wattsupwiththat--2020-04-20--Checklist of Green Deal cost elements

Checklist of Green Deal cost elements

Green Deal proposals are springing up around the world .
The core concept is zero CO2 emissions via decarbonization .
The proponents of these Green Deals deliberately avoid cost estimates because the costs are horrendous .
To help force these huge costs out into the open I have developed the following simple checklist of Green Deal cost elements .
Any comprehensive cost estimate needs to address all of these elements , most of which are unbelievably expensive .
I have included some comments on the cost drivers as well .
Note that social elements like those in the Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
are not included .
My list is just about the cost of decarbonization .
4 .
In-building or facility distribution ( behind the meter ) Most existing buildings may need rewired for EVs .
Note : Electrification of transportation and other fossil fuel uses will dramatically increase the amount of electricity required to be generated , transmitted and distributed .
Use of biofuels and offsets , and their cost , are major unknowns .
Can not be electrified , except for short flights .
Can not be electrified , except for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mowers and portable generators .
May be redundant with zero emission generation .
Redundant if cars are zero emission .
• David Wojick David Wojick , Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science , technology and policy .
For origins see http : //www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http : //www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting .

Reposted with permission from CFACT
By David Wojick |April 18th, 2020|Energy|74 Comments
Green Deal proposals are springing up around the world. The core concept is zero CO2 emissions via decarbonization. The proponents of these Green Deals deliberately avoid cost estimates because the costs are horrendous.
To help force these huge costs out into the open I have developed the following simple checklist of Green Deal cost elements. Any comprehensive cost estimate needs to address all of these elements, most of which are unbelievably expensive. I have included some comments on the cost drivers as well.
Note that social elements like those in the Green New Deal (free health care, etc.) are not included. My list is just about the cost of decarbonization.
Checklist of decarbonization cost elements (with comments)
A. Electric power grid
(with zero fossil fuel carbon emissions)
1. Generation (from central power plants)
Feasibility of CCS is a major unknown.
2. Transmission
Especially for widely distributed renewable sites.
3. Distribution
EV charging stations are a major addition.
4. In-building or facility distribution (behind the meter)
Most existing buildings may need rewired for EVs.
5. Generation behind the meter
Primarily solar.
Note: Electrification of transportation and other fossil fuel uses will dramatically increase the amount of electricity required to be generated, transmitted and distributed.
B. Transportation
Switch to EVs.
Use of biofuels and offsets, and their cost, are major unknowns.
1. Personal passenger vehicles
2. Medium trucks and vans (short haul)
3. Heavy trucks and busses
4. Trains
5. Airplanes
Cannot be electrified, except for short flights.
6. Ships
Cannot be electrified, except for short trips.
C. Industrial processes presently using fossil fuel combustion
Complete electrification
1. Steel making
2. Cement making
3. Refineries
4. Chemical plants
4. Plastic production from fossil fuels
5. Manufacturing
6. Commercial activity
7. Agriculture
8. Construction
D. Electrifying gas fired systems and equipment (non industrial)
1. Building heating systems
2. Equipment presently powered with internal combustion engines
From bulldozers to lawn mowers and portable generators.
3. Gas fired appliances,
Especially cook stoves and water heaters.
E. Energy efficiency
May be redundant with zero emission generation.
1. Buildings
2. Transportation
3. Industrial processes
F. Building public transit to reduce car usage
Redundant if cars are zero emission.
G. Transition support payments
Unemployment, training, relocation, etc.
Author
David Wojick David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-20--Climate Change –  Ebb and Flow of the Tide – Part 3 of 3

