Energy News Beat
Today on our podcast, we interview Frits Buningh, a Data analyst and overall cool cat. I really enjoyed my time on the podcast, and we had a great conversation about the global warming phenomenon. But what I did not expect was actually finding out how the narrative of global warming has been modified by manipulating data.
Frits has also joined the CO2 Coalition. Gregory Wrightstone is the executive director, and I have had the good fortune of interviewing him twice.
Sit back, buckle up, and enjoy this discussion about data, and please follow and support Frits on his LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/frits-buningh-6233832b/
Thank you, Frits, for your time, and let me know if you find any more sensors that are off and not the kind that try to shut down our social media. – Stu
Highlights of the Podcast
01:27 – Stuart congratulates Frits on joining CO2 coalition.
02:43 – Frits investigates Antarctica, trigger unspecified.
08:16 – Frits finds temperature data discrepancies.
13:12 – Frits creates website to share findings.
17:01 – Discussion on biases in temperature algorithms.
19:26 – Consequences of inaccurate temperature data.
23:23 – Frits discusses interactions with Professor Burkle.
27:47 – Emphasis on critical thinking and skepticism.
28:00 – Personal experiences challenging authority.
30:15 – Conversation on environmental activism.
32:30 – Frits shares personal connections to locations.
33:52 – Discussion on nuclear power and environmental impact.
39:51 – Conversation on data analysis methodologies.
ENB Podcast: https://energynewsbeat.co/industry-insights-2/
Take the Survey HERE: https://energynewsbeat.co/survey/
Other great resources from Sandstone and Energy News Beat
Real Estate Investor Pulse
1031 Exchange E-Book https://alternativeinvestments.sandstone-group.com/en-us/tax-benefits-sandstone-group-0-1-1-0
ENB Top News https://energynewsbeat.co/top-news/
ENB https://energynewsbeat.co/
Energy Dashboard https://app.sandstone-group.com/enb-dashboard-version-2
ENB Podcast https://energynewsbeat.co/industry-insights-2/
ENB Substack
https://[email protected]
Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter
– Get in Contact With The Show –
Stuart Turley [00:00:07] Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Energy News Beat podcast. My name Stu Turley, president CEO of the sandstone Group. You know what’s kind of wild in this, day and age of data is that people are making numbers up and they’re throwing them out there. In the UK yesterday, they’re now saying that they have to change their net zero goals because they’re relying on data that was made up in just a matter of a couple days. Well, I’ll tell you what. So I’ve interviewed Gregory, right. Stone with the CO2 coalition, three times now. And I love the work that Gregory Wright Stone is out there doing. And they’re actually saying, is CO2 actually a pollution? How come the plants need it? Well, Fritz, reached out to me. Fritsch burning and he reached out and we are about to talk to Fritz about data in Antarctica and what is going on there. So buckle up, hang on, and just enjoy the conversation with Fritz.
Stuart Turley [00:01:13] Thank you, Fritz, for stopping by the podcast today.
Frits Buningh [00:01:16] You’re welcome. I’m looking forward to it.
Stuart Turley [00:01:19] Hey, congratulations on being, invited into the CO2 coalition. Well done.
Frits Buningh [00:01:27] Yeah, yeah, that was that was quite a surprise. I, I reached out to Doctor Hopper back in October. Kind of like a cold call or cold email, if you might call it. Because, I started working with an Australian scientist after, looking, finding out the data discrepancies on Labor Day and seeing a very cold, extremely cold Labor Day weekend and then seeing the Climate Change Institute making it much warmer. I saw an article by a doctor, Jennifer Hussey, in and in the. Australian magazine. She had interviewed Doctor Harper in October on his tour to Australia about CO2. He gave a lot of lectures there, so I thought maybe Doctor Harper needed to know what I had seen. And I went to his university and found his email, and I decided to just like, well, take a chance and see if he wants to read what I have to say. And he did. And he even responded, I was shocked. So that’s that’s how we got talking.
