climatechangedispatch--2020-07-10--‘Climate Breakdown’? How To Create Scary Climate Models (And Headlines)

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse on .
Posted in Latest news Shock , horror : According to the WMO and the Met Office , there is a 3-20 % chance of the forthcoming five-year global temperature average exceeding 1.5°C .
There are several definitions of hustle .
One of them is to use forceful actions to promote an action or point of view .
It ’ s everywhere of course and in all aspects of climate change .
It ’ s all too apparent when scientists want grants , jobs , and headlines .
It ’ s no new discovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you anywhere .
The recently released news from the World Meteorological Organisation ( WMO ) , prepared by the UK Met Office , that there is a “ growing chance ” of the world exceeding the “ Paris threshold ” of 1.5°C in global temperature above pre-industrial levels is a prime example of this .
It says there is a 20 % chance that one of the next five years will exceed 1.5°C and a 70 % chance a single month will during the same period .
Another way of saying this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an 80 % chance that global annual average temperatures will not increase statistically significantly over the next five years .
There are no headlines saying that !
Just for a moment think what this means .
If there is no significant change in global average temperature by 2025 , we will be able to look back thirty years ( the official definition of climate ) and note that the two major warming episodes , 1998 and 2015 , were both due to natural climatic variability , in this case , two El @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WMO report is more a testament to the importance of natural climatic variability than it is to long-term anthropogenic warming .
What ’ s more , this forecast has been tested by reversing the direction of time in the computer models and seeing if it successfully “ predicts ” the past .
One would expect any model to be good at this because past observations have already been incorporated into the model which has evolved to have no serious disagreements with it .
In such a complicated system as the climate – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertain and poorly understood nature of internal climatic variability – looking into the future is an entirely different thing .
In other reports of the same WMO document , the statistics get even more suspicious .
One says that there is a 3 % chance of the forthcoming five-year global temperature average exceeding 1.5°C .
Three percent implies a very accurate predictive ability , especially when it is accompanied by no error statement .
Again , any journalist looking at these figures objectively would find that the real story is that there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the next five years will remain more or less what it is now .
And yet the Ecologist website proclaims we have five years to climate breakdown .
A story like this is a kind of litmus test for journalists .
They can take the press release and wave it through to their website with minor changes and supporting statements .
Or they could look at the statistics and — how can I say this — ask questions .
I have a feeling that the era of unquestioning journalist environmental advocacy which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century , is gradually fading away .
Perhaps they could start to be guided by the empirical data and the messages it has been sending us for years ; we do not understand natural climatic variability ; our models are nowhere near as accurate as some maintain and forecasts of future temperatures more often than not end in ignominy .

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse on Jul 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Shock, horror: According to the WMO and the Met Office, there is a 3-20% chance of the forthcoming five-year global temperature average exceeding 1.5°C.
There are several definitions of hustle. One of them is to use forceful actions to promote an action or point of view.
It’s everywhere of course and in all aspects of climate change. It’s all too apparent when scientists want grants, jobs, and headlines. It’s no new discovery that combining hustle with statistics can get you anywhere.
The recently released news from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), prepared by the UK Met Office, that there is a “growing chance” of the world exceeding the “Paris threshold” of 1.5°C in global temperature above pre-industrial levels is a prime example of this.
It says there is a 20% chance that one of the next five years will exceed 1.5°C and a 70% chance a single month will during the same period.
Another way of saying this, statistically equally justifiable, is that there is an 80% chance that global annual average temperatures will not increase statistically significantly over the next five years. There are no headlines saying that!
Just for a moment think what this means.
If there is no significant change in global average temperature by 2025, we will be able to look back thirty years (the official definition of climate) and note that the two major warming episodes, 1998 and 2015, were both due to natural climatic variability, in this case, two El Nino events.
In many ways, the WMO report is more a testament to the importance of natural climatic variability than it is to long-term anthropogenic warming.
What’s more, this forecast has been tested by reversing the direction of time in the computer models and seeing if it successfully “predicts” the past.
One would expect any model to be good at this because past observations have already been incorporated into the model which has evolved to have no serious disagreements with it.
In such a complicated system as the climate – and the WMO report actually stresses the uncertain and poorly understood nature of internal climatic variability – looking into the future is an entirely different thing.
Good hindcasts do not imply good forecasts.
In other reports of the same WMO document, the statistics get even more suspicious. One says that there is a 3% chance of the forthcoming five-year global temperature average exceeding 1.5°C.
Three percent implies a very accurate predictive ability, especially when it is accompanied by no error statement.
Again, any journalist looking at these figures objectively would find that the real story is that there is a 97% chance that the average of the next five years will remain more or less what it is now. And yet the Ecologist website proclaims we have five years to climate breakdown.
A story like this is a kind of litmus test for journalists. They can take the press release and wave it through to their website with minor changes and supporting statements.
Or they could look at the statistics and — how can I say this — ask questions. I have a feeling that the era of unquestioning journalist environmental advocacy which began in the early years of this century, is gradually fading away.
Perhaps they could start to be guided by the empirical data and the messages it has been sending us for years; we do not understand natural climatic variability; our models are nowhere near as accurate as some maintain and forecasts of future temperatures more often than not end in ignominy.
Read more at GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-10--The Planet’s Future Has Never Looked Brighter

Written by Matt Ridley on .
Posted in Latest news Doomsday thinking about the environment has been popular for decades .
A rational optimist lays out the many reasons we can be hopeful about the future of the planet .
In 1980 , the year that PERC was founded , I spent three months in the Himalayas working on a wildlife conservation project .
The purpose was to do wildlife surveys on behalf of the Indian government in the stunningly beautiful valleys of the Kulu region in northern India , among forests of deodar cedar and evergreen oak .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the western tragopan , a large , spotted gray forest pheasant with red plumage around the neck and bright blue skin on the male ’ s throat .
The bird was found only in a few places and thought to be teetering on the brink of extinction .
Though we saw other pheasant species , we never saw a tragopan that year , but some of the people we met knew of the bird , and one even handed me the remains of a tragopan that had been shot for food .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
I wanted to come back in the spring when the birds ’ mating calls might give them away in the deep bamboo thickets they preferred , but work prevented me .
If you had asked me in 1980 to predict what would happen to that bird and its forest ecosystem , I would have been very pessimistic .
I could see the effect on the forests of growing human populations , with their guns and flocks of sheep .
More generally , I was marinated in gloom by almost everything I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population explosion was unstoppable ; billions were going to die of famine ; malaria and other diseases were going to increase ; oil , gas , and metals would soon run out , forcing us to return to burning wood ; most forests would then be felled ; deserts were expanding ; half of all species were heading for extinction ; the great whales would soon be gone from the oil-stained oceans ; sprawling cities and modern farms were going to swallow up the last wild places ; and pollution of the air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was beginning to threaten a planetary ecological breakdown .
I don ’ t remember reading anything remotely optimistic about the future of the planet .
Today , the valleys we worked in are part of the Great Himalayan National Park , a protected area that gained prestigious World Heritage status in 2014 .
The logo of the park is an image of the western tragopan , a bird you can now go on a trekking holiday specifically to watch .
It has not gone extinct , and although it is still rare and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimate is considerably higher than anybody expected back then .
The area remains mostly a wilderness accessible largely on foot , and the forests and alpine meadows have partly recovered from too much grazing , hunting , and logging .
Ecotourism is flourishing .
This is just one small example of things going right in the environment .
Let me give you some bigger ones .
Far from starving , the seven billion people who now inhabit the planet are far better fed than the four billion of 1980 .
Famine has pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the 1960s , about two million people died of famine ; in the decade that just ended , tens of thousands died—and those were in countries run by callous tyrants .
Paul Ehrlich , the ecologist and bestselling author who declared in 1968 that “ [ t ] he battle to feed all of humanity is over ” and forecast that “ hundreds of millions of people will starve to death ” —and was given a genius award for it—proved to be very badly wrong .
Remarkably , this feeding of seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new land under the plow and the cow .
Instead , in many places farmland has reverted to wilderness .
In 2009 , Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University calculated that thanks to more farmers getting access to better fertilizers , pesticides , and biotechnology , the area of land needed to produce a given quantity of food—averaged for all crops—was 65 percent less than in 1961 .
As a result , an area the size of India will be freed up by mid-century .
That is an enormous boost for wildlife .
National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steadily as well .
Nor have these agricultural improvements , on the whole , brought new problems of pollution in their wake .
Quite the reverse .
The replacement of pesticides like DDT with much less harmful ones that do not persist in the environment and accumulate up the food chain , in addition to advances in biotechnology , has allowed wildlife to begin to recover .
In the part of northern England where I live , otters have returned to the rivers , and hawks , kites , ospreys , and falcons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elimination of organochlorine pesticides .
Where genetically modified crops are grown—not in the European Union—there has been a 37 percent reduction in the use of insecticides , as shown by a recent study done at Gottingen University .
One of the extraordinary features of the past 40 years has been the reappearance of wildlife that was once seemingly headed for extinction .
Bald eagles have bounced back so spectacularly that they have been taken off the endangered list .