Dr Kemm ’ s complete essay containing all three parts may be found here .
40 .
There has been essentially no global warming during the 21st Century .
This reality has been called ‘ The Pause ’ by some , who claim that the real rise in temperature is actually going on , but that for some unexplained reason , has paused for a while .
There is debate about the ‘ Pause , ’ with some saying that there were gaps in data ; the variations are too small to be statistically significant ; etc .
If this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiasts have been so utterly certain of their position and their figures for the past 20 years plus .
41 .
Initially ‘ Global Warming ’ was the only public phrase used .
Then when ‘ warming ’ predictions did not occur , the term ‘ climate change ’ was introduced .
So the late 2017 freezing conditions on the US East Coast were attributed by many groups to ‘ Global Warming ’ because they pointed out that the ‘ warming ’ was really causing the cold ‘ climate change.
’ ( Note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cartoons which started to appear in magazines , as cartoonists and journalists started to absorb the irony ) .
Note : As a physicist I know that changed thermal balances in the atmosphere can lead to altered winds etc , which can lead to cooling etc .
So there is some scientific basis to arguments that temperatures can go up and down .
But frozen airports and other extreme weather is not climate change .
It is ordinary extreme weather .
Many years ago author Mark Twain , whose real name was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
” 42 .
The concept of ‘ Extreme Weather ’ was also introduced by green extremists to add to the public fear factor .
In fact ; weather records ( worldwide ) show no evidence of any weather today that is different to the past couple of hundred years or more .
The period over the last century of the highest incidence of hurricanes striking the US coast was the 1940 ’ s .
Large hurricanes striking the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not unusual , but by bad luck a couple of them happened to strike particularly highly populated areas , resulting in dramatic TV footage .
From 1876 to 1879 a terrible drought struck China , resulting in their worst famine ever , which killed over 10 million people .
If that happened today it would be blamed on industrial CO .
43 .
You can not measure the ‘ severity ’ of a weather event by the magnitude of the insurance claim .
Insurance claims have been used by Greenpeace et al , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusual extreme weather is leading to greater devastation than before .
44 .
It is scientifically well-known that the Sun varies in intensity and in magnetic activity .
This variation takes place on a Solar Cycle which is linked to the incidence of Sunspots .
Sunspots have been regularly scientifically recorded since 1760 .
But they were observed regularly well before 1760 as well .
45 .
Sunspots were first formally observed through a telescope by Galileo and Thomas Harriot in December 1610 .
A year later in March 1611 , Johannes Fabricus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Netherlands discovered them independently and then some months later became the first to publish a scientific paper about them .
This showed scientifically for the first time that there was variable activity on the Sun , because the Sunspots moved .
As time passed , astronomers discovered that the Sunspots exhibited a cycle ; and then in 1843 astronomer S H Schwabe was the first to describe the 11-year Sunspot Cycle that we know of today .
However in ancient China , back in the 12th Century BC , observers mentioned black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first written record of them in China occurred in 28 BC , but even the ancient Aztecs in South America had referred to them as well .
So , solar magnetic activity has existed forever .
From modern observatories and space probes we now know that solar activity is extremely violent .
46 .
There is other scientific evidence of long term solar radiation and magnetic variation around the planet , such as in geological structures and botanical evidence .
The well-known Northern Lights ( Aurora Borealis ) over the North Pole , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) over the South Pole , occur as a result of electromagnetic particles ejected from the Sun .
47 .
Variations in the activity of the Sun produce a number of effects on earth , but we will here consider two of them .
Heating , as a result of light and IR ; and magnetic field variations .
48 .
The Sun brightens and dims slightly over a solar cycle .
The resulting variation in heating and cooling of the Earth is not sufficient to account for the observed global warming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Crimean War. )
.
Some people like to discount the effect of the Sun , out of hand , due to this fact that the heat and light variation can not account for temperature variations on the Earth .
49 .
It has been known for decades that vast amounts of charged particles and nuclear particles stream out from the Sun .
This is known as the Solar Wind and it travels far past the Earth .
The Earth is permanently bathed in this massive Solar Wind .
It is well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications on Earth and is known to be a potential danger to astronauts in space , if some large unexpected particle ejection takes place .
It is also well known that the Solar Wind varies .
When electrically charged particles interact with magnetic fields , this action induces complex changes in the magnetic field which alters its strength ; and deflects the particles .
50 .
The variation of the Sun ’ s magnetic field and the resulting variation of the Earth ’ s magnetic field , due to the interaction of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is indicating that this appears to be sufficient to cause the observed global warming .
51 .
The total amount of Sunspot activity is known to vary over the 11-year solar cycle .
It is also known that the number of Sunspots is an indicator of total magnetic activity .
Sunspots are actually giant magnetic storms on the Sun .
So now knowing Sunspot records to varying degrees of detail way back thousands of years , it is possible to generate records of solar magnetic influence on the Earth , over a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the variations in the solar magnetic activity match up rather accurately with the observed temperature variation on the Earth .
They clearly match up with the MWP and the LIA .
There are also matches with the Roman Warming and the Minoan Warming periods .
In fact the temperature of the Earth for the past few centuries matches the solar magnetic activity graph far better than does the CO concentration graph .
Such scientific evidence should cause scientists and scientifically interested lay people to take serious note of this match with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on from the scientific consideration of No.49 : see the work of Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on this matter .
See also his book : The Chilling Stars .
https : //www.goodreads.com/book/show/163237.The_Chilling_Stars Svensmark ( and others ) have shown that the variation of the penetration of cosmic rays ( as in charged particles ) through the Earth ’ s atmosphere is directly linked to the strength of the magnetic shield around the Earth .
The Earth ’ s shield is linked to solar activity .
Solar activity is indicated by Sunspot Number .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover is linked to the incidence of Cosmic Rays coming from deep outer space .
This is standard physics .
Nucleation points in the atmosphere give rise to vapour condensation , such as the vapour trails seen behind high-flying aircraft .
The aircraft engines emit charged particles and bits of pollution , such as soot , which act as the nucleation points .
Cosmic rays coming in through the atmosphere also create nucleation points in the atmosphere in a similar way .
They also give rise to clouds .
54 .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the modern warming , which links to the solar activity far better than these temperature variations correlate to any concentration of atmospheric CO .
There is therefore no logical scientific explanation to imagine that atmospheric CO is any more of a factor in observed global warming than is the Earth ’ s magnetic field variation induced by the Sun .
Yes , Look at the Sun 55 .
So why do the human-induced global warming proponents dismiss the Sun ’ s influence out of hand .
Is this scientific ?
56 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ evidence ’ for CO being the cause of global warming .
For example ; the case of the notorious ‘ Hockey Stick Graph ’ which the IPCC promoted to a great extent and then very quietly dropped .
The Hockey Stick data later became the subject of criminal court proceedings in Canada .
The whole thing continues in the courts with accusations that should never have to come about in real science .
The Hockey Stick had already been shown to have been incorrect when Al Gore still incorporated it in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another example is the ‘ Climategate ’ scandal when dishonest emails were uncovered .
From this incident came the phrase ‘ Hide the Decline ’ .
When ‘ hoped for ’ global warming did not occur , and temperatures instead declined , certain scientists plotted how to ‘ hide the decline ’ to fool the public .
58 .
The observed conclusions arrived at from the work of Svensmark ( and others ) is that a weak magnetic shield around the Earth allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sun ’ s natural heat from reaching the ground .
This causes the Earth to be cooler , leading to global cooling .
A stronger magnetic shield leads to global warming , due to less cloud shield thus allowing the ground to absorb heat and so heat up the atmosphere generally .
The MWP , LIA , and modern warming ( and lack of during the 21st Century ) link well to Sunspot number and magnetic field variation .
Linkage to CO concentration is very poor and any actual causality can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the existence of a Greenhouse Effect ( No.11 ) , and the physics of IR windows ( No.14 ) .
59 .
Organisations such as Greenpeace and other similar ones have pushed hard to ‘ save the planet , ’ from an increase in CO emissions .
This call is only meaningful if there is someone to blame .
The blame has been directed at industry in general and the burning of fossil fuels in particular .
60 .
Since ‘ saving the planet ’ is a very honourable-sounding cause to strive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many supporters .
It would be a very inconvenient truth to have to admit that observed global warming is entirely natural and is caused by the Sun .
Also , that this has happened often before .
Even more awkward is that global warming periods have been associated with health , welfare and economic progress , whereas cooling periods ( like the LIA ) are associated with crop failures , disease , famine and economic failure .
( see state of Europe during the LIA – well documented ) .
61 .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolling down the hill – save the planet – stop industrial CO production .
Interestingly the same extreme green people say ‘ stop nuclear power ’ because their goal is to reduce all power production , to limit industrial growth – to save the planet , because industrial growth produces CO .
62 .
Nuclear power now finds itself in the interesting position that it is ( sort of ) benefitting from the ‘ reduce CO ’ mantra because nuclear produces no CO .
‘ Sort of ’ because the CO proponents try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some CO when you factor in Uranium mining , fuel transportation and so on .
This is a case of grasping at almost invisible straws .
They do not then reference the CO produced in the production of solar panels and wind turbines .
What about mining the silicon ?
What about the production of all the concrete for thousands of wind turbine foundations .
How about the transport of thousands of huge wind turbines all over the world ?
It is silly to tally all this up for a CO argument .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mining as a CO output for nuclear power .
63 .
I could go on a lot more , but the bottom line ( lines ) of all this is that some global warming occurred over the period from the Crimean War to now , but it also happened during the MWP .
The link to CO at all is tenuous , let alone a link to anthropogenic CO being the cause .
The magnetic field of the Sun does alter cloud cover .
Cloud cover does affect temperature .
Temperature over past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so why discount the potential solar effect now .
The only answer is that it is politically expedient for certain organisations to have anthropogenic CO as ‘ the fault ’ because there is then someone to blame , tax and control .
A large scale popular consensus in favour of the theory of anthropogenic CO damaging the planet just does not exist amongst qualified people who count .
See for example this letter to President Obama , of which I am a signatory : At that time President-elect Obama said : “ Few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more urgent than combating climate change .
The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.
” ( President-elect Barack Obama , 19 Nov 2008 ) .
This statement of his was just not true and it prompted the letter to Obama .
There are a number of other such letters and petitions in similar vein , which can be found after a bit of searching , but sadly they are mostly ignored by the popular media .
Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we Wandering to ?
The whole global warming and climate change social phenomenon going on around the world is an interesting occurrence in human psychology .
It is a mixture of science ; psychology ; mysticism ; politics ; and group adherence .
The challenge is to separate one from the other .
Without doubt , where we find ourselves now is that calls for CO reduction are a political force , whether the argument is scientifically valid or not .
However , what is inescapable is that outcomes resulting from the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social impact on societies around the world .
There are calls from the greens to drastically reduce air travel and to ban the eating of red meat , supposedly to ‘ save the planet.
’ Many of these moves seem to be aimed at the wealthier segments of society and so gain some sympathy , but frequently some of the hardest hit are those who work in these industries , and also people in developing societies in Africa and elsewhere .
People in developing societies are the ones who are told to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who use too much energy , ’ and instead of using a tractor and metal plough to prepare the land for crops , to use an ox and a handmade wooden plough , because that is ‘ living in harmony with nature.
’ They are also told that such action avoids using polluting diesel fuel , and does not emit CO from the tractor exhaust .
I have been present when European greens have told rural African women to carry water from the river in buckets and not to use diesel or electrical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nations which are less than 20 % electrified are told to limit electricity expansion and to use intermittent solar and wind power to advance their economies into the 21st Century .
Where is the morality in this ?
Of course we need to protect our planet , it is our home .
But we need to address the real problems such as the problems of litter clogging rivers , irresponsible chemical emissions into waterways , the massive international rhino and elephant poaching operations which most green organisations seem to ignore , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plunder the coastal strips of other countries , so depriving the locals of their traditional source of income .
In Somaliland some of these impoverished fishermen who found their fish stocks virtually wiped out by foreign fishing fleets , turned to piracy on the high seas instead .
It is not moral for first world countries to curtail or block mining operations in African countries which export raw materials , but then to tell them to import computers and TVs from the first world .
It is not moral to induce developing countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from wind turbines which are supplied by only a few first world companies .
Even more immoral is when this is done on the basis of claims of a scientific legitimacy and consensus when in fact this claim is highly suspect and in many cases demonstrably incorrect .
It is really bad when gangland tactics are used to attempt to silence opposing voices , to the point at which scientists and media editors are dismissed from their jobs for contradicting an alarmist climate political position on climate claims .
For centuries the concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of true logical thought has been championed .
It is time that those honourable objectives are given genuine stature .
We need to get it right .
Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategist based in Pretoria , South Africa .
He is CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants .
He does consultancy work in strategic development in energy , and also in other industrial and business systems .