Stuart Turley [00:02:43] How cool is that? Now let’s tee this up a little bit. Yeah. You love data. It’s kind of weird, but you love to look at data and everything else. What triggered you to start looking in at the Antarctica and what started? You’re thinking. Wait a minute. Something’s not right.
Frits Buningh [00:03:07] Well, that’s a long story. I’ll try to make it shorter, but, you know, and June 15th, our United Nations secretary general gave a rousing speech about solidarity that kind of went down the wrong side of my, intellectual understanding of things. And I figured that 2023 was going to be the year of the climate crisis, whereas 1969 was the year of, the summer of love. Right. That’ll be the summer of the climate crisis. So I thought, well, you know, I worked in data for 35 years. Can I look at this from a data perspective and figure out if this is right or is this wrong? I mean, I don’t know. I watch TV, I watch CNN, Jake Tapper and stuff, and they tell me all these terrible things. I’m not really believing much of it, but I don’t really know, I can’t tell. But I have a background of 35 years of crunching data for the likes of Military Times from Ghana, and even I even worked for a couple of years in science. And, so I thought, well, I’m retired. You know, besides mowing the lawn and raking the leaves and taking out the garbage on time, what else do I do? Okay, I watch Barcelona and Manchester City on occasions, but that gets old too. So I decide to dig into the data. So that’s what I did. You know, I looked at, he in the North Atlantic Forest and. Yeah, yeah, it was there, but I thought it was a windy then. And then I decided then, I started looking at the climate change, and we analyzed a really great graph that they had. Okay. I have a tool there that you can download all their files. So on August the 9th I downloaded all the files, put it, put them next to each other in an Excel spreadsheet. Right. You know, they’re like 17,000 records for six files. From 1979 to 2023. That’s a lot of data. All right, kind of cleaning it up and analyzing it. And then I started looking at things and trying to look at it from an all things perspective. I went through a lot of audits in my time, both audits, BPA, ABC. They want to know from an advertising perspective, are you are you be asking them or, you know, real data about your your circulation because that’s what the advertisers pay money. They pay money for a thousand, you know, magazine drivers. So you gotta be kind of like on the ball and they will turn you inside out and upside down. They want to know how much paper you use, how much postage you did, how many deposits you made in the bank. Right. Really want to know everything. So I thought, well, let’s take the auditing angle and go look at what these know of people. And this Climate Change Institute from University of Maine people are really claiming. I kind of started adding it all up and something didn’t add up in the southern hemisphere. Okay then. Hemisphere of balance out. I could see that, you know, if you had the tropics, the midsection, the Arctic. Okay, maybe close enough. I can’t really make any case about anything, but look at the southern hemisphere and it didn’t match. I can’t apply the same logic in the southern hemisphere that I did in the Northern hemisphere. And the only way I could make the southern hemisphere balance out overall, including the world temperature. Because the room temperature is made up of the southern hemisphere, the northern hemisphere. Add them up divided by two. You get the rural temperature, not the southern hemisphere. Then everything else is, so the southern hemisphere was off, and the only way I could make it balance was to make an article way colder than they said that it was. And I thought, oh, wait a minute, but I know nothing about an Arctic. I thought Antarctica was as big as Texas. Really big. Like Texas big. And then I find out is bigger than the United States, Mexico, Ontario and Quebec combined. Whoa, wait a minute. What? Go take a look at it. That’s what. How? I got to look at it. Back in the fog. It’s mid-August. I started looking at it and and following, what was going on at the stage. I found there’s an Australian outpost on Antarctica, and it was way colder in mid-July than Jake Tapper wanted us to be.
Stuart Turley [00:08:19] Let me share. We were talking right before in that chart that you had, pointed out. Is that the one that you want me to bring up now? And you can count out.
Frits Buningh [00:08:27] That that one. That’s the member Labor Day chart that got me going.