Deer and beavers have spread into the suburbs of cities , followed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The wolf has now recolonized much of Germany , France , and even parts of the heavily populated Netherlands .
Estuaries have been cleaned up so that fish and birds have recolonized rivers like the Thames .
Here ’ s a question I put to schoolchildren when I get the chance : Why is the wolf population increasing , the lion decreasing , and the tiger now holding its own ?
The answer is simple : Wolves live in rich countries , lions in poor countries , and tigers in middle-income countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were wrong to fear economic development in the 1980s .
Prosperity is the best thing that can happen to a country ’ s wildlife .
As people get richer , they can afford to buy electricity rather than cut wood , buy chicken rather than hunt bushmeat , or get a job in a town rather than try to scratch a living from a patch of land .
They can also stop worrying that their children will starve and start to care about the environment .
In country after country , first in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and now increasingly in Africa , that process of development leading to environmental gains has swiftly delivered a turning point in the fortunes of wild ecosystems .
Overall , therefore , the number of trees in the world is steadily increasing .
A study published by NASA and the University of Maryland in 2018 examined satellite data and found that global increases in tree cover have more than offset losses in tree cover over the past 35 years .
This is not just because of growing plantations of timber crops ; most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this happening only in the cold woods of the North ; tropical countries are reforesting as well .
If you had told me in 1980 that this would happen , I would not have believed you .
In 2013 , I caught wind of an interesting study being done by NASA in conjunction with Boston and Beijing Universities .
A team of researchers had found a way of measuring the quantity of green vegetation on the surface of the planet using satellite data .
It was increasing : There were more green leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this phenomenon of “ global greening ” and was immediately vilified for my impertinence in departing from the pessimistic script .
But in fact , it had been clear for some years that the carbon dioxide levels measured on top of a mountain in Hawaii , though increasing year over year , were also rising and falling with the seasons more than they once did , implying there was more growth of green leaves in the northern hemisphere summers .
In 2016 , the same team published a paper confirming that global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause .
Although the press release that accompanied the paper preemptively admonished me—by name !
—for taking any comfort from this fact , it quoted the lead author , Zaichin Zhu of Beijing University , saying that the greening over the past 30 years was equivalent to adding a new continent covered in green vegetation twice the size of the United States .
Global greening is occurring in all ecosystems , including rainforests , tundras , and croplands , and it is particularly strong in the arid areas of the planet .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zhu and his colleagues were able to tease out why it was happening .
Some of it was due to the use of fertilizer , some to increased rainfall caused by the slight warming of the seas , and some to reforestation .
But the greatest cause , responsible for 70 percent of the greening , was the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels .
Carbon dioxide is the raw food that plants use , with water , to make carbohydrates and thence proteins and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known in principle , thanks to thousands of experiments in laboratories , greenhouses , and the open-air over many years .
Indeed , commercial greenhouses purchase carbon dioxide to pump over tomato plants to encourage them to grow faster .
But this was the first time it had been measured on a global scale .
Another study published this year confirmed , “ the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration as the dominant driver ” of a 31 percent increase in global terrestrial gross primary production since 1900 .
Global greening means that there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antelopes , woodpeckers , and countless other species .
It also means we need less land to feed ourselves than we would otherwise have needed by now .
Of all the things that I did not expect in 1980 , this is surely one of the most remarkable .

Written by Matt Ridley on Jul 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Doomsday thinking about the environment has been popular for decades. A rational optimist lays out the many reasons we can be hopeful about the future of the planet.
In 1980, the year that PERC was founded, I spent three months in the Himalayas working on a wildlife conservation project.
The purpose was to do wildlife surveys on behalf of the Indian government in the stunningly beautiful valleys of the Kulu region in northern India, among forests of deodar cedar and evergreen oak.
One species of particular interest was a bird called the western tragopan, a large, spotted gray forest pheasant with red plumage around the neck and bright blue skin on the male’s throat. The bird was found only in a few places and thought to be teetering on the brink of extinction.
Though we saw other pheasant species, we never saw a tragopan that year, but some of the people we met knew of the bird, and one even handed me the remains of a tragopan that had been shot for food.
I feared it might be the last one. I wanted to come back in the spring when the birds’ mating calls might give them away in the deep bamboo thickets they preferred, but work prevented me.
If you had asked me in 1980 to predict what would happen to that bird and its forest ecosystem, I would have been very pessimistic.
I could see the effect on the forests of growing human populations, with their guns and flocks of sheep. More generally, I was marinated in gloom by almost everything I read about the environment.
The human population explosion was unstoppable; billions were going to die of famine; malaria and other diseases were going to increase; oil, gas, and metals would soon run out, forcing us to return to burning wood; most forests would then be felled; deserts were expanding; half of all species were heading for extinction; the great whales would soon be gone from the oil-stained oceans; sprawling cities and modern farms were going to swallow up the last wild places; and pollution of the air, rivers, sea, and earth was beginning to threaten a planetary ecological breakdown.
I don’t remember reading anything remotely optimistic about the future of the planet.
Today, the valleys we worked in are part of the Great Himalayan National Park, a protected area that gained prestigious World Heritage status in 2014.
The logo of the park is an image of the western tragopan, a bird you can now go on a trekking holiday specifically to watch. It has not gone extinct, and although it is still rare and hard to spot, the latest population estimate is considerably higher than anybody expected back then.
The area remains mostly a wilderness accessible largely on foot, and the forests and alpine meadows have partly recovered from too much grazing, hunting, and logging. Ecotourism is flourishing.
This is just one small example of things going right in the environment. Let me give you some bigger ones.
Far from starving, the seven billion people who now inhabit the planet are far better fed than the four billion of 1980. Famine has pretty much gone extinct in recent decades.
In the 1960s, about two million people died of famine; in the decade that just ended, tens of thousands died—and those were in countries run by callous tyrants.
Paul Ehrlich, the ecologist and bestselling author who declared in 1968 that “[t]he battle to feed all of humanity is over” and forecast that “hundreds of millions of people will starve to death”—and was given a genius award for it—proved to be very badly wrong.
Remarkably, this feeding of seven billion people has happened without taking much new land under the plow and the cow. Instead, in many places farmland has reverted to wilderness.
In 2009, Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University calculated that thanks to more farmers getting access to better fertilizers, pesticides, and biotechnology, the area of land needed to produce a given quantity of food—averaged for all crops—was 65 percent less than in 1961.
As a result, an area the size of India will be freed up by mid-century. That is an enormous boost for wildlife. National parks and other protected areas have expanded steadily as well.
Nor have these agricultural improvements, on the whole, brought new problems of pollution in their wake. Quite the reverse.
The replacement of pesticides like DDT with much less harmful ones that do not persist in the environment and accumulate up the food chain, in addition to advances in biotechnology, has allowed wildlife to begin to recover.
In the part of northern England where I live, otters have returned to the rivers, and hawks, kites, ospreys, and falcons to the skies, largely thanks to the elimination of organochlorine pesticides.
Where genetically modified crops are grown—not in the European Union—there has been a 37 percent reduction in the use of insecticides, as shown by a recent study done at Gottingen University.
One of the extraordinary features of the past 40 years has been the reappearance of wildlife that was once seemingly headed for extinction.
Bald eagles have bounced back so spectacularly that they have been taken off the endangered list. Deer and beavers have spread into the suburbs of cities, followed by coyotes, bears, and even wolves.
The wolf has now recolonized much of Germany, France, and even parts of the heavily populated Netherlands. Estuaries have been cleaned up so that fish and birds have recolonized rivers like the Thames.
Global Greening
Here’s a question I put to schoolchildren when I get the chance: Why is the wolf population increasing, the lion decreasing, and the tiger now holding its own?
The answer is simple: Wolves live in rich countries, lions in poor countries, and tigers in middle-income countries. It turns out that we conservationists were wrong to fear economic development in the 1980s.
Prosperity is the best thing that can happen to a country’s wildlife. As people get richer, they can afford to buy electricity rather than cut wood, buy chicken rather than hunt bushmeat, or get a job in a town rather than try to scratch a living from a patch of land.
They can also stop worrying that their children will starve and start to care about the environment.
In country after country, first in Asia, then in Latin America, and now increasingly in Africa, that process of development leading to environmental gains has swiftly delivered a turning point in the fortunes of wild ecosystems.
Overall, therefore, the number of trees in the world is steadily increasing. A study published by NASA and the University of Maryland in 2018 examined satellite data and found that global increases in tree cover have more than offset losses in tree cover over the past 35 years.
This is not just because of growing plantations of timber crops; most of it is natural regeneration. Nor is this happening only in the cold woods of the North; tropical countries are reforesting as well.
If you had told me in 1980 that this would happen, I would not have believed you.
In 2013, I caught wind of an interesting study being done by NASA in conjunction with Boston and Beijing Universities.
A team of researchers had found a way of measuring the quantity of green vegetation on the surface of the planet using satellite data. It was increasing:
There were more green leaves each year. I published an article on this phenomenon of “global greening” and was immediately vilified for my impertinence in departing from the pessimistic script.