Dr Kemm’s complete essay containing all three parts may be found here.
By Kelvin Kemm
The Pause Century
40. There has been essentially no global warming during the 21st Century. This reality has been called ‘The Pause’ by some, who claim that the real rise in temperature is actually going on, but that for some unexplained reason, has paused for a while.
There is debate about the ‘Pause,’ with some saying that there were gaps in data; the variations are too small to be statistically significant; etc. If this is so, how come climate change enthusiasts have been so utterly certain of their position and their figures for the past 20 years plus.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/truth-global-warming-pause/
41. Initially ‘Global Warming’ was the only public phrase used. Then when ‘warming’ predictions did not occur, the term ‘climate change’ was introduced. So the late 2017 freezing conditions on the US East Coast were attributed by many groups to ‘Global Warming’ because they pointed out that the ‘warming’ was really causing the cold ‘climate change.’ (Note all the Al Gore global warming jokes and cartoons which started to appear in magazines, as cartoonists and journalists started to absorb the irony). Note: As a physicist I know that changed thermal balances in the atmosphere can lead to altered winds etc, which can lead to cooling etc. So there is some scientific basis to arguments that temperatures can go up and down. But frozen airports and other extreme weather is not climate change. It is ordinary extreme weather. Many years ago author Mark Twain, whose real name was Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910), said: “Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.”
42. The concept of ‘Extreme Weather’ was also introduced by green extremists to add to the public fear factor. In fact; weather records (worldwide) show no evidence of any weather today that is different to the past couple of hundred years or more. The period over the last century of the highest incidence of hurricanes striking the US coast was the 1940’s. Large hurricanes striking the US coast over the last few years were not unusual, but by bad luck a couple of them happened to strike particularly highly populated areas, resulting in dramatic TV footage.
From 1876 to 1879 a terrible drought struck China, resulting in their worst famine ever, which killed over 10 million people. If that happened today it would be blamed on industrial CO 2 .
43. You cannot measure the ‘severity’ of a weather event by the magnitude of the insurance claim. Insurance claims have been used by Greenpeace et al, to try to ‘prove’ that unusual extreme weather is leading to greater devastation than before.
44. It is scientifically well-known that the Sun varies in intensity and in magnetic activity. This variation takes place on a Solar Cycle which is linked to the incidence of Sunspots. Sunspots have been regularly scientifically recorded since 1760. But they were observed regularly well before 1760 as well.
45. Sunspots were first formally observed through a telescope by Galileo and Thomas Harriot in December 1610. A year later in March 1611, Johannes Fabricus, a medical student in Leiden in the Netherlands discovered them independently and then some months later became the first to publish a scientific paper about them. This showed scientifically for the first time that there was variable activity on the Sun, because the Sunspots moved. As time passed, astronomers discovered that the Sunspots exhibited a cycle; and then in 1843 astronomer S H Schwabe was the first to describe the 11-year Sunspot Cycle that we know of today. However in ancient China, back in the 12th Century BC, observers mentioned black spots on the Sun, while the first written record of them in China occurred in 28 BC, but even the ancient Aztecs in South America had referred to them as well. So, solar magnetic activity has existed forever. From modern observatories and space probes we now know that solar activity is extremely violent.
46. There is other scientific evidence of long term solar radiation and magnetic variation around the planet, such as in geological structures and botanical evidence. The well-known Northern Lights (Aurora Borealis) over the North Pole, and the Southern lights (Aurora Australis) over the South Pole, occur as a result of electromagnetic particles ejected from the Sun.
47. Variations in the activity of the Sun produce a number of effects on earth, but we will here consider two of them. Heating, as a result of light and IR; and magnetic field variations.
48. The Sun brightens and dims slightly over a solar cycle. The resulting variation in heating and cooling of the Earth is not sufficient to account for the observed global warming. (of about 0.8C since the time of the Crimean War.). Some people like to discount the effect of the Sun, out of hand, due to this fact that the heat and light variation cannot account for temperature variations on the Earth.
49. It has been known for decades that vast amounts of charged particles and nuclear particles stream out from the Sun. This is known as the Solar Wind and it travels far past the Earth. The Earth is permanently bathed in this massive Solar Wind. It is well known that the Solar Wind affects radio communications on Earth and is known to be a potential danger to astronauts in space, if some large unexpected particle ejection takes place. It is also well known that the Solar Wind varies.
When electrically charged particles interact with magnetic fields, this action induces complex changes in the magnetic field which alters its strength; and deflects the particles.
50. The variation of the Sun’s magnetic field and the resulting variation of the Earth’s magnetic field, due to the interaction of the two, is significant. Mounting evidence is indicating that this appears to be sufficient to cause the observed global warming.
51. The total amount of Sunspot activity is known to vary over the 11-year solar cycle. It is also known that the number of Sunspots is an indicator of total magnetic activity. Sunspots are actually giant magnetic storms on the Sun. So now knowing Sunspot records to varying degrees of detail way back thousands of years, it is possible to generate records of solar magnetic influence on the Earth, over a long period of time.
What we discover is that the variations in the solar magnetic activity match up rather accurately with the observed temperature variation on the Earth. They clearly match up with the MWP and the LIA. There are also matches with the Roman Warming and the Minoan Warming periods. In fact the temperature of the Earth for the past few centuries matches the solar magnetic activity graph far better than does the CO 2 concentration graph. Such scientific evidence should cause scientists and scientifically interested lay people to take serious note of this match with solar magnetic activity.
52. Continuing on from the scientific consideration of No.49: see the work of Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on this matter. See also his book: The Chilling Stars. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/163237.The_Chilling_Stars
Svensmark (and others) have shown that the variation of the penetration of cosmic rays (as in charged particles) through the Earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the strength of the magnetic shield around the Earth. The Earth’s shield is linked to solar activity. Solar activity is indicated by Sunspot Number.
53. Svensmark has shown that cloud cover is linked to the incidence of Cosmic Rays coming from deep outer space. This is standard physics. Nucleation points in the atmosphere give rise to vapour condensation, such as the vapour trails seen behind high-flying aircraft. The aircraft engines emit charged particles and bits of pollution, such as soot, which act as the nucleation points.
Cosmic rays coming in through the atmosphere also create nucleation points in the atmosphere in a similar way. They also give rise to clouds.
54. There is a correlation between the MWP, LIA and the modern warming, which links to the solar activity far better than these temperature variations correlate to any concentration of atmospheric CO 2 .
There is therefore no logical scientific explanation to imagine that atmospheric CO 2 is any more of a factor in observed global warming than is the Earth’s magnetic field variation induced by the Sun.
Yes, Look at the Sun
55. So why do the human-induced global warming proponents dismiss the Sun’s influence out of hand. Is this scientific?
