You know what they say: don’t believe your lyin’ eyes. Nor your lyin’ power bill. You might think that your bill has been skyrocketing in direct correlation to the forced switch to “renewables”, but that’s just your over-active imagination. I mean, sure: it looks like everywhere renewables are being forced onto consumers that prices are soaring and blackouts are proliferating, but you’re not an “expert”, you see. If you think that renewables are costly and destructive, then you’re just a filthy denier.
It won’t cost us trillions of dollars to build out a completely new global energy grid infrastructure based on technology that is still under development and then to switch the entire global economy onto it. No, don’t be silly! It’s going to save us trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS, I tell you!
I mean – who are you going to believe? Your lyin’ eyes, watching Europe descend into an energy rationing impoverishment not seen since WWII, or an “expert” study from Oxford.
But why believe the actual economic pain you’re experiencing (heating your own home this winter) when your Oxfordian overlords have big, fat reports (that no one will read) telling you how much money will be saved by switching over to a green energy grid? After all, the BBC and MSN and Nature World News are tripping all over themselves to repeat these findings unquestioningly, so who are you to bring up any of the pesky “facts” that contradict this comforting fairy tale?
Because, like everything else the Climate Cultists tell, the Oxford study is easily debunkable propaganda.
In truth, the green energy sustainable enslavement grid is a scam from top to bottom. But it is not simply a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream being sold to a gullible and ignorant public. It’s worse than that. It is a carefully crafted lie that is designed to lead us into our new role as serfs on the neofeudal plantation in the coming green dystopia.
Like all propaganda and pseudoscience, the Oxford study starts from an obviously false premise:
“Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change.”
This is, of course, not true, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. (And again and again and again and again.)
But, after simply stating this bald-faced lie as fact, the Oxfordian boffins then have the gall to urinate on your face and tell you it’s raining: “Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars – even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.”
As my Second Law of the Media states: When an article claims, “science says…” or “new study shows…”, assume that it doesn’t until proven otherwise. Above all, read the study for yourself. You’ll almost always find that it either doesn’t say what the media claims, or that it’s simply propaganda being passed off as “science”.
In this case, despite its headline claim of being “empirically grounded”, there’s very little that’s empirical about it. Like most climate “science”, it’s all based on highly bias-prone computer models. They use models to “estimate” (ie make up) future energy costs, then use “probabilistic methods” (guesswork) to “view energy pathways through the lens of placing bets on technologies”.
I kid you not, this “empirically grounded” and totally “scientific” study tells us, in effect, that if we’re betting men we should put all our chips on green… “green” energy, that is. Go on, read it for yourself.
Among the more dubious assertions of the study is that, because lithium-ion battery prices have gotten cheaper recently, they’ll keep getting cheaper forever.
But they can’t even get the real empirical data right (underestimating the current cost of batteries by 70 per cent), long before they run off into the wild blue yonder of computer modelling.
Worse, the study doesn’t look at the real world cost of installing, connecting, using and maintaining the batteries. They just cited a wildly inaccurate price for the battery itself. In fact, a 2018 study estimated the cost of building and running a US energy grid with 80 per cent wind and solar at $2.5 trillion. Just to get the grid up and running.
And that doesn’t even begin to factor in the environmental cost of mining all that copper and lithium.
In direct contradiction to the hogwash put out by the Oxford researchers and their ilk, such a transition will not save us trillions of dollars but actually cost us trillions of dollars.
The Corbett Report
How could a bunch of smart people at Oxford apparently convince themselves of such obvious nonsense?
Even the smartest people will believe obvious nonsense if their worldview hangs on it – and their continued government grant funding.
But the most important thing is not to convince a bunch of lab-coated troughers – it’s to bamboozle you into not noticing the real agenda.
The real agenda will be discussed in Part 2.