Stuart Turley [00:08:34] Okay. So this is the chart. And what caught your eye as I’m looking at the chart or podcast listeners. We’re looking at, climate back.
Frits Buningh [00:08:46] In pictures and a little bit perspective. Okay. On August 27th, which shows over here to is -29 degrees. You know, the Climate Change Institute has this great tool on the analyzer that you can download, or you can look at specific stations or locations on Antarctica and they give you a ten day forecast. So the ten day forecast for the South Pole, Fuji dome, dome, Argus, Concordia, which is all high plateau. And I looked at all of them and I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is way, way cold. All of them are -70 for the Labor Day, and even some are over -17 for the Labor Day. So then I thought, wouldn’t it be interesting if I created a model of like, 20 stations that are topographically and geographically dispersed throughout the continent, and see if I cannot come up with an average of what it should be like. And then when I plug, plugged in 20 stations and locations in Antarctica, I got to an average of -40, 41 degrees. Now you got to know that on the reanalyzed the website from the NOAA people, the number of people provides them the data. They are from the University of Maine. The absolute ultimate. All time cold. According to the Climate Change Institute, was August 10th of 2010 of -38.6 degrees. Right. Looking all of a sudden at -41. And I’m saying that three degrees colder than what the all time record is. How can this be? So that’s when I started following very closely at that point. And then on the 30th of August, I wrote the Climate Change Institute and email and told them, you’re going to break the record. Are you going to hold a press conference? Are you really and tell the national audience that we have a new record on Antarctica? Of course, I never did get an answer to that email. Oh, sure. What did happen? The very next day, he made a U-turn and started making Antarctica warmer, whereas the NOAA people had said it was going to get freaking colder. And it did go quick and go there. And I thought, all this data is from the U.S. automatic weather stations, one of Antarctica. This is all data that you can’t really challenge unless you want to tell the University of Wisconsin-Madison that they’re cheats, which I don’t think anybody wants to do. Right. So this data is pretty solid. So that you can whatever the climate change is. The third, what’s happening there is basically this proven by all of the purple and yellow. I mean, anybody who is half a green cannot look at this and say, this makes sense. Wow. So that’s where and but nobody knew about any of this. You didn’t see it in the media. You didn’t know who they were. So I went I took that data, I stuck it in an email, and I emailed it to ten, 15 people that I thought were climate realists. Right. Nothing happened. So after about ten days I was getting really frustrated. So I woke up in the middle of the night and I went to go, daddy.com. And I bought me a domain triple ETF, and the triple A is a little bit of a stab at science, where I work for the last two years of my career that didn’t go so well. And I wanted to call it the American Association and Art, the Daily Temperature Service or something like that. Because I loved because I knew that. And, and and so this is.
Stuart Turley [00:13:13] This is your site. I’m sharing my.
Frits Buningh [00:13:15] Phone. Yeah, that’s my website. Thank you. Pulling that up? Yeah. Lots of interesting stuff over there.
Stuart Turley [00:13:24] Oh. How fun. And so the website is, again, a d t.com.
Frits Buningh [00:13:31] I love it. I change the name a little. I make the name. You know, I can go many ways. I can call it the Antarctic over the Arctic. Average daily temperatures, servers or statistics or system or. I don’t really decide on exactly what I want to do with it. I put my two exposes on there. The one original, I suppose, and, you know, I eventually they buckled under for the climb here. Go back on the CFS exhibits. I think it’s put that up there. CFS that’s the NOAA model exhibit. by is over the Antarctic. Now, if the if if that model has a bias that mean all the temperature data from the last decades or two are all phony and right. Yeah, because that means the southern hemisphere is up. If the southern hemisphere is off, that means the world temperature is up. So none of these heat records are actually real because they are they even say themselves. It’s all estimates. So whatever they put up, it’s estimates based on last year’s estimates, which then estimates based on 20 years of estimates in the past. What do you got? You know, how many error factors do you have to calculate in? Yeah, but this statement to me, winter warm buys over portions of Antarctica. So are you going to call the New York Times and tell them we’re retracting? The July 6th is the hottest day of the of the Earth forever. And 120,000 years. Have they done that? No. That statement disappeared two days later and was replaced by regarding high global temperatures. Copernicus, US and NOAA are all in. We are all in agreement that it was hotter than ever. Now, Copernicus, they put this new model up. Error five and error five is two degrees colder than NOAA cfs, but they both end up declaring that July the 6th is hotter than ever. Now you can have two models that are two degrees apart and come to the same conclusion. Mathematically, that is beyond me, right? I don’t you know, I come from a one on one inch two kind of perspective. You know, I’m not a Ph.D. or a scientist, but, you know, I’m just a simple guy doing data and adding stuff up.