But in fact, it had been clear for some years that the carbon dioxide levels measured on top of a mountain in Hawaii, though increasing year over year, were also rising and falling with the seasons more than they once did, implying there was more growth of green leaves in the northern hemisphere summers.
In 2016, the same team published a paper confirming that global greening was occurring and speculating about the cause.
Although the press release that accompanied the paper preemptively admonished me—by name!—for taking any comfort from this fact, it quoted the lead author, Zaichin Zhu of Beijing University, saying that the greening over the past 30 years was equivalent to adding a new continent covered in green vegetation twice the size of the United States.
Global greening is occurring in all ecosystems, including rainforests, tundras, and croplands, and it is particularly strong in the arid areas of the planet.
By analyzing the patterns of this greening, Zhu and his colleagues were able to tease out why it was happening. Some of it was due to the use of fertilizer, some to increased rainfall caused by the slight warming of the seas, and some to reforestation.
But the greatest cause, responsible for 70 percent of the greening, was the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is the raw food that plants use, with water, to make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats.
This CO2-fertilization effect was well known in principle, thanks to thousands of experiments in laboratories, greenhouses, and the open-air over many years. Indeed, commercial greenhouses purchase carbon dioxide to pump over tomato plants to encourage them to grow faster.
But this was the first time it had been measured on a global scale. Another study published this year confirmed, “the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration as the dominant driver” of a 31 percent increase in global terrestrial gross primary production since 1900.
Global greening means that there is more food every year for caterpillars, antelopes, woodpeckers, and countless other species. It also means we need less land to feed ourselves than we would otherwise have needed by now.
Of all the things that I did not expect in 1980, this is surely one of the most remarkable.
Read rest at PERC
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-10--Virginia Is Circling The Green New Drain

Written by James Stansbury on .
Posted in Latest news It took the newly empowered Virginia Dems less than six months , but the state is now paying a heavy price for the last election .
Obvious is the ruinous transformation spawned by the pandemic and the never-ending anarchy resulting from BLM-themed mob rule .
Longer-term changes started July 1 as the left ’ s new and controversial laws took effect .
• Elimination of all basic health and safety standards in abortion facilities ( higher risk for women ) .
• Incorporation of “ sexual orientation ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected statuses ( a real threat to religious organizations and a boon for lawyers ) .
• Mandated health coverage for transgender services and requires health carriers to pay for genital reconstruction surgeries ( expect increased health care costs ) .
• Special treatment of transgender K–12 students , including bathroom and locker room use , dress codes , pronoun use , and sex-specific school activities ( more for the lawyers ) .
• On-demand sex changes on official birth certificates ( so much for science ) .
• Prohibits licensed counselors from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows licensed professionals to offer “ acceptance , support , and understanding ” to minors undergoing gender “ transition ” or exploring unnatural sexual desires ( yet another double standard ) .
The Monday after Independence Day , another transformative disaster was announced on the front page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch .
After three years , climate activists have finally succeeded in stopping construction on the $ 8-billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline ( ACP ) .
This pipeline from W. Va. would have met the growing clean energy needs of heavily populated and industrialized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 4 billion is now wasted .
Dominion Energy stockholders also lost a bundle .
Killing the ACP was a huge win for the left , and it may benefit Governor Northam ’ s “ Green New Deal , ” launched last September by executive order and now state law .
It ’ s basically a copycat of the Democrats ’ radical Green New Deal and mandates that thirty percent of Virginia ’ s electricity come from renewable energy sources by 2030 and one hundred percent from carbon-free sources by 2050 .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon tax on electric power generation .
It includes no mention of expanding carbon-free nuclear power or natural gas , but instead relies on bird-killing offshore and land-based wind farms , land-devouring solar farms with energy storage using expensive mega-batteries , and pumped hydroelectric storage ( dams ) .
Like the Dems ’ nationwide Green New Deal , the Virginia plan also advances socialist-sounding notions of social , energy , equity , and environmental justice .
This huge energy omnibus package will lead to higher energy costs for families and industry .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across Virginia can expect at least a $ 23.30 increase per month by 2027–2030 ( about $ 280 annually ) .
The new law also imposes a new gas tax that could reach as high as 18 cents per gallon depending on the locality .
Solar farms are popping up everywhere .
One nearby covers about 200 acres of what used to be scenic farmland and forest immediately behind a once-nice suburban neighborhood .
Unlike the previous farm fields and forests , those shiny new black panels will generate a tremendous amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an asphalt parking lot in the summer sun .
With summer temperatures already reaching 90 degrees , I would not want it in my backyard .
Sadly , a published article and book by renowned environmentalist and climate activist Michael Schellenberger came out too late to allow any critical thinking about Virginia ’ s Green New Deal .
In it , he apologizes for helping to create the climate change hysteria and also describes the right way to implement a clean energy plan .
• The most important thing for reducing air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium .
• 100 % renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today ’ s 0.5 % to 50 % .
• The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to .
Therefore , the Virginia and Biden/AOC plans are totally wrong , since both omit clean , low-carbon natural gas and carbon-free nuclear power .
It was no surprise that Schellenberger ’ s article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Environmentalists , I Apologize for the Climate Scare , ” was immediately taken down .
It reveals too much .
However , a copy is available here .
Finally , someone well credentialed from inside the beast had the courage to blow the whistle .
Share this article with whomever you know and especially those with indoctrinated kids .
Order his book , Apocalypse Never , to get the hard science behind his recommendations .
Mark Twain once said , “ It ’ s easier to fool people than to convince them they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he risked it all to be a whistleblower .

Written by James Stansbury on Jul 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It took the newly empowered Virginia Dems less than six months, but the state is now paying a heavy price for the last election.
Obvious is the ruinous transformation spawned by the pandemic and the never-ending anarchy resulting from BLM-themed mob rule. Longer-term changes started July 1 as the left’s new and controversial laws took effect.
Many are sex-themed:
Elimination of all basic health and safety standards in abortion facilities (higher risk for women).
Incorporation of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) as protected statuses (a real threat to religious organizations and a boon for lawyers).
Mandated health coverage for transgender services and requires health carriers to pay for genital reconstruction surgeries (expect increased health care costs).
Special treatment of transgender K–12 students, including bathroom and locker room use, dress codes, pronoun use, and sex-specific school activities (more for the lawyers).
On-demand sex changes on official birth certificates (so much for science).
Prohibits licensed counselors from helping minors overcome unwanted sexual desires but allows licensed professionals to offer “acceptance, support, and understanding” to minors undergoing gender “transition” or exploring unnatural sexual desires (yet another double standard).
The Monday after Independence Day, another transformative disaster was announced on the front page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
After three years, climate activists have finally succeeded in stopping construction on the $8-billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP).
This pipeline from W. Va. would have met the growing clean energy needs of heavily populated and industrialized eastern areas of Va. and N.C. Nearly $4 billion is now wasted. Dominion Energy stockholders also lost a bundle.
Killing the ACP was a huge win for the left, and it may benefit Governor Northam’s “Green New Deal,” launched last September by executive order and now state law.
It’s basically a copycat of the Democrats’ radical Green New Deal and mandates that thirty percent of Virginia’s electricity come from renewable energy sources by 2030 and one hundred percent from carbon-free sources by 2050.
It also imposes the state’s first carbon tax on electric power generation.
It includes no mention of expanding carbon-free nuclear power or natural gas, but instead relies on bird-killing offshore and land-based wind farms, land-devouring solar farms with energy storage using expensive mega-batteries, and pumped hydroelectric storage (dams).
Like the Dems’ nationwide Green New Deal, the Virginia plan also advances socialist-sounding notions of social, energy, equity, and environmental justice.
This huge energy omnibus package will lead to higher energy costs for families and industry.
According to the State Corporation Commission, families across Virginia can expect at least a $23.30 increase per month by 2027–2030 (about $280 annually).
The new law also imposes a new gas tax that could reach as high as 18 cents per gallon depending on the locality.
Solar farms are popping up everywhere. One nearby covers about 200 acres of what used to be scenic farmland and forest immediately behind a once-nice suburban neighborhood.
Unlike the previous farm fields and forests, those shiny new black panels will generate a tremendous amount of heat comparable to acres of black cars on an asphalt parking lot in the summer sun.
With summer temperatures already reaching 90 degrees, I would not want it in my backyard.
Sadly, a published article and book by renowned environmentalist and climate activist Michael Schellenberger came out too late to allow any critical thinking about Virginia’s Green New Deal.
In it, he apologizes for helping to create the climate change hysteria and also describes the right way to implement a clean energy plan.
The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium.
100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
Therefore, the Virginia and Biden/AOC plans are totally wrong, since both omit clean, low-carbon natural gas and carbon-free nuclear power.
It was no surprise that Schellenberger’s article in Forbes.com, “On Behalf of Environmentalists, I Apologize for the Climate Scare,” was immediately taken down. It reveals too much. However, a copy is available here.
Finally, someone well credentialed from inside the beast had the courage to blow the whistle. Share this article with whomever you know and especially those with indoctrinated kids. Order his book, Apocalypse Never, to get the hard science behind his recommendations.
Mark Twain once said, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” Michael knows that, but he risked it all to be a whistleblower.
Read more at American Thinker
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-10--The Seen And Unseen In Energy Production And Use

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news Over the past several days , you have probably seen multiple articles reporting on reverses suffered in the U.S. courts by developers of pipelines to transport oil and natural gas .
In one case , a Federal District Court even ordered an existing , operational pipeline to shut down pending a further environmental review .
The multiple court decisions have been covered in the New York Times , Washington Post , LA Times , CNN , and every other large news source that you can think of .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued its annual Report titled “ Statistical Review of World Energy , ” this version covering the year 2019 .
I ’ ll bet you haven ’ t seen anything in the news about that one .
I make that bet because , aside from one article in Forbes magazine , every piece that I can find covering the BP Report appears in some sort of specialized or industry publication .
If you just see what appears before you in your news feed , you could be forgiven for getting the impression that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run and will shortly be driven from the scene .
But if you take the time to look , you can find the real picture in the BP Report .
In summary , world production and consumption of fossil fuels continue their steady and inexorable aggregate growth ( although with ongoing substitution of natural gas for coal ) .
Despite all you have read about plans to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions , in fact , those emissions continue to grow from year to year .
Production from “ renewables ” also has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insufficient to result in any reduction in the use of fossil fuels .
Indeed , it ’ s not clear that any amount of increases in intermittent wind and solar sources can result in reductions in the use of fossil fuels since the wind and solar sources require full backup from dispatchable sources .
Meanwhile , the market shares between and among the energy sources barely shift from year to year .
As to the various recent court decisions relating to pipeline construction , here is a brief summary : • On Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in a case involving the Dakota Access Pipeline .
The Dakota Access Pipeline , which has been in operation since May 2017 , delivers oil from the Bakken production region in North Dakota to a large terminal in Illinois , from which the oil gets shipped on to various refineries .
Judge Boasberg ordered that the pipeline must now shut down in August pending the generation of a full Environmental Impact Statement from the Army Corps of Engineers .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental reviews that formed the basis for approval of the pipeline did not rise to the level of a full EIS , which the judge found to be required in this case on the basis that the pipeline in question was sufficiently “ controversial.
” • Also on Monday , July 6 came a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving another pipeline in the same general region , this one called Keystone XL .
Keystone XL is a proposed addition to a pre-existing pipeline ( Keystone ) that takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada down to refineries in the southern United States .
A federal District Judge in Montana ( Brian Morris ) had issued a ruling invalidating a nationwide Clean Water Act permit that had enabled some dozens of pipeline projects including Keystone XL to proceed .
The Supreme Court ’ s order stays Judge Morris ’ s ruling “ except as it applies to the Keystone XL pipeline.
” So Keystone XL is blocked for now ( pending review of Judge Morris ’ s decision by the Ninth Circuit ) , but the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least for the time being , and as to this one issue .
• And then there was the Supreme Court ruling back on June 15 upholding the permit for another pipeline — the Atlantic Coast Pipeline running from West Virginia to the Atlantic Coast — to cross the Appalachian Trail .
This one would seem on its face to be a victory for the pipeline developer .
However , the opponents immediately announced that the proposed pipeline was “ still lacking 8 permits , ” all of which they promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the developers of the ACP — Dominion Energy and Duke Energy — announced that they were abandoning the project .
So does it sound like the fossil-fuel pipeline business is down for the count ?
In fact , these litigations just involve a small part of the overall picture .
Something called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ( had you ever heard of that ? )
tracks the total mileage of pipelines for oil and natural gas in the country .
Their latest data ( 2019 ) show 224,000 miles of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and some 2.577 million miles for natural gas .
And both oil and natural gas can also be transported by rail or by truck if need be .
Rail and truck are both more expensive and more dangerous , but since the railroads and the highways already exist , there is no call for new federal permits or for Environmental Impact Statements .
What then are environmental groups trying to accomplish by fighting every new pipeline project tooth and nail ?
You would have to ask them .
My principal suspicion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show some kinds of “ victories ” to please their donors , and pipeline litigation over various permits is the one place where they can find some of these “ victories.
” My second suspicion is that environmentalists regard the higher costs and prices resulting from rail and truck transport as a good thing .
But how about the increased frequency of accidents and explosions that come from transporting fuels by rail and truck ?
You would think that bona fide environmentalists would care at least a little about this , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have convinced themselves that these pipeline litigations are going to “ save the planet , ” or something .
On to the BP Report .
The basic story is that fossil fuel consumption continues its unstoppable growth , with small declines in the U.S. and OECD countries swamped by increases in China and the rest of the developing world .
Oil consumption grew by 0.9 million barrels per day ( b/d ) , or 0.9 % slightly lower than the 10-year average of 1.3 % p.a .
Growth was led by China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the largest increase in the country ’ s demand since 2015 .
Elsewhere in the developing world , growth was below average , with Iran ( 180,000 b/d ) the only major exception .
OECD demand fell by 290,000 b/d , the first decline since 2014 .
And on the production side , the U.S. massively increased its output of oil , forcing large cutbacks on places like OPEC and Russia : The US posted the largest increase [ in oil production ] of any country for the third consecutive year , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million b/d , although this was down from the record increase in 2018 ( 2.2 million b/d ) .
There was also significant growth from Brazil ( 200,000 b/d ) and Canada ( 150,000 b/d ) , although in the latter ’ s case , this was a pronounced slowdown in growth compared to 2017 and 2018 .
OPEC production fell by 2 million b/d , the group ’ s steepest decline since 2009 .
Litigious environmentalists have had essentially zero success in trying to stop the “ fracking ” revolution that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas in the U.S. Natural gas in 2019 had even larger increases in consumption and production than did oil : Global natural gas consumption growth averaged 2 % in 2019 , below its 10-year average and down sharply from the exceptional growth seen in 2018 ( 5.3 % ) .
In volume terms , demand grew by 78 billion cubic meters ( bcm ) , led by the US ( 27 bcm ) and China ( 24 bcm ) .
And , despite the Paris Climate Agreement and other such meaningless pieces of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again to go up not down : Emissions [ of CO2 ] rose by 0.5 % , although slower than their 10-year average , it only partially unwound the unusually strong growth of 2.1 % seen in 2018 .
I have no idea what they mean by saying that the prior increase in emissions had been partially “ unwound.
” It ’ s not like there was any decrease .
Some years the emissions go up faster , and some slower ; but every year they go up .
As Robert Rapier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BP Report , “ Since the negotiation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions , [ annual ] global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 50 % .
” The fact is developing countries are going to get their air conditioners and refrigerators and computers and automobiles , and they are going to use fossil fuels to do it , and there is nothing we can do to stop them .
Indeed , it would be immoral to try to stop them .
In the face of that , any marginal decreases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely insignificant .
Finally , the so-called “ renewables ” — wind and solar — showed some substantial increases in production , but from a tiny base .
The result was that their effective market share barely budged .
A chart in the Introduction shows an increase of 3.2 % in wind and solar output , but that only increased their market share by 0.5 % to 5 % of primary energy production .
Didn ’ t presidential candidate Joe Biden say that he intended to eliminate all use of fossil fuels ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?

Written by Francis Menton on Jul 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Over the past several days, you have probably seen multiple articles reporting on reverses suffered in the U.S. courts by developers of pipelines to transport oil and natural gas.
In one case, a Federal District Court even ordered an existing, operational pipeline to shut down pending a further environmental review.
The multiple court decisions have been covered in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, and every other large news source that you can think of.
Meanwhile, on June 19 the BP oil company issued its annual Report titled “Statistical Review of World Energy,” this version covering the year 2019.
I’ll bet you haven’t seen anything in the news about that one. I make that bet because, aside from one article in Forbes magazine, every piece that I can find covering the BP Report appears in some sort of specialized or industry publication.
If you just see what appears before you in your newsfeed, you could be forgiven for getting the impression that producers of fossil fuels are on the run and will shortly be driven from the scene.
But if you take the time to look, you can find the real picture in the BP Report.
In summary, world production and consumption of fossil fuels continue their steady and inexorable aggregate growth (although with ongoing substitution of natural gas for coal).
Despite all you have read about plans to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions those emissions continue to grow from year to year.
Production from “renewables” also has been growing, but at a pace insufficient to result in any reduction in the use of fossil fuels.
Indeed, it’s not clear that any amount of increase in intermittent wind and solar sources can result in reductions in the use of fossil fuels since the wind and solar sources require full backup from dispatchable sources.
Meanwhile, the market shares between and among the energy sources barely shift from year to year.
As to the various recent court decisions relating to pipeline construction, here is a summary:
On Monday, July 6, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in a case involving the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been in operation since May 2017, delivers oil from the Bakken production region in North Dakota to a large terminal in Illinois, from which the oil gets shipped to various refineries. Judge Boasberg ordered that the pipeline must now shut down in August pending the generation of a full Environmental Impact Statement from the Army Corps of Engineers. The gist of the ruling is that the environmental reviews that formed the basis for approval of the pipeline did not rise to the level of a full EIS, which the judge found to be required in this case on the basis that the pipeline in question was sufficiently “controversial.”
Also on Monday, July 6 came a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving another pipeline in the same general region, this one called Keystone XL. Keystone XL is a proposed addition to a pre-existing pipeline (Keystone) that takes oil from the province of Alberta, Canada down to refineries in the southern United States. A federal District Judge in Montana (Brian Morris) had issued a ruling invalidating a nationwide Clean Water Act permit that had enabled dozens of pipeline projects including Keystone XL to proceed. The Supreme Court’s order stays Judge Morris’s ruling “except as it applies to the Keystone XL pipeline.” So Keystone XL is blocked for now (pending review of Judge Morris’s decision by the Ninth Circuit), but the other dozens of projects are off the hook, at least for the time being, and as to this one issue.
And then there was the Supreme Court ruling back on June 15 upholding the permit for another pipeline — the Atlantic Coast Pipeline running from West Virginia to the Atlantic Coast — to cross the Appalachian Trail. This one would seem on its face to be a victory for the pipeline developer. However, the opponents immediately announced that the proposed pipeline was “still lacking 8 permits,” all of which they promised to challenge. On July 5, the developers of the ACP — Dominion Energy and Duke Energy — announced that they were abandoning the project.
So does it sound like the fossil-fuel pipeline business is down for the count? These litigations just involve a small part of the overall picture.
Something called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (had you ever heard of that?) tracks the total mileage of pipelines for oil and natural gas in the country.
Their latest data (2019) show 224,000 miles of existing pipelines for oil in the U.S., and some 2.577 million miles for natural gas. And both oil and natural gas can also be transported by rail or by truck if need be.
Rail and trucks are both more expensive and more dangerous, but since the railroads and highways already exist, there is no call for new federal permits or Environmental Impact Statements.
What then are environmental groups trying to accomplish by fighting every new pipeline project tooth and nail? You would have to ask them.
My principal suspicion is that they need to be able to show some kinds of “victories” to please their donors, and pipeline litigation over various permits is the one place where they can find some of these “victories.”
My second suspicion is that environmentalists regard the higher costs and prices resulting from rail and truck transport as a good thing.
But how about the increased frequency of accidents and explosions that come from transporting fuels by rail and truck? You would think that bona fide environmentalists would care at least a little about this, but they don’t.
Somehow, they have convinced themselves that these pipeline litigations are going to “save the planet,” or something.
On to the BP Report.
The basic story is that fossil fuel consumption continues its unstoppable growth, with small declines in the U.S. and OECD countries swamped by increases in China and the rest of the developing world.
Here’s the summary of oil consumption:
Oil consumption grew by 0.9 million barrels per day (b/d), or 0.9% slightly lower than the 10-year average of 1.3% p.a. Growth was led by China, where demand rose by 680,000 b/d, the largest increase in the country’s demand since 2015. Elsewhere in the developing world, growth was below average, with Iran (180,000 b/d) the only major exception. OECD demand fell by 290,000 b/d, the first decline since 2014.
And on the production side, the U.S. massively increased its output of oil, forcing large cutbacks on places like OPEC and Russia:
The US posted the largest increase [in oil production] of any country for the third consecutive year, with its output rising by a massive 1.7 million b/d, although this was down from the record increase in 2018 (2.2 million b/d). There was also significant growth from Brazil (200,000 b/d) and Canada (150,000 b/d), although, in the latter’s case, this was a pronounced slowdown in growth compared to 2017 and 2018. OPEC production fell by 2 million b/d, the group’s steepest decline since 2009.
Litigious environmentalists have had essentially zero success in trying to stop the “fracking” revolution that has massively increased the production of both oil and gas in the U.S.
Natural gas in 2019 had even larger increases in consumption and production than did oil:
Global natural gas consumption growth averaged 2% in 2019, below its 10-year average and down sharply from the exceptional growth seen in 2018 (5.3%). In volume terms, demand grew by 78 billion cubic meters (bcm), led by the US (27 bcm) and China (24 bcm).
And, despite the Paris Climate Agreement and other such meaningless pieces of paper, global carbon dioxide emissions continue once again to go up not down:
Emissions [of CO2] rose by 0.5%, although slower than their 10-year average, it only partially unwound the unusually strong growth of 2.1% seen in 2018.
I have no idea what they mean by saying that the prior increase in emissions had been partially “unwound.” It’s not like there was any decrease. Some years the emissions go up faster, and some slower; but every year they go up.
As Robert Rapier noted in his Forbes piece about the BP Report, “Since the negotiation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions, [annual] global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 50%.”
The fact is developing countries are going to get their air conditioners and refrigerators and computers and automobiles, and they are going to use fossil fuels to do it, and there is nothing we can do to stop them.
Indeed, it would be immoral to try to stop them. In the face of that, any marginal decreases in emissions that we might achieve are completely insignificant.
Finally, the so-called “renewables” — wind and solar — showed some substantial production increases, but from a tiny base. The result was that their effective market share barely budged.
A chart in the Introduction shows an increase of 3.2% in wind and solar output, but that only increased their market share by 0.5% to 5% of primary energy production.
Didn’t presidential candidate Joe Biden say that he intended to eliminate all use of fossil fuels? How can anybody take this guy seriously?
Image by skeeze from Pixabay
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-10--The End Is Nigh! Revisiting The Climate Dumpster Fire

Written by David Solway on .
Posted in Latest news In November 2009 , the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain* was hacked , releasing thousands of files suggesting a covert mega-operation to propagate an “ anthropogenic global warming ” myth .
The evidence showed that data was tampered with to paint the wished-for canvas , that counter-evidence was deliberately suppressed , that character assassination against climate skeptics was an accepted tactic and that experimental results were falsely replicated .
A new bundle of “ hide the decline ” email dumps , known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate science ” had been cooked and that , in the words of Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute , “ The new cache offers ample confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change… it ’ s another case of policy-driven science and not science-driven policy.
” Even some of the specialists involved in the enterprise had begun to question or object to the findings as , to quote from the emails , “ not statistically significant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as “ defending something that increasingly can not be defended.
” No wonder the lead researcher at the East Anglia CRU , Phil Jones , went so far as to recommend deleting all incriminating emails and/or changing the wording of others ( Climate Audit , February 23 , 2011 ) .
The Hadley fable was thoroughly debunked by Rael Jean Isaac in Roosters of the Apocalypse , which showed in explicit detail that the ostensibly “ scrupulous seekers of scientific fact ” were really “ hardcore zealots ” mining “ an ever-richer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , James Delingpole put out his alphabetary The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism , as devastating as it is amusing , exploding the Hadley as a coven of plotters .
Certain figures in the movement had already made his point for him .
In 1989 the late Stephen Schneider , Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University and a vociferous global warmist—who twenty years earlier had been warning the world of an advancing ice age—had already advised his droogs : “ So we have to offer scary scenarios , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little mention of any doubts we might have.
” And there is much that is doubtful .
Michael Shellenberger , a longtime climate activist who has now seen the light , has just published Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All , a balanced account of the subject that remains in the temperate zone of argument .
It points to the many “ scary scenarios ” and exaggerations that the eco-activists have foisted on the public : wood fuel is preferable to fossil fuels , the Himalayan glaciers are melting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events are on the rise , industrial agriculture is a disaster , massive crop failures are to be expected , and so on , all leading to the collapse of civilization and the looming extinction of human life .
Actually , the climate is doing fairly well , but you ’ d never know it attending to so alarmist an agenda .
What is going on here ?
The climate industry is brewing perhaps the greatest deception of our times .
An integral part of this deception is the intent to redistribute First-World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edenhofer , the former co-chair of the IPCC ’ s Working Group III , admitted in an interview with Germany ’ s NZZ Online on November 14 , 2010 ( reported in Global Warming Science , March 17 , 2011 ) , that “ We redistribute de facto the world ’ s wealth by climate policy.
” But there is obviously more to it than that .
The climate change scam is a cash cow for research scientists , universities , and climate institutes on the receiving end of lucrative government grants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The global warming scenario is also a gold mine for energy companies , crony capitalists , and financial speculators , a multi-billion dollar boondoggle in which Big Oil has been replaced by Big Green , the major exploiter and benefactor of the pseudo-ecological scheme .
Michael Moore ’ s new documentary Planet of the Humans , as Charles Battig points out in American Thinker , reveals how “ energy corporations gained access to government funding/subsidies for wind turbine and commercial solar power installations , ” despite the fact that the unreliability and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fossil fuel plants will remain the primary energy sources.
” The plot thickens .
Mark Levin ’ s chapter “ On Enviro-Statism ” in his book Liberty and Tyranny provides a compendious summary and critique of the various stages of the global warming hoax and how it functions as an instrument of statist control of civil society .
Like single-payer medicare and auto-industry bailouts , the myth of global warming enables the government to concentrate more and more of a nation ’ s economy into its own hands , leading eventually to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dependent on the whims and dictates of an autocratic managerial class .
The totalitarian mindset is a monstrous thing , and Climatocracy is one of its most arresting contemporary manifestations .