56. There have been well-known manipulations in so-called ‘evidence’ for CO 2 being the cause of global warming. For example; the case of the notorious ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ which the IPCC promoted to a great extent and then very quietly dropped. The Hockey Stick data later became the subject of criminal court proceedings in Canada. The whole thing continues in the courts with accusations that should never have to come about in real science.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/no-michael-mann-you-arent-going-to-ruin-this-filthy-organization/
The Hockey Stick had already been shown to have been incorrect when Al Gore still incorporated it in his movie: An Inconvenient Truth.
57. Another example is the ‘Climategate’ scandal when dishonest emails were uncovered. From this incident came the phrase ‘Hide the Decline’. When ‘hoped for’ global warming did not occur, and temperatures instead declined, certain scientists plotted how to ‘hide the decline’ to fool the public.
58. The observed conclusions arrived at from the work of Svensmark (and others) is that a weak magnetic shield around the Earth allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere. They induce more cloud. More cloud prevents the Sun’s natural heat from reaching the ground. This causes the Earth to be cooler, leading to global cooling. A stronger magnetic shield leads to global warming, due to less cloud shield thus allowing the ground to absorb heat and so heat up the atmosphere generally.
The MWP, LIA, and modern warming (and lack of during the 21st Century) link well to Sunspot number and magnetic field variation.
Linkage to CO 2 concentration is very poor and any actual causality cannot be shown. It is inferred because of the existence of a Greenhouse Effect (No.11), and the physics of IR windows (No.14).
59. Organisations such as Greenpeace and other similar ones have pushed hard to ‘save the planet,’ from an increase in CO 2 emissions. This call is only meaningful if there is someone to blame. The blame has been directed at industry in general and the burning of fossil fuels in particular.
60. Since ‘saving the planet’ is a very honourable-sounding cause to strive for, it is easy to gain many supporters. It would be a very inconvenient truth to have to admit that observed global warming is entirely natural and is caused by the Sun. Also, that this has happened often before.
Even more awkward is that global warming periods have been associated with health, welfare and economic progress, whereas cooling periods (like the LIA) are associated with crop failures, disease, famine and economic failure. (see state of Europe during the LIA – well documented).
61. So now we have a huge political boulder rolling down the hill – save the planet – stop industrial CO 2 production. Interestingly the same extreme green people say ‘stop nuclear power’ because their goal is to reduce all power production, to limit industrial growth – to save the planet, because industrial growth produces CO 2 .
62. Nuclear power now finds itself in the interesting position that it is (sort of) benefitting from the ‘reduce CO 2 ’ mantra because nuclear produces no CO 2 . ‘Sort of’ because the CO 2 proponents try to say that nuclear power does produce some CO 2 when you factor in Uranium mining, fuel transportation and so on. This is a case of grasping at almost invisible straws. They do not then reference the CO 2 produced in the production of solar panels and wind turbines. What about mining the silicon? What about the production of all the concrete for thousands of wind turbine foundations. How about the transport of thousands of huge wind turbines all over the world? It is silly to tally all this up for a CO 2 argument. It is also silly to argue Uranium mining as a CO 2 output for nuclear power.
63. I could go on a lot more, but the bottom line (lines) of all this is that some global warming occurred over the period from the Crimean War to now, but it also happened during the MWP. The link to CO 2 at all is tenuous, let alone a link to anthropogenic CO 2 being the cause.
The magnetic field of the Sun does alter cloud cover. Cloud cover does affect temperature. Temperature over past centuries links well to solar activity, so why discount the potential solar effect now.
The only answer is that it is politically expedient for certain organisations to have anthropogenic CO 2 as ‘the fault’ because there is then someone to blame, tax and control.
A large scale popular consensus in favour of the theory of anthropogenic CO 2 damaging the planet just does not exist amongst qualified people who count. See for example this letter to President Obama, of which I am a signatory:
https://www.iceagenow.com/More_than_100_scientists_rebuke%20Obama.htm
At that time President-elect Obama said: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” (President-elect Barack Obama, 19 Nov 2008). This statement of his was just not true and it prompted the letter to Obama.
There are a number of other such letters and petitions in similar vein, which can be found after a bit of searching, but sadly they are mostly ignored by the popular media.
Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too. Voltaire (1694–1778)
So Where are we Wandering to?
The whole global warming and climate change social phenomenon going on around the world is an interesting occurrence in human psychology. It is a mixture of science; psychology; mysticism; politics; and group adherence. The challenge is to separate one from the other.
Without doubt, where we find ourselves now is that calls for CO 2 reduction are a political force, whether the argument is scientifically valid or not. However, what is inescapable is that outcomes resulting from the climate change debate are having a massive economic and social impact on societies around the world. There are calls from the greens to drastically reduce air travel and to ban the eating of red meat, supposedly to ‘save the planet.’ Many of these moves seem to be aimed at the wealthier segments of society and so gain some sympathy, but frequently some of the hardest hit are those who work in these industries, and also people in developing societies in Africa and elsewhere.
People in developing societies are the ones who are told to not emulate ‘the foolish first world who use too much energy,’ and instead of using a tractor and metal plough to prepare the land for crops, to use an ox and a handmade wooden plough, because that is ‘living in harmony with nature.’ They are also told that such action avoids using polluting diesel fuel, and does not emit CO 2 from the tractor exhaust. I have been present when European greens have told rural African women to carry water from the river in buckets and not to use diesel or electrical pumps, to save the CO 2 emissions.
Nations which are less than 20% electrified are told to limit electricity expansion and to use intermittent solar and wind power to advance their economies into the 21st Century. Where is the morality in this?
Of course we need to protect our planet, it is our home. But we need to address the real problems such as the problems of litter clogging rivers, irresponsible chemical emissions into waterways, the massive international rhino and elephant poaching operations which most green organisations seem to ignore, the massive fishing operations of some countries which plunder the coastal strips of other countries, so depriving the locals of their traditional source of income. In Somaliland some of these impoverished fishermen who found their fish stocks virtually wiped out by foreign fishing fleets, turned to piracy on the high seas instead. It is not moral for first world countries to curtail or block mining operations in African countries which export raw materials, but then to tell them to import computers and TVs from the first world.
It is not moral to induce developing countries and others to become dependent on energy from wind turbines which are supplied by only a few first world companies. Even more immoral is when this is done on the basis of claims of a scientific legitimacy and consensus when in fact this claim is highly suspect and in many cases demonstrably incorrect.
It is really bad when gangland tactics are used to attempt to silence opposing voices, to the point at which scientists and media editors are dismissed from their jobs for contradicting an alarmist climate political position on climate claims. For centuries the concept of the truth of genuine science and of true logical thought has been championed. It is time that those honourable objectives are given genuine stature. We need to get it right.
_____________
Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategist based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants. He does consultancy work in strategic development in energy, and also in other industrial and business systems.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-22--Pielke Jr: Systemic Misuse of Scenarios in Climate Research and Assessment