Stuart Turley [00:16:14] I love this. This is absolutely, well done, because I don’t understand, things that are not data oriented, you know, in the energy space, physics, data and finance matters.
Frits Buningh [00:16:31] And. But from an accounting. If you were to take a forensic accountant and have them look at this. Right. Go nuts. But, you know, of course, depending on their political vision of where they want the end result to come out. Right. But the data mathematically, none of this data and, you can’t make sense out of any of it. Wow.
Stuart Turley [00:17:01] So when you were going through this and just to clarify this, that you were really looking at the the hemisphere once one hemisphere numbers are off, the whole model is off that you were quite right.
Frits Buningh [00:17:15] Yeah. Because like on Antarctica, like the South Pole. And I’ve confronted them with this. They have they put up a South Pole forecast for ten days. Right. The climate change is two people do. But then Noah has a forecast for the airport. At the South Pole. Now, the airport forecast matches what the Madison University, Wisconsin. Data from the South Pole. They match. Those two are in agreement. And the South Pole from the Climate Change Institute is 8.8 to 14 degrees warmer than the other two. Now, if you are a pilot and you’re coming into landing and it’s -40 degrees, the other one says it’s -28 or -30. As a pilot, you may make some different decisions on how to position the flaps or the ice deicing whatever. That could be a life changing situation. So they are consistently 8.8, but 40 degrees warmer in the wintertime of Antarctica, which is our summer. June, July, August. Right. And then the interesting part is that now when we go towards the summer, that difference narrows. And by about December, the six. You can see that the model from the climate changes to my model are in total harmony. We agree 100%. Look. See, there are two. But then in the summer, they’re ten degrees off. How can that be? Is that a systematic? If there is a systematic bias? The the the difference between the two models should be consistent. I should be consistently off in Greece, but we are now so that.
Stuart Turley [00:19:27] The matic biases out in.
Frits Buningh [00:19:29] Algorithm. There are some under the hood algorithm that suppresses cold temperature. And you can see it if you look at the graphs, you can see consistently that when when the Arctic air throws the deep cold system, that the climate change Institute dips a little bit and then comes back up. They they smooth it out and you can see it in the data. I mean, I analyzed bird data very closely. Birds to a record of -45 in 2023. Right. No, it says no, no, no, no, it was only -38 with seven degrees off. And it doesn’t make sense, because when I went back and looked at 2001. No, and University of Madison, Wisconsin, the US and the NSF at Ohio State University and other place where they maintained data from Bird Station since 1957. They are the gold standard. They have all the data from 57 2022, and they’re all in agreement in 2001. The last year they were in agreement. Then after that, Noah begins to get warmer. Now the Madison University and Ohio State University are in total agreement. Every year since 2001, including 2021, 2018 was called 2015 was cold. And they’re in total agreement. But Noah getting warmer, warmer, warmer, warmer. Or maybe I should go the other way. Warmer. This way that. That’s. Substantially so. And by the time you get to 2023, they’re off by seven degrees. Now, that’s a lot. It is, of course, the the Arctic Square mileage is 7700, million, whatever. That’s about 4.5% of the Earth. Right. Arctic is the same 4.5%. So between the Arctic and Antarctic, we have 9%. So if you’re up by seven degrees. And in 4%. Yeah, that adds up. When you get to the world campus. And that’s when the things go haywire, because, you know, you’re making statements about world temperature, but the bottom block of your arithmetic is shaky, and it’s kind of like a house of cards. You pull that one out, then the rest crumbles. It’s like a pyramid, you know. You have the Antarctic. Here’s the Arctic here, the tropics, the midsection. Then you have the world temperature. You know, you build it up like a pyramid. Now, I have half of that pyramid on one side. Is is is is off. You know, the pyramid kind of starts to tilt.