Global warming , said Philip Stott , Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London , “ has become the grand political narrative of the age , replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices.
” Similarly , Glenn Beck in Common Sense warns us about “ what is really going on : leaders who want more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and personal lives…need a vehicle to take them there…climate change is that vehicle.
” What it boils down to , according to Delingpole in Watermelons , is the entwining of “ the ideology of the modern environmental movement and the ideology of the liberal-left , ” both of which are political cartels of a collectivist bent that “ believe in a bigger state ” and lobby for “ more of our decisions to be made on our behalf by politicians [ and ] technocrats.
” Thus the term “ watermelons ” : green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pink ) on the inside .
Perhaps all is not lost .
Michael Walsh writing on this site is gratified to note , if not a sea change , let ’ s say a river change among former climate activists and radical environmentalists who are “ defect [ ing ] to the side of reason ” and “ joining the community of the sensible.
” But it ’ s not an easy slog for so-called “ climate skeptics , ” who are regularly slandered as heretics , as paranoid , as clueless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel like modern-day Quixotes tilting at wind turbines , risking their careers and livelihoods in the process .
They know that the issue is not about science at all .
Apart from the inevitable cohort of useful idiots who see themselves as world-saviors and Gaia lovers , it ’ s all about money and power founded on deceit , persuasion , and threat .
And there we have it—what the global warming ( aka “ climate change ” ) movement , a fit candidate for the dump of history , actually comprises and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incontrovertible .
We are being pummeled into believing that we are facing an existential menace .
In 2009 , then Secretary-General of the UN , Ban Ki-moon , warned that “ We have just four months to secure the future of our planet.
” Now , we ’ re informed that it ’ s 12 years or maybe , according to teenage wunderkind Greta Thunberg , a mere eight years .
The experts at the IPCC give us a decade to change our errant ways—or else !
It could be just 18 months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Duke of Edinburgh has admonished us .
We are constantly on the brink of extinction , it seems .

Written by David Solway on Jul 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In November 2009, the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain* was hacked, releasing thousands of files suggesting a covert mega-operation to propagate an “anthropogenic global warming” myth.
The evidence showed that data was tampered with to paint the wished-for canvas, that counter-evidence was deliberately suppressed, that character assassination against climate skeptics was an accepted tactic and that experimental results were falsely replicated.
A new bundle of “hide the decline” email dumps, known as Climategate 2.0, confirmed that the “climate science” had been cooked and that, in the words of Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute,
“The new cache offers ample confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change… it’s another case of policy-driven science and not science-driven policy.”
Even some of the specialists involved in the enterprise had begun to question or object to the findings as, to quote from the emails, “not statistically significant,” as “truly pathetic,” and as “defending something that increasingly cannot be defended.”
No wonder the lead researcher at the East Anglia CRU, Phil Jones, went so far as to recommend deleting all incriminating emails and/or changing the wording of others (Climate Audit, February 23, 2011).
The Hadley fable was thoroughly debunked by Rael Jean Isaac in Roosters of the Apocalypse, which showed in explicit detail that the ostensibly “scrupulous seekers of scientific fact” were really “hardcore zealots” mining “an ever-richer vein of chicanery.”
In the same year, James Delingpole put out his alphabetary The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism, as devastating as it is amusing, exploding the Hadley as a coven of plotters.
Certain figures in the movement had already made his point for him. In 1989 the late Stephen Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University and a vociferous global warmist—who twenty years earlier had been warning the world of an advancing ice age—had already advised his droogs:
“So we have to offer scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
And there is much that is doubtful. Michael Shellenberger, a longtime climate activist who has now seen the light, has just published Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, a balanced account of the subject that remains in the temperate zone of argument.
It points to the many “scary scenarios” and exaggerations that the eco-activists have foisted on the public: wood fuel is preferable to fossil fuels, the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the oceans are dying, extreme weather events are on the rise, industrial agriculture is a disaster, massive crop failures are to be expected, and so on, all leading to the collapse of civilization and the looming extinction of human life.
Actually, the climate is doing fairly well, but you’d never know it attending to so alarmist an agenda.
What is going on here? The climate industry is brewing perhaps the greatest deception of our times.
An integral part of this deception is the intent to redistribute First-World wealth to so-called developing countries. Ottmar Edenhofer, the former co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, admitted in an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online on November 14, 2010 (reported in Global Warming Science, March 17, 2011), that “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
But there is obviously more to it than that. The climate change scam is a cash cow for research scientists, universities, and climate institutes on the receiving end of lucrative government grants, which they have no intention of relinquishing.
The global warming scenario is also a gold mine for energy companies, crony capitalists, and financial speculators, a multi-billion dollar boondoggle in which Big Oil has been replaced by Big Green, the major exploiter and benefactor of the pseudo-ecological scheme.
Michael Moore’s new documentary Planet of the Humans, as Charles Battig points out in American Thinker, reveals how “energy corporations gained access to government funding/subsidies for wind turbine and commercial solar power installations,” despite the fact that the unreliability and intermittence of such energy substitutes ensure that “fossil fuel plants will remain the primary energy sources.”
The plot thickens. Mark Levin’s chapter “On Enviro-Statism” in his book Liberty and Tyranny provides a compendious summary and critique of the various stages of the global warming hoax and how it functions as an instrument of statist control of civil society.
Like single-payer medicare and auto-industry bailouts, the myth of global warming enables the government to concentrate more and more of a nation’s economy into its own hands, leading eventually to a top-down socialist dispensation and a citizenry dependent on the whims and dictates of an autocratic managerial class.
The totalitarian mindset is a monstrous thing, and Climatocracy is one of its most arresting contemporary manifestations.
Global warming, said Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, “has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices.”
Similarly, Glenn Beck in Common Sense warns us about “what is really going on: leaders who want more government control over our businesses, economy and personal lives…need a vehicle to take them there…climate change is that vehicle.”
What it boils down to, according to Delingpole in Watermelons, is the entwining of “the ideology of the modern environmental movement and the ideology of the liberal-left,” both of which are political cartels of a collectivist bent that “believe in a bigger state” and lobby for “more of our decisions to be made on our behalf by politicians [and] technocrats.”
Thus the term “watermelons”: green on the outside, red (or pink) on the inside.
Perhaps all is not lost. Michael Walsh writing on this site is gratified to note, if not a sea change, let’s say a river change among former climate activists and radical environmentalists who are “defect[ing] to the side of reason” and “joining the community of the sensible.”
But it’s not an easy slog for so-called “climate skeptics,” who are regularly slandered as heretics, as paranoid, as clueless, and so on.
They must often feel like modern-day Quixotes tilting at wind turbines, risking their careers and livelihoods in the process. They know that the issue is not about science at all.
Apart from the inevitable cohort of useful idiots who see themselves as world-saviors and Gaia lovers, it’s all about money and power founded on deceit, persuasion, and threat.
And there we have it—what the global warming (aka “climate change”) movement, a fit candidate for the dump of history, actually comprises and intends. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
We are being pummeled into believing that we are facing an existential menace. In 2009, then Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, warned that “We have just four months to secure the future of our planet.”
Now, we’re informed that it’s 12 years or maybe, according to teenage wunderkind Greta Thunberg, a mere eight years.
The experts at the IPCC give us a decade to change our errant ways—or else! It could be just 18 months, as that renowned climatologist Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has admonished us. We are constantly on the brink of extinction, it seems.
Don’t fall for it.
Read rest at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-10--Court Tells Green-Energy Prof To Pay $600K After Dropping His Own Case

Written by Mark Jacobson on .
Posted in Latest news A Stanford professor who sued a critic and a scientific journal for $ 10 million — then dropped the suit — has been ordered to pay the defendants ’ legal fees based on a statute “ designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights.
” Mark Jacobson , who studies renewable energy at Stanford , sued in September 2017 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for defamation over a 2017 paper in the Proceedings of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that critiqued a 2015 article he had written in the same journal .
He sued PNAS and the first author of the paper , Christopher Clack , an executive at a firm that analyzes renewable energy .
At the time , Kenneth White , a lawyer at Southern California firm Brown White & Osborn who frequently blogs at Popehat about legal issues related to free speech , said of the suit : In February 2018 , following a hearing at which PNAS argued for the case to be dismissed , Jacobson dropped the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was expecting them to settle.
” The defendants then filed , based on the anti-SLAPP — for “ Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ” — statute in Washington , DC , for Jacobson to pay their legal fees .
In April of this year , as noted then by Forbes , District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo , who has been presiding over the case , ruled that Jacobson would have to pay those fees .
In that ruling , Wingo wrote that the Court Jacobson appealed that decision , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 order .
Jacobson could be on the hook for more than $ 600,000 , the total of what the plaintiffs have told the court were their legal costs — $ 535,900 for PNAS , and $ 75,000 for Clack .
Paul Thaler of Cohen Seglias , which has been representing Jacobson , noted in comments to Retraction Watch that the judge had not yet ruled on how much Jacobson should pay : The Court must now determine the level of attorneys ’ fees to charge , which ranges from $ 0 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NAS attorneys ( see legal fee requests and replies for arguments in both directions ) .