Climate science research and assessments have misused scenarios for more than a decade .
Symptoms of this misuse include the treatment of an unrealistic , extreme scenario as the world ’ s most likely future in the absence of climate policy and the illogical comparison of climate projections across inconsistent global development trajectories .
Reasons why this misuse arose include ( a ) competing demands for scenarios from users in diverse academic disciplines that ultimately conflated exploratory and policy relevant pathways , ( b ) the evolving role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which effectively extended its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ( c ) unforeseen consequences of employing a nuanced temporary approach to scenario development , ( d ) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios in a vacuum of plausibility , and ( e ) the inherent complexity and technicality of scenarios in model-based research and in support of policy .
As a consequence , the climate research community is presently off-track .
Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked .
The result has been the widespread production of myopic or misleading perspectives on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Until reform is implemented , we can expect the production of such perspectives to continue .
However , because many aspects of climate change discourse are contingent on scenarios , there is considerable momentum that will make such a course correction difficult and contested – even as efforts to improve scenarios have informed research that will be included in the IPCC 6th Assessment .

Full PDF available here
Roger Pielke
University of Colorado Boulder
Justin Ritchie
University of British Columbia
Date Written: April 21, 2020
Abstract
Climate science research and assessments have misused scenarios for more than a decade. Symptoms of this misuse include the treatment of an unrealistic, extreme scenario as the world’s most likely future in the absence of climate policy and the illogical comparison of climate projections across inconsistent global development trajectories.
Reasons why this misuse arose include (a) competing demands for scenarios from users in diverse academic disciplines that ultimately conflated exploratory and policy relevant pathways, (b) the evolving role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which effectively extended its mandate from literature assessment to literature coordination, (c) unforeseen consequences of employing a nuanced temporary approach to scenario development, (d) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios in a vacuum of plausibility, and (e) the inherent complexity and technicality of scenarios in model-based research and in support of policy. As a consequence, the climate research community is presently off-track. Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked.
The result has been the widespread production of myopic or misleading perspectives on future climate change and climate policy. Until reform is implemented, we can expect the production of such perspectives to continue. However, because many aspects of climate change discourse are contingent on scenarios, there is considerable momentum that will make such a course correction difficult and contested – even as efforts to improve scenarios have informed research that will be included in the IPCC 6th Assessment.
Keywords: climate, scenarios, assessment, research integrity
Full PDF available here
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-21--#EarthDay EPIC! Michael Moore’s new film trashes ‘planet saving’ renewable energy – full movie here!

A MUST READ !
Wow , the renewable light bulb of “ great idea ” over Michael Moore ’ s head just burned out .
He ’ s trashing renewables in this new film Planet of the Humans .
On the 50th anniversary of EarthDay , the irony meter is pegged .
It ’ s an epic take-down of the left ’ s love-affair with renewables by one of the left ’ s most known public figures .
Full video follows .
h/t to Dennis Wingo .
New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrity influencers including Elon Musk , Arnold Schwarzenegger , and Al Gore , to major technology brands including Apple , have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels .
But a new documentary , “ Planet of the Humans , ” being released free to the public on YouTube today , the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day , reveals that industrial wind farms , solar farms , biomass , and biofuels are wrecking natural environments .
“ Planet of the Humans was produced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumed solar panels would last forever , ” Moore told Reuters .
“ I didn ’ t know what went into the making of them.
” The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built — but after cutting down forests .
“ It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone , ” says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs , staring at a former solar farm in California .
“ I learned that the solar panels don ’ t last.
” Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Humans ” endorses debunked Malthusian ideas that the world is running out of energy .
“ We have to have our ability to consume reigned in , ” says a well-coiffed environmental leader .
“ Without some major die-off of the human population there is no turning back , ” says a scientist .
The film unearths a great deal of information I had never seen before .
It shows Apple ’ s head of sustainability , former EPA head Lisa Jackson , claiming on-stage at an Apple event , “ We now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” to loud applause .
But Gibbs interviews a scientist who researched corporate renewables programs who said , “ I haven ’ t found a single entity anywhere in the world running on 100 % solar and wind alone.
” The film shows a forest being cut down to build an Apple solar farm .
After Earth Day Founder Denis Hayes claims at a 2015 Earth Day concert that the event was being powered by solar , Gibbs goes behind the stage to find out the truth .
“ The concert is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the solar vendor said .
“ That right there could run a toaster , ” said another vendor .
The film also debunks the claim made by Elon Musk that his “ Gigafactory ” to make batteries is powered by renewables .
In fact , it is hooked up to the electric grid .
“ Some solar panels are built to only last 10 years , ” said a man selling materials for solar manufacturing at a corporate expo .
“ It ’ s not like you get this magic free energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s the solution and here I am selling the materials that go in photovoltaics.
” “ What powers a learning community ?
” said [ Bill ] MicKibben at the unveiling of a wood-burning power plant at Middlebury College in Vermont .
“ As of this afternoon , the easy answer to this is wood chips .
It ’ s incredibly beautiful to look at the bunker of wood chips .
Anything that burns we can throw in there !
This shows that this could happen everywhere , should happen everywhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The film reveals that McKibben and Sierra Club supported a Michigan ballot initiative that would have required the state get 25 % of its electricity from renewables by 2025 , and that the initiative was backed by biomass industrial interests , and that efforts to build a biomass plant at Michigan State University were hotly opposed by climate activists — including ones from 350.org .
The film description says : Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans , a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America .
This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face : that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event , the environmental movement ’ s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids .
It ’ s too little , too late .
Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence and consumption .
Why is this not THE issue ?
Because that would be bad for profits , bad for business .
Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions , “ green ” illusions , that are anything but green , because we ’ re scared that this is the end—and we ’ ve pinned all our hopes on biomass , wind turbines , and electric cars ?
No amount of batteries are going to save us , warns director Jeff Gibbs ( lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “ Fahrenheit 9/11 ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This urgent , must-see movie , a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows , is guaranteed to generate anger , debate , and , hopefully , a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it ’ s too late .

A MUST READ! Wow, the renewable light bulb of “great idea” over Michael Moore’s head just burned out. He’s trashing renewables in this new film Planet of the Humans.
On the 50th anniversary of EarthDay, the irony meter is pegged. It’s an epic take-down of the left’s love-affair with renewables by one of the left’s most known public figures. Full video follows. h/t to Dennis Wingo.
Via Forbes writer Michael Shellenberger
New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables
Over the last 10 years, everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore, to major technology brands including Apple, have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels.
But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments.
“Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”
The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built — but after cutting down forests. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone,” says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs, staring at a former solar farm in California. “I learned that the solar panels don’t last.”
Like many environmental documentaries, “Planet of Humans” endorses debunked Malthusian ideas that the world is running out of energy. “We have to have our ability to consume reigned in,” says a well-coiffed environmental leader. “Without some major die-off of the human population there is no turning back,” says a scientist.
…
The film unearths a great deal of information I had never seen before. It shows Apple’s head of sustainability, former EPA head Lisa Jackson, claiming on-stage at an Apple event, “We now run Apple on 100% renewable energy,” to loud applause.
But Gibbs interviews a scientist who researched corporate renewables programs who said, “I haven’t found a single entity anywhere in the world running on 100% solar and wind alone.” The film shows a forest being cut down to build an Apple solar farm.
After Earth Day Founder Denis Hayes claims at a 2015 Earth Day concert that the event was being powered by solar, Gibbs goes behind the stage to find out the truth. “The concert is run by a diesel generation system,” the solar vendor said. “That right there could run a toaster,” said another vendor.
The film also debunks the claim made by Elon Musk that his “Gigafactory” to make batteries is powered by renewables. In fact, it is hooked up to the electric grid.
“Some solar panels are built to only last 10 years,” said a man selling materials for solar manufacturing at a corporate expo. “It’s not like you get this magic free energy. I don’t know that it’s the solution and here I am selling the materials that go in photovoltaics.”
“What powers a learning community?” said [Bill] MicKibben at the unveiling of a wood-burning power plant at Middlebury College in Vermont. “As of this afternoon, the easy answer to this is wood chips. It’s incredibly beautiful to look at the bunker of wood chips. Anything that burns we can throw in there! This shows that this could happen everywhere, should happen everywhere, and must happen everywhere!”
The film reveals that McKibben and Sierra Club supported a Michigan ballot initiative that would have required the state get 25% of its electricity from renewables by 2025, and that the initiative was backed by biomass industrial interests, and that efforts to build a biomass plant at Michigan State University were hotly opposed by climate activists — including ones from 350.org.
Read the full article here
The film:
The film description says:
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America.
This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It’s too little, too late. Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption.
Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars? No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine”).
This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.
Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-21--Guardian Notices City Beachside Homeowners are Wealthy Enough to Ignore Sea Level Rise

