. Now as tomorrow’s state elections approach in Lower Saxony, the Green Party officials are scrambling to keep Habeck from doing more damage.
Blackout News reports that the Greens are “hiding” Habeck from the public in order to control the damage, and so far he has “had only one campaign appearance”. For that one particular appearance, “the audience had to stay outside, for security reasons” and “exclusively to selected members of his party.”
“In the polls, Robert Habeck has already experienced a significant plunge in the popularity of German politicians in recent days. So it’s no wonder that the Greens are literally hiding their once most popular politician ahead of the election in Lower Saxony,” reports Blackout News.
Desperate to find new sources of energy now that the Russian supply of natural gas has been halted, Habeck has angered his party base by extending the operating life for two nuclear power plants and putting lignite-fired power plants back on line.
In Göttingen, Habeck spoke at an election rally, but only in only in front of hand-picked audience after the police had completely sealed off the event.
Just a day earlier his party comrade Annalena Baerbock was “drowned out” by demonstrators. “Already at the beginning of her speech there was a deafening concert of whistles so that Baerbock could hardly be understood,” reports Blackout News. “In addition, there were shouts such as: ‘Baerbock must go’, ‘war-mongers’, ‘get lost’ and ‘impoverishment and war thanks to the Greens’, and ‘whoever votes Green, votes for war’.”
The mainstream media however, did not report on this.
Once the darlings of politics, the German Greens have seen their popularity plummet spectacularly over the recent weeks as Germany’s economy crashes due to excruciating energy shortages and price inflation.
“Therefore, on October 3, the Minister of Economics spoke only to a few dozen hand-picked party members and a few selected journalists,” according to Blackout News.
Saudi minister blames Washington for soaring fuel prices in the US
The Cradle | October 8, 2022
Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State, Adel al-Jubeir, rejected claims that the kingdom is behind soaring gas prices in the US, citing instead insufficient refinery production and asserting that the Gulf country does not politicize oil.
“With due respect, the reason you have high prices in the United States is because you have a refining shortage that has been in existence for more than 20 years… You haven’t built refineries in decades,” Jubeir said during an interview on Fox News on 7 October.
“Oil is not a weapon… It’s not a fighter plane. It’s not a tank. You can’t shoot it. You can’t do anything with it. We look at oil as a commodity and we look at oil as important to the global economy in which we have a huge stake. The idea that Saudi Arabia would do this to harm the U.S. or to be in any way politically involved is absolutely not correct at all,” the Saudi official added.
The minister made the claim that the issue on oil production has “been taken out of context by perhaps commentators and analysts,” while assuring that Riyadh is “committed to ensuring stability in the oil markets to the benefit of consumers and producers.”
Following the decision by OPEC+ to cut production output levels by two million barrels per day (bpd), Washington fired back strongly at it’s Gulf partners, with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre accusing them on 5 October of “aligning with Russia.”
For weeks before the cut, the US had been lobbying OPEC+ and pressuring it against making the decision, sources told media, as US officials “tried to position the situation as ‘us versus Russia.’”
Saudi officials reportedly told their US counterparts that Washington should boost its own production if it wanted more oil on the market.
Tensions have escalated further between Saudi Arabia and the US in the wake of the production cut, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying on 6 October that Washington is reviewing various options regarding its relationship with the kingdom.
EU nation temporarily waives anti-Russia sanctions
Samizdat | October 5, 2022
Energy-starved Bulgaria will temporarily cease to enforce EU sanctions on Russian fuel, to ensure the work of government institutions, the state press service reported on Wednesday following a Cabinet meeting.
According to the report, Russian companies supplying automotive fuel will be exempt from the embargo until the end of 2024, due to shortages in the country.
“It is permitted to conclude new state contracts and framework agreements with automotive fuel suppliers from the Russian Federation after October 10, 2022… An exception is introduced due to the need to ensure the normal operation of state bodies and other structures requiring motor fuel, in order to protect public order, the life and health of the citizens of Bulgaria, and national security,” the press service announced. The ban will come back into force on December 31, 2024.
The dominant fuel provider in the Balkan country is the Neftochim Burgas refinery, which is owned by Russia’s Lukoil. Until the sanctions, half of its oil supply came from Russia.
In early September, the head of the Bulgarian Finance Ministry, Rositsa Velkova, announced her intention to obtain permission from Brussels to continue buying fuel from Russia until at least the end of 2024. If Sophia does not receive a reprieve from the sanctions, the country’s drivers risk being left without fuel, the minister stressed.