Stuart Turley [00:22:48] There’s no way.
Frits Buningh [00:22:49] The temperature goes up.
Stuart Turley [00:22:52] You know what, Fritz? Here’s why. It’s despicable. And that’s because they’re printing money to get the renewable energy so that they can lower the carbon so they can lower the temperature. But they’re manipulating the temperature so that, you know, they’re forcing everybody to have higher energy expenses.
Frits Buningh [00:23:15] They don’t want to lower the temperature. They want to control your life.
Stuart Turley [00:23:20] Exactly. But you see where I’m going with this?
Frits Buningh [00:23:23] Is that that’s what they’re telling you, that that’s not there. They want you to believe that they’re one and that that’s what they want. They don’t care. They. They know just as well as you and I that they’re saying yes. Then that’s the only way they can get anything done. But if you confront them on this, I did. I went to Berg. Professor Burkle is the head of this analyzer project. He put it together right after. After the Labor Day. You know, I sent him an email and said your your data doesn’t make any sense. Your mathematics is way, way, way, way off. Right. And he actually responded to me and started giving me guidance and lectures about how great they were. And he gave me academic articles to read. So I went and read the academic articles, and then I went back to him and say, well, you say they say, you know, some of your stuff doesn’t make sense. Like we came in an article from 2010, which was the model upon which everything is based. No, no, you’ve got to realize that the article I looked at the publication date of the article was August 1st, 2010. Now. What I told you earlier is the record was August 10th of 2010. At 38 degrees minus. So you have a model that they published ten days before the record came out. Now, if they publish the article, that meant that they wrote all that years in the past. So I asked them, how can a model that doesn’t include an old time code predict an all time code when they don’t know that it’s going to happen? That model cannot predict that this is going to happen. So your model is bad. Wow. He didn’t like that. And then I told him. I tell you what, Shawn, you have your data. I build a model of training stations. I tell you what, that is 30. There’s ten more. There’s about 30 of them. You are the expert. You’ve probably been to Antarctica. You know everything about it. Here, 30 stations, you pick 20. And then we’re going to we’re going to do a parallel test. I pull all the data of the 20 that you pick because you are the expert. Right. And then we’re going to compare what I get for my 20 say or your 20 stations. We’re going to compare that to what you put on your graph every day. That’s when he goes for months. He didn’t want to talk to me. No more than that. I’m not talking to this guy. Maybe he looks eccentrically, a little old, maybe a little dementia along the way. Well, I’m not talking to him anymore. So about a month later, I went over his head and I went to the executive secretary of the University of Maine president. And I told him, you know, this is not a good look, you know. Right. Well, I’m not sure of your numbers. This is not how science is done. You’re looking weak. You’re looking disheveled. You can’t. You know how to take me seriously. And Jason Charland is the guy that was the assistant to the university president. He called, Shawn Burkle to task, and within five minutes, John Darko was back talking to me. Nice. We kept talking for another couple of months, and he kept making. You know, admissions of guilt, sort of, until the bias statement came out. And then somebody pulled the rug out from under him, and they replace that with July was the hottest ever. Since then, we all agree. Forget the bias thing. Yeah. We don’t want to tell the world that one.
Stuart Turley [00:27:39] Oh my goodness. You know, it’s funny how data can be changed to prove a point.