And beachfront high-rise development is still OK providing the developer plants a few weeds in front of the buildings .
Will climate change end waterfront living ?
Not if you can afford it Boston has endured several tumultuous eras , from being the birthplace of the American revolution to its seesawing fortunes as power and influence was wrested away by other US cities .
Now Boston faces its most existential threat yet – the rising seas .
Ironically , Boston is experiencing a surge in waterfront development at the very moment its growing risk to disastrous flooding becomes clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ holds valuable lessons to other cities threatened by sea level rise – in terms of innovation but also wrenching concerns over displaced communities .
“ It is an unfortunate quirk of timing , ” admitted Nick Iselin , the general manager of development at Lendlease .
Last summer , the property company completed the first phase of its Clippership Wharf development in East Boston , on the Boston Harbor waterfront .
Nearly all of the 284 apartments have already been snapped up , with a second site in the same project set to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there will be 478 residencies on the seven-acre site .
City authorities are planning around a contingency of 40 inches of sea level rise by 2070 – a scenario that would inundate large swathes of Boston .
But Lendlease is embracing an approach more attuned to nature , one that leans upon the idea of living with the encroaching water rather than waging war against it – an ethos more common in the Netherlands or Venice than the US .
Clippership Wharf has Boston Harbor ’ s first “ living shoreline ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salt marshes , rocky beaches and wildlife habitats aimed at dissipating waves from storms and subtly taming the high tides .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
And beachfront high-rise development is still OK providing the developer plants a few weeds in front of the buildings.
Will climate change end waterfront living? Not if you can afford it
Oliver Milman in Boston @olliemilmanMon 20 Apr 2020 20.15 AESTLast modified on Tue 21 Apr 2020 00.43 AEST
Boston has endured several tumultuous eras, from being the birthplace of the American revolution to its seesawing fortunes as power and influence was wrested away by other US cities.
Now Boston faces its most existential threat yet – the rising seas.
Ironically, Boston is experiencing a surge in waterfront development at the very moment its growing risk to disastrous flooding becomes clear. The refashioning of Boston’s waterfront holds valuable lessons to other cities threatened by sea level rise – in terms of innovation but also wrenching concerns over displaced communities.
…
“It is an unfortunate quirk of timing,” admitted Nick Iselin, the general manager of development at Lendlease. Last summer, the property company completed the first phase of its Clippership Wharf development in East Boston, on the Boston Harbor waterfront. Nearly all of the 284 apartments have already been snapped up, with a second site in the same project set to be completed this year. In all, there will be 478 residencies on the seven-acre site.
City authorities are planning around a contingency of 40 inches of sea level rise by 2070 – a scenario that would inundate large swathes of Boston.
…
But Lendlease is embracing an approach more attuned to nature, one that leans upon the idea of living with the encroaching water rather than waging war against it – an ethos more common in the Netherlands or Venice than the US. Clippership Wharf has Boston Harbor’s first “living shoreline” – a network of natural plantings, salt marshes, rocky beaches and wildlife habitats aimed at dissipating waves from storms and subtly taming the high tides.
…


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-22--The Conversation: Climate Change Front Line Volunteers Need Better Pay and Conditions

According to The Conversation , the lack of workers organisation in volunteer groups is preventing volunteers from receiving the pay and conditions they deserve .
The green gig economy : precarious workers are on the frontline of climate change fight Politicians and business people are fond of making promises to plant thousands of trees to slow climate change .
But who actually plants those trees , and who tends them as they grow ?
The hard and dirty work of restoring ecosystems will be invaluable in coming decades , to soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere , ease the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embattled wildlife .
But this work – where it currently exists – is carried out by people who are often poorly paid , or not compensated at all .
Most often , these aren ’ t recognised workers , but instead , volunteers .
This is not only the case for conservation workers in rural areas of Madagascar and Cambodia , but also in cities where waste collectors and people who recycle electronic waste work in abject poverty .
The situation is more dire for those battling the natural disasters that are proliferating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildfire season in California was the deadliest in the state ’ s history , but much of the fire fighting relied on 2,000 prison inmates who earned just USD $ 1 a day .
During Australia ’ s “ black summer ” of 2019-20 , Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected calls for support payments to 195,000 volunteer firefighters because , in his words , “ they want to be there ” .
These workers lack the proper pay and protections of an organised workforce , yet their services are increasingly in demand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ eco-precariat ” that bears little resemblance to the labour movement that ’ s urgently needed to mitigate the climate and ecological crisis .
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has a point – volunteers are not there for money .
Most of us have done at least some volunteer work in their lifetime .
I never expect pay for my volunteer work .
I have a friend who is a senior volunteer firefighter , it is a big commitment which he takes very seriously .
He saw action in the recent Aussie bushfires .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money as a freelance financial advisor , far more than he could make as a full time firefighter .
If “ green gig ” workers need more money , in my opinion the answer is simple ; they should do a little less volunteering and spend more time making money .
I ’ m grateful for their contribution as volunteers , but nobody expects them to mess up their own life through giving too much of their time to others .
Alternatively they could apply for a permanent job .
A volunteer firefighter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be head of the queue for any firefighter job openings , if they wanted to go full time , at least I hope that is the case .
If volunteers need any other ideas for how to improve their income , they could try talking to their fellow volunteers .
You never know , one of their fellow volunteers might be a talented financial advisor .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Conversation, the lack of workers organisation in volunteer groups is preventing volunteers from receiving the pay and conditions they deserve.
The green gig economy: precarious workers are on the frontline of climate change fight April 21, 2020 11.41pm AEST Sango MahantyAssociate Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Benjamin NeimarkSenior Lecturer, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University Politicians and business people are fond of making promises to plant thousands of trees to slow climate change. But who actually plants those trees, and who tends them as they grow? The hard and dirty work of restoring ecosystems will be invaluable in coming decades, to soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, ease the impact of storms and flooding and harbour embattled wildlife. But this work – where it currently exists – is carried out by people who are often poorly paid, or not compensated at all. Most often, these aren’t recognised workers, but instead, volunteers. This is not only the case for conservation workers in rural areas of Madagascar and Cambodia, but also in cities where waste collectors and people who recycle electronic waste work in abject poverty. The situation is more dire for those battling the natural disasters that are proliferating in the warming climate. The 2018 wildfire season in California was the deadliest in the state’s history, but much of the fire fighting relied on 2,000 prison inmates who earned just USD$1 a day. During Australia’s “black summer” of 2019-20, Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected calls for support payments to 195,000 volunteer firefighters because, in his words, “they want to be there”. … These workers lack the proper pay and protections of an organised workforce, yet their services are increasingly in demand. Collectively, they form an emerging “eco-precariat” that bears little resemblance to the labour movement that’s urgently needed to mitigate the climate and ecological crisis. … Read more: https://theconversation.com/the-green-gig-economy-precarious-workers-are-on-the-frontline-of-climate-change-fight-133392
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has a point – volunteers are not there for money. Most of us have done at least some volunteer work in their lifetime. I never expect pay for my volunteer work.
I have a friend who is a senior volunteer firefighter, it is a big commitment which he takes very seriously. He saw action in the recent Aussie bushfires. But his day job he makes very good money as a freelance financial advisor, far more than he could make as a full time firefighter.
If “green gig” workers need more money, in my opinion the answer is simple; they should do a little less volunteering and spend more time making money. I’m grateful for their contribution as volunteers, but nobody expects them to mess up their own life through giving too much of their time to others.
Alternatively they could apply for a permanent job. A volunteer firefighter with a good track record would surely be head of the queue for any firefighter job openings, if they wanted to go full time, at least I hope that is the case.
If volunteers need any other ideas for how to improve their income, they could try talking to their fellow volunteers. You never know, one of their fellow volunteers might be a talented financial advisor.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-22--Financiers of poverty, malnutrition and death – Part 1