The buffoon delivering a permanent energy crisis
By Andrew Montford | TCW Defending Freedom | October 4, 2022
In 2017 it was announced that windfarms had agreed to sell power to the grid at just £57 per megawatt hour. It heralded, said the cutters-and-pasters of press releases in the mainstream media, a new era of cheap renewable power. A few stubborn souls pointed out that there was no sign that windfarms were getting any cheaper to build and run, but such naysayers were shunned and insulted, and the establishment carried on as if nothing had happened.
Five years on, and the windfarms concerned are busily selling power into the open market at anything between four and ten times the prices they had agreed. Their agreements have gone unfulfilled. The extra cost to consumers is running into billions of pounds every year.
We were tricked, big time. But we live and learn by our errors. You’d have to be pretty slow on the uptake to fall for a multi-billion-pound trick like that a second time, wouldn’t you?
Unfortunately, this is precisely what Sir John Armitt, the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, seems to have done. In fact, rather than being ‘once bitten twice shy’, he seems to be pleading ‘Bite me harder, and this time do it where is really hurts.’ Let me explain.
In an article in the Telegraph, Sir John says we need lots more renewable energy, and adds that the latest auctions ‘secured prices nine times cheaper than current high electricity prices set by gas generation’. Well, yes, but we have already seen that auction price contracts are a trick; the last round of agreements were abandoned the moment operators found they could get more in the open market. Does Sir John not know this? Can the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission really be so divorced from the realities of the energy system? Moreover, he clearly understands that the price differential between gas-fired and wind prices is mostly temporary – a function of the war in Ukraine driving up gas prices – but still believes it should motivate permanent changes to the electricity system. What can he be thinking?
Sir John’s positions on other aspects of the energy system are equally mystifying. He seems to think there is a global market for gas. But a global market would have a global price, and that is simply not the case: European gas prices are (in dollar terms) currently 70 per cent higher than UK ones and 800 per cent higher than US ones (!) Does Sir John not understand this? How can he possibly think there is a global market? Is there nobody at the National Infrastructure Commission who can put him right?
Nor is the auction price trick the only example of Sir John failing to learn from experience. In one notable flight of fantasy in his article he says that ‘reducing prices, enhancing energy security and reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 all point in the same direction’. Huh? Between 2002 and 2020, a period when gas prices were broadly flat, electricity prices for consumers roughly doubled, a function of the inefficiencies that renewables impose on every other generator and on the grid as a whole. How can he think that more renewables will bring lower prices? He understands that the gas price spike is temporary! And as for security, the electricity grid has been severely destabilised by renewables (because they have no ‘inertia’, in the jargon). A million people were left in the dark in 2019, and the grid as whole is now in danger of falling over completely. But Sir John wants more!
In similar fashion, he says we should be furiously insulating our housing stock. Yet we simply cannot get away from the fact that most of the housing stock is old and, in our humid maritime climate, needs to breathe to prevent damp and mould. Has Sir John not learned from the fiasco the last time a crash insulation programme was tried? Two million homes were damaged. Lives were ruined. Is he even aware that this happened?
On and on he goes. We should use hydrogen to store energy, he suggests, without apparently a thought to the cost involved. Can the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission really not understand that in going from electricity to hydrogen and back, two-thirds of the energy is lost? So when we start emptying the hydrogen store, it will set market prices, which will soar in response, probably to levels similar to what we see today, far, far higher than the economy can bear.
In other words, Sir John’s ideas will deliver a permanent energy crisis and a great depression. It is no more than you would expect from such an epitome of the British establishment: urbane, erudite, a consummate networker. And utterly incompetent.
Western regimes are intent on maintaining energy poverty in Africa
By Ekaterina Blunova – Samizdat – 05.10.2022
Sudanese-British billionaire Mo Ibrahim criticized the West on Monday for obstructing African nations’ effort to develop their own hydrocarbon reserves and constantly ignoring the energy poverty problems of the Global South. What’s behind the Global North’s political short-sightedness and who benefits from the controversy?
Even though Africa boasts roughly 12% and 9% of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves, respectively, most of the continent’s nations suffer from energy poverty. However, once the energy crisis hit Europe, EU governments immediately turned to the African continent, seeking to tap its resources while overlooking the continent’s longstanding problems.
“The West’s exploitation of Africa’s wealth is driven by two factors,” explained Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, an international oil economist and a global energy expert. “The first is the old racist view that African people are backward and inferior to Western people and therefore can’t defend themselves or protect their natural resources. In a nutshell, it is doable. The second factor is greed and profit, which are the core of the Western capitalist system of taking advantage of poor and helpless people and exploiting their resources without letting them benefit the slightest from their stolen resources. That is how Western empires were built in Africa and around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries.”