Once that is done , Prof. Jacobson will decide whether to appeal the questions of whether the publication of false facts with provable “ yes/no ” answers ( such as the false claim that a table has maximum values when it factually has average values ) are indeed questions of fact or of scientific disagreement and whether legal fees are allowed in a case of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice .
Despite dropping the suit , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to insist in comments to Retraction Watch that there were false claims in the Clack et al paper : This case has always been about three false factual claims , including two of modeling “ errors ” or “ bugs , ” claimed by Dr. Clack and published by NAS that damaged the reputations of myself and my coauthors .
What has come out is that the Clack attorney has now admitted in a Court document that Dr. Clack now makes no claim of a “ bug in the source code ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rampant claim throughout his paper that we made “ modeling errors.
” Dr. Clack has also admitted in writing that our paper includes Canadian hydropower , yet neither he nor NAS has corrected this admitted error in the Clack Paper .
Third , all evidence points to the fact that Table 1 of our paper contains average , not maximum values , indicating that Dr. Clack ’ s claim regarding modeling error on this issues is factually wrong as well .
Thus , it is more clear than ever that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Authors were indeed false facts and not questions of scientific disagreement .
I regret that it was impossible to have these errors corrected upon our first request rather than having to go through this drawn-out process to restore the reputations of myself and my coauthors .
Clack told Retraction Watch that Jacobson ’ s comments were not an accurate reflection of the paper he and his colleagues published .
( For Clack ’ s responses to each of Jacobson ’ s claims , see this PDF ; for our attempts to fact-check Jacobson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , see this PDF . )
Jacobson sued myself and PNAS for publishing a critique of his work that he didn ’ t like .
He chose not to sue the entire author team , but rather only myself .
To get published in PNAS , we had passed peer reviewed , and editorial reviews ; one reason it took so long to publish .
There was a lot of information in our paper and there were many , many problems ( a lot were contained in the [ supplemental information ] ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked on the paper , checked the working and agreed on its content and conclusions .
Jacobson had an opportunity to respond concurrently with the release of our paper .
We just noted the content of his ( and coauthors ’ ) PNAS paper and showed that there were assumption issues , errors , mistakes and wrong conclusions drawn from them .
Science “ should be a platform that all ideas should be critiqued and examined , ” Clack told Retraction Watch : That is why it is a slow methodical process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable for errors or mistakes .
Humans are imperfect , and so mistakes will happen , it is the job of science to correct and build from them .
If there are critiques people should publish them because in the end it will only slow human progress if they do not .
It should be the institutions job to protect those that publish such critiques ( which most universities do ) .
Clack called on Stanford and other universities to pay attention to what their faculty are doing in the courts : However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area that Universities ( such as Stanford ) should look into more .
They should scrutinize whether academics are weaponizing legal avenues to hold back contrary science to their own work .
Everyone has the right to pursue legal claims , but there should be a process set up as university employees that if they pursue it around academic literature or work , they have to get approval from the governing body at that university .
Otherwise , there could be academics or others who use legal threats to halt publication of works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on page seven of her June 25 order , Wingo called one of Jacobson ’ s motions — filed at nearly twice the page limit the court allowed — a “ particularly egregious ” violation .

Written by Mark Jacobson on Jul 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A Stanford professor who sued a critic and a scientific journal for $10 million — then dropped the suit — has been ordered to pay the defendants’ legal fees based on a statute “designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
Mark Jacobson, who studies renewable energy at Stanford, sued in September 2017 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for defamation over a 2017 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that critiqued a 2015 article he had written in the same journal.
He sued PNAS and the first author of the paper, Christopher Clack, an executive at a firm that analyzes renewable energy.
At the time, Kenneth White, a lawyer at Southern California firm Brown White & Osborn who frequently blogs at Popehat about legal issues related to free speech, said of the suit:
It’s not incompetently drafted, but it’s clearly vexatious and intended to silence dissent about an alleged scientist’s peer-reviewed article.
In February 2018, following a hearing at which PNAS argued for the case to be dismissed, Jacobson dropped the suit, telling us that he “was expecting them to settle.”
The defendants then filed, based on the anti-SLAPP — for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” — statute in Washington, DC, for Jacobson to pay their legal fees.
In April of this year, as noted then by Forbes, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo, who has been presiding over the case, ruled that Jacobson would have to pay those fees. In that ruling, Wingo wrote that the Court
finds that the three asserted “egregious errors” are statements reflecting scientific disagreements, which were appropriately explored and challenged in scientific publications; they simply do not attack Dr. Jacobson’s honesty or accuse him of misconduct.
Jacobson appealed that decision, but Wingo upheld it in a June 25 order.
Jacobson could be on the hook for more than $600,000, the total of what the plaintiffs have told the court were their legal costs — $535,900 for PNAS, and $75,000 for Clack.
Paul Thaler of Cohen Seglias, which has been representing Jacobson, noted in comments to Retraction Watch that the judge had not yet ruled on how much Jacobson should pay:
The Court must now determine the level of attorneys’ fees to charge, which ranges from $0 to the amounts requested by the Clack and NAS attorneys (see legal fee requests and replies for arguments in both directions). Once that is done, Prof. Jacobson will decide whether to appeal the questions of whether the publication of false facts with provable “yes/no” answers (such as the false claim that a table has maximum values when it factually has average values) are indeed questions of fact or of scientific disagreement and whether legal fees are allowed in a case of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
Despite dropping the suit, and the judge’s ruling, Jacobson continues to insist in comments to Retraction Watch that there were false claims in the Clack et al paper:
This case has always been about three false factual claims, including two of modeling “errors” or “bugs,” claimed by Dr. Clack and published by NAS that damaged the reputations of myself and my coauthors. What has come out is that the Clack attorney has now admitted in a Court document that Dr. Clack now makes no claim of a “bug in the source code” of our model, despite Dr. Clack’s rampant claim throughout his paper that we made “modeling errors.” Dr. Clack has also admitted in writing that our paper includes Canadian hydropower, yet neither he nor NAS has corrected this admitted error in the Clack Paper. Third, all evidence points to the fact that Table 1 of our paper contains average, not maximum values, indicating that Dr. Clack’s claim regarding modeling error on this issues is factually wrong as well. Thus, it is more clear than ever that the three false facts published by the Clack Authors were indeed false facts and not questions of scientific disagreement. I regret that it was impossible to have these errors corrected upon our first request rather than having to go through this drawn-out process to restore the reputations of myself and my coauthors.
Clack told Retraction Watch that Jacobson’s comments were not an accurate reflection of the paper he and his colleagues published. (For Clack’s responses to each of Jacobson’s claims, see this PDF; for our attempts to fact-check Jacobson’s claims by asking for evidence, see this PDF.)
Clark said:
We have had to repeatedly defend against this individual who is unhappy that his responses to critique were not well received and many scientists and the public did not consider his responses adequate to explain the errors and implausible assumptions in his original PNAS paper.
Clack also said:
Jacobson sued myself and PNAS for publishing a critique of his work that he didn’t like. He chose not to sue the entire author team, but rather only myself. To get published in PNAS, we had passed peer reviewed, and editorial reviews; one reason it took so long to publish. There was a lot of information in our paper and there were many, many problems (a lot were contained in the [supplemental information]). We had 21 authors who all worked on the paper, checked the working and agreed on its content and conclusions. Jacobson had an opportunity to respond concurrently with the release of our paper. We just noted the content of his (and coauthors’) PNAS paper and showed that there were assumption issues, errors, mistakes and wrong conclusions drawn from them.
Science “should be a platform that all ideas should be critiqued and examined,” Clack told Retraction Watch:
That is why it is a slow methodical process. No one should be above being held accountable for errors or mistakes. Humans are imperfect, and so mistakes will happen, it is the job of science to correct and build from them. If there are critiques people should publish them because in the end it will only slow human progress if they do not. It should be the institutions job to protect those that publish such critiques (which most universities do).
Clack called on Stanford and other universities to pay attention to what their faculty are doing in the courts:
However, further, it should be an area that Universities (such as Stanford) should look into more. They should scrutinize whether academics are weaponizing legal avenues to hold back contrary science to their own work. Everyone has the right to pursue legal claims, but there should be a process set up as university employees that if they pursue it around academic literature or work, they have to get approval from the governing body at that university. Otherwise, there could be academics or others who use legal threats to halt publication of works that might contradict their own.
For me personally, I had no institution to defend me, and I am very honored and proud that Dentons (my lawyers) agreed to help me with my defense, because Jacobson’s filings were substantial in word count.
Indeed, on page seven of her June 25 order, Wingo called one of Jacobson’s motions — filed at nearly twice the page limit the court allowed — a “particularly egregious” violation.
Read more at Retraction Watch
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-13--House ‘Climate Plan’ Is Just Another Progressive Wish List

Written by Rich Trzupek on .
Posted in Latest news One would reasonably expect that a report entitled “ Solving the Climate Crisis , ” issued last month by the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis , would focus on ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that committee members believe endanger life as we know it .
The report does contain some discussion about ways to lower those emissions , but its also a blueprint for remaking America socially , economically , and politically in accordance with the progressive wish list .