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization , anti-development banks , the Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , NGO ( non-government organization ) pressure groups and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money , power , and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African , Asian and Latin American families from having access to reliable , affordable energy , pesticides and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease , and modern agricultural technologies .
Those outfits perpetuate poverty , disease , malnutrition and death .
Yet the eco-manslaughter continues .
Too many US , EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks , and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs .
The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige , because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media , human rights or other “ watchdogs.
” But the fact is , few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them .
Indeed , “ philanthropic ” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best kept secrets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spotlight some of them and call them to account .
Wealthy foundations – often created with profits and fortunes made in industry and technology – directly and indirectly support some of the most radical anti-energy , anti-technology and agro-ecology activism in America , Europe and the world .
Their wealth , direct and indirect aid mechanisms , and inter-locking global network of funders , managers and advisors make them a powerful , callous , oppressive force .
They use direct donations and a growing number of clever non-transparent pass-through operations ( funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to consolidate money from multiple donors and direct “ charitable giving ” to organizations and projects that support their ideologies and causes .
The system also helps insulate the foundations – and their patrons and managers – from direct association with the most questionable , controversial , and often thuggish and lethal organizations and activists .
The funding , in turn , enables the organizations and activists to paint themselves as legitimate , benevolent and popular voices worthy of attention in global and domestic debates over laws , policies and regulations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of modern , innovative farm technologies like improved pesticides , GM crops ( genetically modified , engineered through biotechnology ) – and even fertilizers , tractors and hybrid seeds – under the auspices of what they cleverly call “ agro-ecology.
” A big part of the problem is that the World Bank , EU agencies and Euro foundations demand and support primitive subsistence farming , and block food imports from countries that permit biotech farming .
The World Bank ’ s Global Environment Facility and various European donors support groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organic Agriculture Network , Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya , and Resources Oriented Development Initiatives of Kenya .
In fact , virtually every African country is beset by their “ benevolence , ” as are India and other countries in Asia and Latin America .
All of them promote the supposed benefits of organic farming that bans the use of “ dangerous , poisonous ” manmade pesticides – but permits the use in “ organic ” farming of “ natural ” pesticides and other chemicals that are also toxic and dangerous to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insects .
They stridently oppose all biotech crops – including life-saving Golden Rice – and have been pressuring Kenyan and other African governments to ban more than 200 pesticides that have been approved as safe in many other countries .
Many of the groups even oppose mechanized equipment like tractors .
Among the EU funders are BioVision , the Danish Agency for International Development Cooperation , the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency , the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation , and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation .
They even support newspapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often little more than another NGO that runs and supports anti-technology campaigns and seeks donations from readers and major funding from foundations in exchange for stories .
Self-proclaimed “ philanthropic , charitable ” US foundations are just as guilty .
They probably provide far more significant than EU funding , but their secretive networks make that hard to ascertain .
Foundation support for the agro-ecology Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa helps illustrate how all this works .
AFSA is a pan-African alliance of organizations committed to “ resisting ” the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It claims the use of modern agricultural technologies like pesticides for crop protection , chemical fertilizers , and genetically modified crops for drought and insect resistance and higher yields will result in “ massive land grabs , destruction of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems , displacement of indigenous peoples … and the destruction of their livelihoods and cultures.
” AFSA ’ s core members include activist pressure groups that espouse an even broader variety of anti-capitalist , anti-technology , radical environmentalist goals and philosophies .
Among the more notable and notorious ones are The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biodiversity , GroundSwell International , Friends of the Earth ( FOE ) , and La Via Campensina Africa .
These organizations work together to plan and support pro-organic , anti-biotech campaigns , and provide financial management and expertise in furthering AFSA principles .
Letting them retain tax-exempt status is a travesty .
Core member La Via Campensina Africa ( The Peasant Way – Africa ) , for example , is a radical , proponent of anti-technology agro-ecology .
It rejects modern farming technologies : crop protection pesticides and herbicides , fertilizers for nutrient-depleted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bananas , cassava and other crops that have been all but destroyed by viruses and diseases .
It also advocates an anti-free market program of peasant-centric subsistence agriculture that largely limits farmers to backbreaking organic agricultural farming methods , and selling to local markets .
Agro-ecology farmers are largely limited to those local markets , in part because they can not raise enough crops for export to wider markets like Europe – while other produce is blocked because many EU nations ban the import of crops that are so much as tainted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US-based AgroEcology Fund ( AEF ) helped to launch and continues to support the AFSA .
It acts as a pass-through fund of funds to hide sources , and helps to coordinate , direct and manage giving to outfits like AFSA .
The AEF also partners with AFSA and other organizations such as the Center for Food Safety ( CFS ) , to battle “ the industrial model ” and promote organic farming .
The AgroEcology Fund directly gave the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa in 2015 $ 200,000 and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and possibly more via clandestine means ) .
That may not sound like much , but such funds pay for 10-100 times more hourly wages and activism in Africa than they would in USA .
In 2017 , the AEF and AFSA worked together on a campaign to prevent biotech seed patent protections laws from being enforced in Africa .
The AEF was created by three wealthy American foundations , the Christensen Fund , the New Fields Foundation , the Swift Foundation and a donor who remains unknown .
AEF programs and funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was created to help “ philanthropists ” better direct funds to projects and programs in line with their neo-colonialist goals ; the NVF is managed by Arabella Advisors .
Ironically and perversely , the foundations that funded AEF ’ s creation are rooted in money generated in innovation , industry and technology .
Now AEF and its foundation backers battle agricultural innovation and keep African farmers mired in farming practices that can feed few people , and can successfully battle few crop-devouring insect pests , much less protect crops against recurrent locust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have abundant food – traditional , modern and organic .
Meanwhile , poor countries are saddled with barely enough food , no safety net for all those times when droughts or insects destroy crops , and diktats from ultra-wealthy foundations and pressure groups that tell farmers they should be happy to engage in dawn-to-dusk subsistence farming , ox-drawn plowing , stoop labor , banging on metal pans to drive the locust hordes away , and living on the verge of starvation .
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of books and articles on energy , environment , climate and human rights issues .
Part 2 of this article will address how these funds operate , and how they lock Africa in poverty and malnutrition .