Frits Buningh [00:27:47] Yeah. And, they throw so much data, you have people just throw a blank. They don’t know what to do with it. You know that they trust that they’ve been told the truth.
Stuart Turley [00:28:00] Not. Yeah. Trust no one I think anymore without. And I think that with, people not trusting mainstream media without trusting, I don’t watch TV anymore. I just, despite I despise watching TV and I would rather listen to podcasts, talk to real people, talk to folks like yourself, and and really make my own mind that I am not a fan of, mainstream, propaganda.
Frits Buningh [00:28:33] So I bought I listen to Crosby, stills, Nash and Young. I don’t like their politics, but I love the new view. So one time we, I went to see, Crosby, stills, Nash, road trap, and I said I paid a lot of money. I got, I sent in the six row. Nice. And David Crosby started talking. I loved him, I loved all his music, just not as politics. I mean, he started talking about, you know, turning tanks into plowshares and stuff like that. And I was I was so tempted to get up and down and and shut up and play the music. I, I almost did, I think I got up and then I shut myself down. Was that, it was a beautiful summer’s day. Wolf. You don’t wanna know that. It’s there stage, is there? Music? Right home. Go there. You know, don’t do it. So I shut myself up. I sat down and I enjoyed the concert. And God bless David, he left us this year or last year of Covid. I’m sorry to see him go. I love that music. I just kind of. But the thing was back in the 70s and that’s where I’m from. We challenged authority at every level, right? They did that. That’s what they did with the Vietnam War. And we challenged authority at every level, and I still do. But the youth today, it’s kind of bowed down to authority as if they’re God’s right. And this is what’s no good to young people. I totally off the page, right.
Stuart Turley [00:30:15] Doctor Moore, doctor Patrick Moore, I, got the ability to interview him twice, and I, I always thought Greenpeace was just a bunch of lefties, a bunch of nuts. And he was the co-founder of Greenpeace. If they great. Isn’t that great?
Frits Buningh [00:30:35] I have a problem with that.
Stuart Turley [00:30:38] What’s that?
Frits Buningh [00:30:39] He used my image for the cover and he got me about it. Oh.
Stuart Turley [00:30:52] For our podcast listeners, we will have that big shot in numbers.
Frits Buningh [00:30:57] I could prove that in court. I rest my case, Your Honor.
Stuart Turley [00:31:03] After talking to Doctor Moore, the man was all about in, trying to save, the world from nuclear proliferation. He’s trying to save the Seals. He’s trying to save the whales. And I respect that. And I’m over here going. Well now, he was there in the first 15 years. The second after that. They have a whole left wing group that is not that is running Greenpeace, that when the wind farms offshore are now representing data that they’re killing, animals. The onshore wind farms are killing bats, eagles by the millions and migratory birds are coming.
Frits Buningh [00:31:51] The eagle thing is terrible.
Stuart Turley [00:31:53] It is terrible.
Frits Buningh [00:31:54] But they get wiped out.
Stuart Turley [00:31:57] And and and, we now have the second order impact of mosquito over populations of mosquitoes because all the bats are dying, and getting killed by them. Doctor Moore is a rock star. I love Doctor Moore. After he really, you know.
Frits Buningh [00:32:14] And I hero to I. You know what I love? What I love about it. And I don’t know if you can see the poster behind me, seeing that one.
Stuart Turley [00:32:26] Travel the world British Columbia. Yep.
Frits Buningh [00:32:30] I worked in the mines in Canada, up in Timmins, Ontario back in 1977 six 1976. I was a mining student back then. Nice. I worked underground in a copper mine up in ten minutes. And then after a year I went on and I went out west and I hitchhiked to British Columbia, and I ended up on Vancouver Island, right where Patrick Moore lived and grew up. And I did a seven day hike of the Pacific Coast Trail near to Chino. So whenever Patrick Moore, when I hear that story about where he grows up, I did absolutely wonderful because I spent that was a highlight of my year in Canada, hiking the seven day Pacific Coast Trail. Watch the whales offshore and the sea lions on the rocks and the eagles overhead. It was absolutely if I ever make it fabulously rich, which, of course, everybody hopes to write, I would live on Vancouver Island for sure. And maybe I’ll even ask Patrick where I should settle down.