The Central African Countries suffer from severe energy poverty because they neither have the infrastructure (refineries, oil and gas pipelines) to benefit from their vast energy resources and also distribute energy, nor do they have the financial means to build such infrastructure, according to the oil economist. The deplorable state of Africa’s energy infrastructure stems from the fact that the West is by no means interested in the continent’s sustainability, Salameh highlighted.
“The ultimate beneficiary from Africa’s energy poverty, particularly refined products, is Western oil companies,” the energy expert said.
One glaring example is the 4,128 km-long Trans-Saharan gas pipeline. It is supposed to link Nigeria to Algeria, passing through Niger and bring Nigerian and Algerian gas exports to Europe while simultaneously benefiting energy-poor African countries from Nigeria’s and Algeria’s plentiful gas reserves estimated at 206.53 trillion cubic feet (tcf) and 159 tcf respectively, the oil economist explained.
Although this pipeline was conceived in the 1970s, it is still at the drawing board stage despite many memorandums of understanding signed over the years, the latest in mid-February, Salameh pointed out, forecasting that “it won’t see the light of day even in the next 10 years.”
“Western countries have consistently ignored Africa’s energy resources for years declining to offer investments as long as they didn’t need these resources at the time,” he said. “But in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict and having introduced sweeping sanctions against Russia, the European Union is trying to curry favor with African hydrocarbon producers to reduce its dependence on Russia’s gas and oil supplies.”
The unfolding energy crisis offers new opportunities for Africa to develop oil and gas infrastructure and step up production of hydrocarbons. However, while African business leaders and policy-makers are brushing off the dust from their long-delayed energy projects, Western politicians and environmentalists have raised concerns about climate change issues, insisting that Africa’s consumption of fossil fuels could make matters far worse.
“The West puts so much importance on the climate change agenda in Africa,” said Salameh. “I would hazard two explanations for the West’s attitude. The first explanation is that the West is under the misjudged and erroneous view that any future energy assets – like investing in oil and gas production and building pipelines will end up after 2030 as stranded assets. The second explanation is a more sinister one, with the West wishing to keep African energy resources underground in order to satisfy its own appetite for energy in the future.”
Last month, US climate czar John Kerry discouraged investors from funding long-term gas projects in Africa, warning that they would be unable to recoup their investments beyond 2030. According to Kerry, it will be important to capture the emissions from gas after 2030, as the world is set to reach net-zero emissions in 2050.
On October 3, Sudanese-British billionaire Mo Ibrahim lambasted the West for hypocrisy and a double-standard approach at the “Reuters impact” conference in London. Ibrahim drew attention to the fact that the “Global North” is preventing African nations from developing their own gas reserves over climate change fears, while at the same time seeking opportunities to gain from African resources themselves.
This is not the first time that Ibrahim has lambasted Western policy-makers over their Africa policies. In July 2022, the billionaire’s foundation released “The road to COP27: Making Africa’s case in the global climate debate,” dedicated to the forthcoming 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Egypt scheduled for November, 6-18. The report highlighted that “the current climate agenda is failing Africa” and placed the emphasis on the continent’s people’s right to energy access, given that a staggering 600 million Africans are still lacking it.
“The green agenda is hampering African countries from fully tapping and exploiting their hydrocarbon resources,” said Salameh. “This is a double-edged approach in that it enhances energy poverty in Africa while simultaneously depriving the EU of Africa’s energy resources (…) If African countries don’t have the infrastructure, the technical know-how and the financial resources to benefit from their own vast hydrocarbon resources, how would anyone expect them to develop green energy?”
Meanwhile, the Western green agenda for Africa is “faulty,” according to the energy expert: Africa accounted for only 3.8% of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels and industry in 2020, which is the smallest share among all world regions.
On the other hand, climate groups who call for an abrupt end to fossil fuels and a sudden adoption of renewable energy fail to recognize the obvious lack of logic in this, continued Salameh.
“On their own, renewables aren’t capable of satisfying global demand for electricity and energy because of their intermittent nature,” the oil economist explained, characterizing a total energy transition as an “illusion.”
The current energy crisis in Europe clearly indicated that the Old Continent can’t rely on renewables alone. Furthermore, EU member states had to restart their coal plants after resorting to an anti-Russia energy embargo over the latter’s special military operation in Ukraine.
“While denying Africa’s right to push ahead with its own energy endeavors, the West would be eager to offer investments and technological know-how to the continent in exchange for receiving the lion’s share of the regional hydrocarbon wealth. The West doesn’t care whether African countries are experiencing severe energy poverty or not as long as it gets its hands on these reserves,” Salameh concluded.

The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.