PETER CLACK: The world will have to deal with 43 million tons of decommissioned wind turbine blades by Net Zero in 2050. To put that in perspective, it’s the equivalent weight of 215,000 locomotives.

Feature of the Global Warming grift, not a bug https://t.co/Il5i4b4g9U

— Tom Luongo (@TFL1728) May 2, 2026

from Peter Clack,

The world will have to deal with 43 million tons of decommissioned wind turbine blades by Net Zero in 2050. To put that in perspective, it’s the equivalent weight of 215,000 locomotives. These blades are made of high-strength composites designed to survive decades of brutal weather, and they are notoriously difficult to recycle. They were built to last, but they weren't built to disappear. Every turbine standing today will likely be decommissioned and replaced at least once before 2050. Without a cost-effective way to recycle fibre-reinforced polymers, the majority of these massive blades are destined for eternity - buried forever in turbine graveyards. China, Europe, and the US will account for the vast majority of this waste, creating a mountainous industrial heartache that many Net Zero models simply haven't priced in.

But 43 million tons of purely composite blade waste every 20 years is a colossal physical reality. 

What if our Compass is pointing to some dysfunctional, toxic, awful human being, or awful situation?  We have to rewire it.

Step one of this is to spot the loop.  And a pretty easy question here is just asking, "What keeps happening that I say I don't want, but I keep allowing?"

Then we get to step two.  And we want to name the magnets it's a mirror or is it an echo or reversal or is it completion and then step three we want to trace the original source  

CHASE HUGHES: Eight, never try to win through just logic.

This was okay.

HOW TO AOID BEING MANIPULATED

by Chase Hughes

One, never explain yourself under pressure.  [Doing so] automatically means submission.  You might want to fire back with, "You know, I don't think you meant to, but that question is designed to put me in a position of justifying myself and that's not a role I'm going to take right now."  [Frankly, that sounds like a weak retort.]

Two, never argue about your motives.  Just don't do it.  Just openly call it out, like, "Well, the way you said that puts me into a place of defending what kind of person I am."  [Again.]

Three, never take the bait on any character question, any character question at all, like never argue about who you are.

Four, never apologize just to de-escalate ever.  If you're in with a manipulator, the apology they're trying to force out of you is an admission of guilt, not saying that you're going to fix anything.

Five, never match emotion to prove your point.  Never match somebody's intensity.  [This was good advise.]

Six, never accept somebody else's language without precision.  So words like "disrespect" or "abuse" or "betrayal," they can totally hijack a narrative.  So you might just say, "Those words all carry some kind of frame, and if I accept those words, what you just said, I'm not speaking for myself anymore.  So that's a big one.  [Again, weak reply.  Why reply at all?]

Seven, never accept any binary traps.  Like either "yes or no."  The either, or question.  There's always nuance to it and always seek specificity.  Always get into specifics.  "When you said this, what specifically did you want to talk about? Always go back to their intention.  Like what was your intention?  What's the ideal outcome here for you?"

Eight, never try to win through just logic.

Chase Hughes on

8:10. So over the course of time, if you're ancestors to someone off in the tribe and they get judged by a lot of people and they get some kind of judgment ed this meant death.  Like A) they're not going to have food and support anymore, water, all this other stuff that's very important to life.  But B) they can't have sex anymore. 

ANDREW BRIDGEN: The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades.

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.

The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to…

— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) May 2, 2026

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry. The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine. The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true. The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either. The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought. The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to. The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus. He is confident. He has always been confident. The confidence has never been the problem. The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem. Source: COVID19 VACCINE VICTIMS ANDFAMILIES