Stuart Turley [00:33:42] I think we all are. That area may be the only place that survives a nuclear attack, is what he was thinking. I can’t talk.
Frits Buningh [00:33:52] More. You know, I think his is his reasoning. I heard his lecture. He said, when, you know, in 1989 or 1990, when the Berlin Wall came down, a lot of the intellectual elites didn’t have anywhere to go. What could they say? Their their their hero or their their experiment of socialism totally failed in this union and they didn’t have anywhere to go. So they infiltrated the environmental movement and turned it into what it is now. They have political organizations using environmental causes in a right gain political power. And that’s what Patrick Moore angle is about it. And I’m originally from Europe. I’m from the Netherlands, and I remember Germany, you know, and all the anti-nuclear protest. And. Right. I have to say, I turned down a job in a uranium mine in Ontario back in 1976 at Elliot Lake, because I read a lot of, you know, stories about dumping the tailings into the lake back in the 50s and 60s, which then influenced the health of the people there, which happened, and that happened. But I think we’ve come a long way since, and that stuff doesn’t happen anymore. And I think that nuclear power is the way to go for the future. All the wind and solar is basically a waste of time and energy, right? Hopefully a power combination. You know, even coal. I worked in a coal mine in Germany and, yeah, black lung disease. It’s. And. Yeah, I got some of that, too. You know, I mean, there’s a trade off for everything, you know, like like I worked in a copper mine, I think grad a pipe bomb in Sweden has a lot of copper, and he’s not throwing it out for all I know for sure. Right. These young people that are protesting, they’re all holding up the island pool of copper. Well, you know, I work there, and. Yeah, that was a brutal environment. Yep. A lot of dust. And yeah, it’s not that’s not pretty, but it’s a trade. You know, there’s trade offs for everything. We try to make the best, do it the best way you can. And I think the time we’ve gotten there, we’ve made a lot of improvements in mining and even, like the coal, the whole thing about, like, you know, when they talk about pollution. The carbon dioxide. That’s nonsense, because if an engine runs clean and has 100% carbon dioxide, it’s the carbon monoxide that kills you. It’s the sulfur dioxide that makes you cough. And it’s a particular matter that gives you asthma. And those are things that with scrubbers on the pipes, you can solve that problem. When I came into Sudbury in 1976, it was a ghastly moonscape type of environment. When you go today to suffering, it’s probably no longer like that. Probably right? Lots of green and lots of trees. We way past all those. So to grow that CO2 is somehow a problem. No no no. It’s also to it’s it’s the particulate matter. Right. Those things have been solved. And nuclear power. You know, we are much more careful with the way we’re mining it. But yeah, the way it’s processed, it delivers much better at a much better price. And it’s and it’s reliable. I mean, it is absolutely reliable. Oh, in the last 50, 60, 70 years where the wind farm, you have to replace it in 20 in there. And then where you put all the junk, they can take it down. Most people leave it up and it becomes some kind of a windmill from hell. You know, in the landscape. I yeah. So you land scape is messed up by all these.
Stuart Turley [00:38:16] Data matters and it ain’t 20. There’s not any of them that are going to last that long. And then, they become service. After eight years. You can’t. They don’t, sir. They are never carbon neutral.