The report subtitle makes it clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more than manipulating the temperature of planet Earth : “ The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy , Resilient and Just America.
” Turns out that the “ climate crisis ” is not just about the climate , but is also the root cause of just about everything that is wrong or will go wrong in America .
This being the case , one can justify just about any action , in any sector of society , so long as it ’ s framed in such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another weapon with which to battle “ climate change.
” The result is a plan that calls for a massive expansion of federal power and programs in virtually every sector of the economy , with trillions of dollars worth of goodies to pass around to favored beneficiaries .
But not to worry , every dollar spent is really an investment sure to return profits a hundredfold thanks to the cutting edge new programs to be implemented under the wise direction of that most skillful of money managers : the United States Government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like city planning and zoning .
The climate crisis demands federal intervention to ensure that cities are designed with “ ..safe and convenient access to services , including health care facilities , childcare , education , and workforce training , affordable housing , food sources , banking and financial institutions , and other retail shopping establishments.
” ( Page 107 ) .
The Department of Transportation will take care of that , thank you very much , once Congress has expanded the DOT ’ s budget commensurate with its new responsibilities .
Presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete streets , ” defined as a new roadway standard that will require consideration of “ …all potential users , including pedestrians , bicyclists , public transit riders , children , older individuals , individuals with disabilities , motorists , and freight vehicles.
” ( Page 108 ) .
Federal aid will be made available , but only to recipients “ meeting strong labor standards ” that pays due homage to other progressive causes .
Most people agree that the nation ’ s transportation infrastructure is in need of attention .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it is aging , nearing the end of its useful life .
Thus , repairs and replacement are required .
Silly us .
Turns out that infrastructure improvements are necessary because the consequences of climate change are going to put the transportation system in grave danger .
( Page 114 ) .
Who knew ?
The committee is very concerned about methane emissions , or at least that portion of methane emissions that originate from the oil and natural gas industries .
( Page 200 ) .
According to the EPA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methane emissions from oil , natural gas , and petrochemical sources account for about 0.1 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas inventory .
This is the opposite of low-hanging fruit , in other words — unless one ’ s objective is to continue to demonize the fossil fuel industry .
Fortunately , the Committee assures us that the multi-billion dollar programs it wants to impose on the energy sector will more than pay for themselves .
Odd that not one of the financially astute energy giants figured out the terrific return on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and avoiding low-grade leaks .
New pipelines ?
Not likely to see many , if the Committee has its way .
They want to be sure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission thoroughly considers the “ climate crisis ” before approving new pipelines .
( Page 204 ) .
Apparently upset with FERC ’ s unwillingness or inability to block multiple high profile pipeline projects in recent years , they want to hold the commission ’ s feet to the fire in the future .
Then we have a rather troubling section entitled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Build a Fairer Economy ” .
( Page 288 ) .
Among other pronouncements , we are told that : “ One of the best ways to ensure that a resilient , clean energy economy is a fair economy is to strengthen workers ’ right to organize a union and negotiate higher wages and better benefits.
” There ’ s a fair bit of poorly-disguised socialism that leaks through in this section .
I ’ ll spare readers the tedium of going through it all , but can not help but observe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States since broken economies use far less energy than healthy ones .
Many in the industry , including this author , believe that the concept of “ Environmental Justice ” is a wrong-headed , bleeding-heart concept that leads to economic injustice in many poor communities that would otherwise be attractive to new project developers .
Well , it turns out that addressing environmental injustice is part of the climate crisis too .
( Page 300 ) .
So is expanding government-funded healthcare .
( Page 313 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organic farming .
( Page 347 ) .
So is government interference in the use and fate of private property .
( Pages 348 , 367 , 369 , et al ) .
Serious and fair scientists studying climate change , no matter where one falls on the spectrum of opinions regarding its severity , causes , and importance , know that there has been no increase in severe weather events over the past twenty-plus years .
The statistic the alarmists cling to when trying to make the contrary argument regards the increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the years .
The increase in costs is primarily a function of 1 ) increased population density in urban areas where extreme events sometimes strike , and 2 ) the natural effects of inflation .
Normalize those two factors and it ’ s clear that we have had a lull in extreme weather for a very long time now .
This does not prevent the Committee from creating long and tedious sections that speak to building the “ climate resilience ” necessary to survive in a world beset by meteorological disaster after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one expect from a document that has little to do with addressing a perceived problem , and almost everything to do with perpetuating a leftist agenda in the run-up to the election ?
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Rich Trzupek on Jul 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
One would reasonably expect that a report entitled “Solving the Climate Crisis,” issued last month by the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, would focus on ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that committee members believe endanger life as we know it.
The report does contain some discussion about ways to lower those emissions, but its also a blueprint for remaking America socially, economically, and politically in accordance with the progressive wish list.
The report subtitle makes it clear that the Committee is interested in a lot more than manipulating the temperature of planet Earth: “The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient and Just America.”
Turns out that the “climate crisis” is not just about the climate, but is also the root cause of just about everything that is wrong or will go wrong in America.
This being the case, one can justify just about any action, in any sector of society, so long as it’s framed in such a way so as to appear to be another weapon with which to battle “climate change.”
The result is a plan that calls for a massive expansion of federal power and programs in virtually every sector of the economy, with trillions of dollars worth of goodies to pass around to favored beneficiaries.
But not to worry, every dollar spent is really an investment sure to return profits a hundredfold thanks to the cutting edge new programs to be implemented under the wise direction of that most skillful of money managers: the United States Government.
Consider, for example, antiquated concepts like city planning and zoning.
The climate crisis demands federal intervention to ensure that cities are designed with “..safe and convenient access to services, including health care facilities, childcare, education, and workforce training, affordable housing, food sources, banking and financial institutions, and other retail shopping establishments.” (Page 107).
The Department of Transportation will take care of that, thank you very much, once Congress has expanded the DOT’s budget commensurate with its new responsibilities.
Presumably, these redesigned cities will include “complete streets,” defined as a new roadway standard that will require consideration of “…all potential users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit riders, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles.” (Page 108).
Federal aid will be made available, but only to recipients “meeting strong labor standards” that pays due homage to other progressive causes.
Most people agree that the nation’s transportation infrastructure is in need of attention. Many of us thought that was because a lot of it is aging, nearing the end of its useful life.
Thus, repairs and replacement are required. Silly us. Turns out that infrastructure improvements are necessary because the consequences of climate change are going to put the transportation system in grave danger. (Page 114). Who knew?
The committee is very concerned about methane emissions, or at least that portion of methane emissions that originate from the oil and natural gas industries. (Page 200).
According to the EPA’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, methane emissions from oil, natural gas, and petrochemical sources account for about 0.1 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas inventory.
This is the opposite of low-hanging fruit, in other words — unless one’s objective is to continue to demonize the fossil fuel industry. Fortunately, the Committee assures us that the multi-billion dollar programs it wants to impose on the energy sector will more than pay for themselves.
Odd that not one of the financially astute energy giants figured out the terrific return on investment associated with finding, fixing, and avoiding low-grade leaks.
New pipelines? Not likely to see many, if the Committee has its way. They want to be sure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission thoroughly considers the “climate crisis” before approving new pipelines. (Page 204).
Apparently upset with FERC’s unwillingness or inability to block multiple high profile pipeline projects in recent years, they want to hold the commission’s feet to the fire in the future.
Then we have a rather troubling section entitled “Invest in America’s Workers and Build a Fairer Economy”. (Page 288).
Among other pronouncements, we are told that: “One of the best ways to ensure that a resilient, clean energy economy is a fair economy is to strengthen workers’ right to organize a union and negotiate higher wages and better benefits.”
There’s a fair bit of poorly-disguised socialism that leaks through in this section.
I’ll spare readers the tedium of going through it all, but cannot help but observe that moving to socialism would indeed drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States since broken economies use far less energy than healthy ones.
Many in the industry, including this author, believe that the concept of “Environmental Justice” is a wrong-headed, bleeding-heart concept that leads to economic injustice in many poor communities that would otherwise be attractive to new project developers.
Well, it turns out that addressing environmental injustice is part of the climate crisis too. (Page 300). So is expanding government-funded healthcare. (Page 313). So is government support of organic farming. (Page 347). So is government interference in the use and fate of private property. (Pages 348, 367, 369, et al ).
Serious and fair scientists studying climate change, no matter where one falls on the spectrum of opinions regarding its severity, causes, and importance, know that there has been no increase in severe weather events over the past twenty-plus years.
The statistic the alarmists cling to when trying to make the contrary argument regards the increase in the aggregate cost of such events over the years.
The increase in costs is primarily a function of 1) increased population density in urban areas where extreme events sometimes strike, and 2) the natural effects of inflation. Normalize those two factors and it’s clear that we have had a lull in extreme weather for a very long time now.
This does not prevent the Committee from creating long and tedious sections that speak to building the “climate resilience” necessary to survive in a world beset by meteorological disaster after disaster.
But then what else would one expect from a document that has little to do with addressing a perceived problem, and almost everything to do with perpetuating a leftist agenda in the run-up to the election?
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print