Private ‘philanthropic’ foundations join government agencies in funding anti-technology NGOs
Paul Driessen
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, anti-development banks, the Agency for International Development (USAID), NGO (non-government organization) pressure groups and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money, power, and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African, Asian and Latin American families from having access to reliable, affordable energy, pesticides and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease, and modern agricultural technologies.
Those outfits perpetuate poverty, disease, malnutrition and death. Yet the eco-manslaughter continues.
Too many US, EU and UN government agencies have been captured by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks, and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs. The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige, because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media, human rights or other “watchdogs.”
But the fact is, few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them. Indeed, “philanthropic” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best kept secrets of modern society. It’s time to spotlight some of them and call them to account.
Wealthy foundations – often created with profits and fortunes made in industry and technology – directly and indirectly support some of the most radical anti-energy, anti-technology and agro-ecology activism in America, Europe and the world. Their wealth, direct and indirect aid mechanisms, and inter-locking global network of funders, managers and advisors make them a powerful, callous, oppressive force.
They use direct donations and a growing number of clever non-transparent pass-through operations (funds of funds, or foundations of foundations) to consolidate money from multiple donors and direct “charitable giving” to organizations and projects that support their ideologies and causes. The system also helps insulate the foundations – and their patrons and managers – from direct association with the most questionable, controversial, and often thuggish and lethal organizations and activists.
The funding, in turn, enables the organizations and activists to paint themselves as legitimate, benevolent and popular voices worthy of attention in global and domestic debates over laws, policies and regulations.
They have become especially effective in blocking the use of modern, innovative farm technologies like improved pesticides, GM crops (genetically modified, engineered through biotechnology) – and even fertilizers, tractors and hybrid seeds – under the auspices of what they cleverly call “agro-ecology.”
A big part of the problem is that the World Bank, EU agencies and Euro foundations demand and support primitive subsistence farming, and block food imports from countries that permit biotech farming. The World Bank’s Global Environment Facility and various European donors support groups like the Route to Food Initiative, Kenya Organic Agriculture Network, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, and Resources Oriented Development Initiatives of Kenya. In fact, virtually every African country is beset by their “benevolence,” as are India and other countries in Asia and Latin America.
All of them promote the supposed benefits of organic farming that bans the use of “dangerous, poisonous” manmade pesticides – but permits the use in “organic” farming of “natural” pesticides and other chemicals that are also toxic and dangerous to humans, wildlife, fish and beneficial insects. They stridently oppose all biotech crops – including life-saving Golden Rice – and have been pressuring Kenyan and other African governments to ban more than 200 pesticides that have been approved as safe in many other countries. Many of the groups even oppose mechanized equipment like tractors.
Among the EU funders are BioVision, the Danish Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. They even support newspapers like Britain’s Guardian, which is often little more than another NGO that runs and supports anti-technology campaigns and seeks donations from readers and major funding from foundations in exchange for stories.
Self-proclaimed “philanthropic, charitable” US foundations are just as guilty. They probably provide far more significant than EU funding, but their secretive networks make that hard to ascertain. Foundation support for the agro-ecology Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa helps illustrate how all this works.
AFSA is a pan-African alliance of organizations committed to “resisting” the “corporate industrialization” of African agriculture. It claims the use of modern agricultural technologies like pesticides for crop protection, chemical fertilizers, and genetically modified crops for drought and insect resistance and higher yields will result in “massive land grabs, destruction of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems, displacement of indigenous peoples … and the destruction of their livelihoods and cultures.”
AFSA’s core members include activist pressure groups that espouse an even broader variety of anti-capitalist, anti-technology, radical environmentalist goals and philosophies. Among the more notable and notorious ones are The African Biodiversity Network, African Center for Biodiversity, GroundSwell International, Friends of the Earth (FOE), and La Via Campensina Africa. These organizations work together to plan and support pro-organic, anti-biotech campaigns, and provide financial management and expertise in furthering AFSA principles. Letting them retain tax-exempt status is a travesty.
Core member La Via Campensina Africa (The Peasant Way – Africa), for example, is a radical, proponent of anti-technology agro-ecology. It rejects modern farming technologies: crop protection pesticides and herbicides, fertilizers for nutrient-depleted soils, and even biotech replacements for bananas, cassava and other crops that have been all but destroyed by viruses and diseases. It also advocates an anti-free market program of peasant-centric subsistence agriculture that largely limits farmers to backbreaking organic agricultural farming methods, and selling to local markets.
Agro-ecology farmers are largely limited to those local markets, in part because they cannot raise enough crops for export to wider markets like Europe – while other produce is blocked because many EU nations ban the import of crops that are so much as tainted by glyphosate, neonicotinoids or biotech pollen.
The US-based AgroEcology Fund (AEF) helped to launch and continues to support the AFSA. It acts as a pass-through fund of funds to hide sources, and helps to coordinate, direct and manage giving to outfits like AFSA. The AEF also partners with AFSA and other organizations such as the Center for Food Safety (CFS), to battle “the industrial model” and promote organic farming.
The AgroEcology Fund directly gave the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa in 2015 $200,000 and has given it some $500,000 overall (and possibly more via clandestine means). That may not sound like much, but such funds pay for 10-100 times more hourly wages and activism in Africa than they would in USA. In 2017, the AEF and AFSA worked together on a campaign to prevent biotech seed patent protections laws from being enforced in Africa.
The AEF was created by three wealthy American foundations, the Christensen Fund, the New Fields Foundation, the Swift Foundation and a donor who remains unknown. AEF programs and funding are overseen by New Venture Fund, which was created to help “philanthropists” better direct funds to projects and programs in line with their neo-colonialist goals; the NVF is managed by Arabella Advisors.
Ironically and perversely, the foundations that funded AEF’s creation are rooted in money generated in innovation, industry and technology. Now AEF and its foundation backers battle agricultural innovation and keep African farmers mired in farming practices that can feed few people, and can successfully battle few crop-devouring insect pests, much less protect crops against recurrent locust plagues.
Equally perverse, rich countries have abundant food – traditional, modern and organic. Meanwhile, poor countries are saddled with barely enough food, no safety net for all those times when droughts or insects destroy crops, and diktats from ultra-wealthy foundations and pressure groups that tell farmers they should be happy to engage in dawn-to-dusk subsistence farming, ox-drawn plowing, stoop labor, banging on metal pans to drive the locust hordes away, and living on the verge of starvation.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. Part 2 of this article will address how these funds operate, and how they lock Africa in poverty and malnutrition.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-22--#EarthDay at 50: None Of The Eco-Doomsday Predictions Have Come True

From predicting ecological collapse and the end of civilization to warnings that the world is running out of oil , all environmental doomsday predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have turned out to be flat out wrong .
More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22 , 1970 .
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day , Then and Now , ” by Ronald Bailey of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade , many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today ’ s social and news media outlets .
Many of the same are being regurgitated today , but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago , yes 50 years ago , was that the “ the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s were a lousy decade .
Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war , endless political scandals , and a faltering economy .
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970 — okay , “ celebrated ” doesn ’ t capture the funereal tone of the event .
The events ( organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn ) predicted death , destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded .
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 .
“ Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
” — Harvard biologist George Wald 2 .
“ We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation , and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner 3 .
“ Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources , not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.
” — New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make .
The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich 5 .
“ Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [ By 1975 ] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
” — Paul Ehrlich 6 .
“ It is already too late to avoid mass starvation , ” — Denis Hayes , Chief organizer for Earth Day 7 .
“ Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable : by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India ; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India , Pakistan , China and the Near East , Africa .
By the year 2000 , or conceivably sooner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under famine conditions… .
By the year 2000 , thirty years from now , the entire world , with the exception of Western Europe , North America , and Australia , will be in famine.
” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter 8 .
“ In a decade , urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.
” — Life magazine 9 .
“ At the present rate of nitrogen buildup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt 10 .
“ Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.
” — Paul Ehrlich 11 .
“ By the year 2000 , if present trends continue , we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won ’ t be any more crude oil .
You ’ ll drive up to the pump and say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buddy , ’ and he ’ ll say , ‘ I am very sorry , there isn ’ t any.
’ ” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt 12 .
“ [ One ] theory assumes that the earth ’ s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust , fumes , and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes .
Screened from the sun ’ s heat , the planet will cool , the water vapor will fall and freeze , and a new Ice Age will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years .
If present trends continue , the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 , but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 .
This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
” — Kenneth Watt

By Ron Stein
From predicting ecological collapse and the end of civilization to warnings that the world is running out of oil, all environmental doomsday predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have turned out to be flat out wrong.
More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day, Then and Now,” by Ronald Bailey of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970.
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade, many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today’s social and news media outlets.
Many of the same are being regurgitated today, but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago, yes 50 years ago, was that the “the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000”.
The 1970’s were a lousy decade. Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war, endless political scandals, and a faltering economy.
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970 — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald 2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner 3. “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial 4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich 5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich 6. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day 7. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter 8. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine 9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt 10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich 11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt 12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine 13. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-22--#EarthDay EPIC! Michael Moore’s new film trashes ‘planet saving’ renewable energy – full movie here!