Frits Buningh [00:38:36] Never be good. Yes. It takes a lot of carbon and a tremendous amount of concrete to put them up and make them stable, and then never catch fire. Then what do you do then? And then they kill the birds and egos. And, you know, I did a whole thing about the eagles. And, someday I’m going to put a thing about that on my website. The Biden administration put out a new directive about, you know. Licenses for what they call taking eagles and taking eagles means how many eagles can you kill, right? The license use to call 250,000 for killing five birds in five years, or something like that, right? The Biden administration said, well, we want to mitigate that. But mitigation really meant making it cheaper for the wind farms to kill the eagles. Yeah, well, they reduce the cost to 40,000 instead of a quarter of a million. And that was the mitigation. It wasn’t about killing last eagles. It was making it cheaper to kill the same amount of eagles. That is mitigation in government spending.
Stuart Turley [00:39:51] In our government has jailed people that have killed eagles because the eagles were killing their livestock. So, you know, it’s like depends on which in the eagle you’re on, whether you’re in jail or you’re like rewarded for killing them. And it’s despicable. Well I tell you what, we are going to have all of your show notes here and congratulations on your new membership into the C02 coalition. And we are going to make sure we get your story out there. What do you see coming around the corner? And you’re going to be watching to try to see what the next move is for the climate arguments. What do you see.
Frits Buningh [00:40:38] I’m doing is, you know, I’ve discovered this, this trend where I’m saying, okay, we’re off ten degrees in the summer, but in the in when it comes to December, we’re in the same. Right. Really? I reconstructing all of 2023. I’m going back to January and I’m adding all the month in and I have to pull all the data for 16 stations. So it’s a little time consuming. It’s not very sexy, but you know, it needs to be done. And then I that way I got a graph and I’m benchmarking 2023 basically. Right. And I said okay, what I see for a bird station in 2001, everybody was in agreement. There was no or nothing was off. So I’m going to work backwards from 1223 bi steps of five years. And then I want to see that because I’ve picked a new model of 16 stations where I know that I can go back and get all the data right. Data from the University of Madison, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, or the British Arctic System. Okay. World meteorology data that nobody can really dispute. So I don’t have to deal with that. And then I’m going to go back over time, five years at a step and to see what the regression is going to be, because I’m expecting to find that now we’re up ten degrees when it’s warmer, which is a suppression of cold, which I think is the whole gambit. And I think if once I get back to 2001 that that there won’t be any suppression of cold at that time, that, that’s it. So I think gradually over time that has been increased, increase the increase and they’re getting bolder and bolder and bolder and doing so. Wow. That’s what I’m looking at. It’s very time consuming. But you know, hey I’m retired.
Stuart Turley [00:42:51] But yeah like.
Frits Buningh [00:42:53] I said they only have so many games. And on Saturday and Sunday I can add five dimension to that. But still I got a lot of time left. So I’ll be, you know, I listen to, David Crosby’s. You know, if I can only remember my name, it’s my favorite album. I use that the crunch data very, very peaceful, you know, I get it done. And so maybe over time, I can come back and, you know what I’m finding.
Stuart Turley [00:43:25] Absolutely.
Frits Buningh [00:43:26] Interesting.
Stuart Turley [00:43:27] I’ll tell you what. We want to publish anything that we can. And also on your website, the again, it’s a a dietz.com I notice a donate button. So if anybody does want to donate to your, efforts to help speed you up, they can go there and do that, right?
Frits Buningh [00:43:47] I would be great. I would love to buy a new computer with more memory. You know, I have my Excel spreadsheet every now and then, praise the whole computer and I have to do the reboot, like what we did before the show, because my screen goes dark and, you know, so I reboot and I go have lunch and, and hopefully by the time I. The Excel spreadsheet will work again. And then there’s this little round, little blue thing that says, we’re working on it. We’re working on it. And I’ve got to know that thing very well. I look at it for about 2 to 3 hours a day. Yeah, it’s a little frustrating.
Stuart Turley [00:44:23] Okay. We got to get somebody to donate to you. Well, thank you so much for stopping by the podcast.
Frits Buningh [00:44:31] I enjoyed.
The post ENB # 199 Uncovering Antarctica: Inconsistencies in Climate Information – Are the sensors bad, or is the data being sensored? appeared first on Energy News Beat.
