Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum
First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
***
Butt et al. offer one more example of strong, harmful, and definitely anthropogenic climate change. And again it has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. To the contrary, the run for “renewable” fuel may well exacerbate it.
Cho compares the electricity cost from small nuclear with solar and wind without mentioning reliability and storage at all.
When comparing electricity to direct fuel use, one usually considers heat pumps with a COP of about three or compares electric motors of 90 % efficiency to combustion engines with around 30 %. So making “green” fuel from electricity triples the energy consumption and cost as well as resource consumption and emissions. Bourzac completely fails to mention that small detail.
***
Perhaps I’m becoming senile and should switch from journals to afternoon TV watching, but after close reading of the captions I still can’t make anything of Sprengholz et al.’s figures. There are three variables, past perception, present perception, and present recall of the past. Where is the third one hidden in their two-dimensional x-y-diagrams? Further all lines are falling. So regardless of their vaccination status and attitude everyone without exception presently considers his risk low if he considered it high in the past and vice versa. Really? Their written text makes some sense – nobody likes admitting errors, that’s not new – but their figures don’t.
Zum Anfang Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum