climatechangedispatch--2020-08-10--How Media Enables Climate Alarmism To Flourish

Written by Peter Murphy on .
Posted in Latest news I have been a news junkie since high school .
Media bias favoring left-of-center public policies and politicians is nothing new , yet this 40-year-plus reality never gets shopworn .
The flagrancy of skewed news coverage to favor one political agenda and oppose another is worse than ever and still surprises .
There is no shortage of examples of media slant and mendacity , including coronavirus reporting , downplaying the riots in American cities , and peddling the bogus Russia collusion narrative .
The climate change issue is another glaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most media coverage portrays the subject as a singular truth , that is , human exhaling and industry are causing the planet to warm to an imminent doomsday .
Typically , no other evidence or viewpoints are acknowledged , much less given credence .
The prevailing media treatment of climate change and other issues exhibits a combination of myopia , laziness , dishonesty , and censorship , which CFACT itself has been a recipient .
It has gotten so bad , two major media outlets recently were exposed by very public resignations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among this journalistic dereliction is NBC ’ s Chuck Todd , a wind-up doll for climate credulity and a former congressional aide .
Todd announced he would give no airtime to skeptics of the prevailing mantra of man-made global warming .
No counterpoint allowed is standard for “ mainstream ” climate reporting .
Time magazine , another substantial media outlet , has long obsessed about the “ Endangered Earth , ” as far back as the late 1980s .
By then , global warming had replaced the coming-ice-age mantra from the 1970s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Year ” was replaced for 1988 as “ Planet of the Year.
” Time has been beating the same drum in the 30-plus years since , even as Earth ’ s environment improved , global poverty declined , and U.S. carbon emissions more recently dropped .
No matter , its 2019 “ Person of the Year ” was the indefatigable and exploited , Greta Thunberg .
Media myopia toward climate change issues is so widespread , some younger reporters themselves may not realize it having grown up in the “ Captain Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cartoon began the brainwashing process .
Journalists have long practiced as stenographers for celebrities and politicians who make absurd catastrophic climate assertions .
Reporters surely know how pervasive is lying in politics , yet so many accept climate sound-bites without scrutiny .
Has any reporter ever questioned the many preposterous claims by Sen. Bernie Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ?
Has either been asked how cooling the planet by one degree in 30 years would stop icebergs from melting in summer , or how wind and solar can “ replace ” fossil fuels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The list goes on .
Now and then there are modest exceptions , as when Fox News ’ host Chris Wallace interviewed Al Gore in 2017 and pushed back some .
Yet , even in that instance , Wallace let pass several ludicrous claims by Gore , including supposed rising sea level from global warming that allegedly resulted in ocean fish on Miami streets .
Part of the problem is that while climate change ideology is now unchallenged dogma among Democratic politicians , few Republicans are willing to go on the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the multi-trillion-dollar price tag of the Green New Deal .
For such Republicans , the calculation is to avoid controversy , rather than offer perspective on–much less rebut–the underlying assumptions of the climate agenda .
Commonplace in climate reporting is when a new global warming “ study ” is released with some outlandish prediction in 12 to 80 years that is accepted at face value by reporters .
Regardless of political leanings or personal bias , every journalist should be a skeptic and report both sides since there are numerous scientists on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last spring , for example , the journal Nature Climate Change published a whimsical study that claimed half the world ’ s beaches would disappear by the year 2100 due to climate change .
Every media outlet I found that reported on the study parroted its findings , with nary a perfunctory critic to round out the story .
More impactful media negligence has been its reporting on findings of the International Panel on Climate Change .
Michael Shellenberger , in his new book , Apocalypse Never , documents how this sensationalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual IPCC research .
The cumulative effect of years of robotic reporting on man-made global warming trope has contributed to the growth and political power of the climate change industry .
If not countered , it will further lead to a misinformed public , and gullible politicians imposing more destructive and wasteful climate policies on the populace in America and worldwide .

Written by Peter Murphy on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
I have been a news junkie since high school. Media bias favoring left-of-center public policies and politicians is nothing new, yet this 40-year-plus reality never gets shopworn.
The flagrancy of skewed news coverage to favor one political agenda and oppose another is worse than ever and still surprises.
There is no shortage of examples of media slant and mendacity, including coronavirus reporting, downplaying the riots in American cities, and peddling the bogus Russia collusion narrative.
The climate change issue is another glaring example that goes beyond mere bias. Most media coverage portrays the subject as a singular truth, that is, human exhaling and industry are causing the planet to warm to an imminent doomsday.
Typically, no other evidence or viewpoints are acknowledged, much less given credence.
The prevailing media treatment of climate change and other issues exhibits a combination of myopia, laziness, dishonesty, and censorship, which CFACT itself has been a recipient.
It has gotten so bad, two major media outlets recently were exposed by very public resignations and several newsrooms displayed infantile wokeness.
Chief among this journalistic dereliction is NBC’s Chuck Todd, a wind-up doll for climate credulity and a former congressional aide.
Todd announced he would give no airtime to skeptics of the prevailing mantra of man-made global warming. No counterpoint allowed is standard for “mainstream” climate reporting.
Time magazine, another substantial media outlet, has long obsessed about the “Endangered Earth,” as far back as the late 1980s.
By then, global warming had replaced the coming-ice-age mantra from the 1970s. Time’s annual “Person of the Year” was replaced for 1988 as “Planet of the Year.”
Time has been beating the same drum in the 30-plus years since, even as Earth’s environment improved, global poverty declined, and U.S. carbon emissions more recently dropped. No matter, its 2019 “Person of the Year” was the indefatigable and exploited, Greta Thunberg.
Media myopia toward climate change issues is so widespread, some younger reporters themselves may not realize it having grown up in the “Captain Planet” generation when Ted Turner’s cartoon began the brainwashing process.
Journalists have long practiced as stenographers for celebrities and politicians who make absurd catastrophic climate assertions. Reporters surely know how pervasive is lying in politics, yet so many accept climate sound-bites without scrutiny.
Has any reporter ever questioned the many preposterous claims by Sen. Bernie Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Has either been asked how cooling the planet by one degree in 30 years would stop icebergs from melting in summer, or how wind and solar can “replace” fossil fuels when they rely on them so extensively? The list goes on.
Now and then there are modest exceptions, as when Fox News’ host Chris Wallace interviewed Al Gore in 2017 and pushed back some. Yet, even in that instance, Wallace let pass several ludicrous claims by Gore, including supposed rising sea level from global warming that allegedly resulted in ocean fish on Miami streets.
Part of the problem is that while climate change ideology is now unchallenged dogma among Democratic politicians, few Republicans are willing to go on the record with reporters to counter them beyond complaining about the multi-trillion-dollar price tag of the Green New Deal.
For such Republicans, the calculation is to avoid controversy, rather than offer perspective on–much less rebut–the underlying assumptions of the climate agenda.
Commonplace in climate reporting is when a new global warming “study” is released with some outlandish prediction in 12 to 80 years that is accepted at face value by reporters.
Regardless of political leanings or personal bias, every journalist should be a skeptic and report both sides since there are numerous scientists on either side of the climate change issue.
Last spring, for example, the journal Nature Climate Change published a whimsical study that claimed half the world’s beaches would disappear by the year 2100 due to climate change. Every media outlet I found that reported on the study parroted its findings, with nary a perfunctory critic to round out the story.
More impactful media negligence has been its reporting on findings of the International Panel on Climate Change. Michael Shellenberger, in his new book, Apocalypse Never, documents how this sensationalist reporting is regularly at variance with the actual IPCC research.
The cumulative effect of years of robotic reporting on man-made global warming trope has contributed to the growth and political power of the climate change industry.
If not countered, it will further lead to a misinformed public, and gullible politicians imposing more destructive and wasteful climate policies on the populace in America and worldwide.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-12--The Future Of N. American Energy Hinges On The U.S. Election

Written by National Post & Derek H. Burney on .
Posted in Latest news One issue on which the two American presidential candidates are sharply divided is the nexus between the environment and energy development .
While it may not be the determining factor in an election that ’ s shaping up primarily to be a referendum on President Donald Trump , the consequences of either candidate ’ s policy stance will have an impact on Canada .
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is going all-in on climate change with promises to eliminate carbon from the electricity supply by 2035 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later than 2050 .
He will have the United States rejoin the Paris Accord while urging countries like China to accept more ambitious pledges .
Biden will reinstate and strengthen most of former President Barack Obama ’ s environmental regulations , many of which Trump has systematically dismantled .
Stopping short of a complete ban on fracking — which could jeopardize his prospects in key energy states like Pennsylvania , Texas and Ohio — Biden is planning to block new permits for fracking on federal lands and waters .
He would check new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner .
These are just the highlights of his all-encompassing green platform .
While a few oil and gas industry executives see some room for common ground in Biden ’ s platform , most reject its key elements as unrealistic and unachievable .
To date , fossil fuel interests have donated seven times as much to the Trump campaign as they have to Biden ’ s .
The Democratic candidate receives heavy funding from Hollywood celebrities and climate change advocates like Michael Bloomberg , George Soros , and Tom Steyer .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is essentially the polar opposite of Biden ’ s .
By nurturing the industry with deregulation and pipeline permits , Trump has transformed the U.S. into a global oil and gas powerhouse and a significant energy exporter .
He dismisses the Paris Accord as unbalanced and punitive to U.S. economic interests .
Although pipeline expansions such as Dakota Access and Keystone XL were approved , they have been stymied by court injunctions .
U.S. energy development is also a key element of Trump ’ s foreign policy .
He helped broker a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their vicious price war , thereby stabilizing the price of oil at around US $ 40 per barrel .
U.S. sanctions against Iran reduced that country ’ s production by two million barrels per day , enabling U.S. shale oil to capture a more significant share of the export market at the expense of the OPEC cartel .
( Iran ’ s exports are now about 250,000 barrels per day . )
The tilt to Saudi Arabia and the hard-line on Iran risks being reversed should Biden adopt more of an Obama-era approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries , as he is expected to do .
Trump can draw some strength from a growing tide of resistance , especially in rural areas , to green projects such as wind farms and solar spreads covering many square kilometers in pristine rural communities .
The backlash is powerful and spans the political and economic spectrum , including professionals , environmentalists , farmers , and concerned parents .
According to Vince Bielski , writing for Real Clear Investigations , “ The resistance encountered by renewables in three states — New York , California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and breadth of obstacles clouding dreams of a carbon-free future.
” A key problem is that , while many governors have lofty targets , such as New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s call for renewables to meet 70 percent of his state ’ s energy needs by 2030 , working out the details often falls to rural counties with little or no experience managing or regulating complex industrial projects .
California ’ s extensive plans for solar development ran into a problem that has long thwarted fossil fuel development — threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labeled as “ California ’ s Cuisinarts , ” due to the damage they cause to birds .
Climate change and green technologies are often favored in urban areas , but for those who bear the burden of implementation , the benefits are not substantial .
Many city dwellers will endorse the notion of a carbon-free economy until they are asked to pay or make a sacrifice for it , which is why “ make the polluters pay ” takes on easy resonance .
The pandemic has already wreaked havoc in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their resuscitation as critical to economic recovery .
Others see green initiatives as essential to the environment and as an economic replacement for fossil fuels .
As the Trudeau government has learned , it is difficult to imagine a rational balance emerging from these two sharply divergent solitudes .
Some industry leaders accept the goal of zero carbon emissions by 2050 and are investing heavily in technologies that will get them there .
Yet ardent environmentalists have zero tolerance for fossil fuels or pipelines .
They hold their spears close to their chests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is certain is that , for the Trudeau government , which deems climate change as the priority issue of our time , a Biden victory would be a boon .
However , for many Western Canadians who rely on a healthy oil and gas sector , a Trump victory would be cause for celebration .
Campaign promises are one thing .
Implementation is quite another .
Even if Biden wins and the Democrats capture both the Senate and the House in the election , there is no guarantee the president will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Obama himself learned during the first two years of his presidency when he had majorities in Congress but had little success with legislation .
An industry that has already invested tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas projects will not simply roll over quietly .
There will inevitably be court challenges and other delay tactics , especially in states where energy expansion is a significant element of the economy .
Although it has received scant publicity , American gross domestic product plunged 32.9 percent in the second quarter of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost 18 million Americans are still unemployed .
That is why the uppermost concern in the election will most certainly be the prospects for the U.S. economy .
The relevance of the opposing positions on energy and the environment hinges on the choice between the significant contribution of oil and gas to the economy now , and the hope that renewables will become a credible replacement in the future .
In the short term , it would be prudent for Americans ( and Canadians ) to opt for what they already know provides @ @ @ @ @

Written by National Post & Derek H. Burney on Aug 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
One issue on which the two American presidential candidates are sharply divided is the nexus between the environment and energy development.
While it may not be the determining factor in an election that’s shaping up primarily to be a referendum on President Donald Trump, the consequences of either candidate’s policy stance will have an impact on Canada.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is going all-in on climate change with promises to eliminate carbon from the electricity supply by 2035 and for net-zero carbon emissions economy-wide no later than 2050.
He will have the United States rejoin the Paris Accord while urging countries like China to accept more ambitious pledges.
Biden will reinstate and strengthen most of former President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations, many of which Trump has systematically dismantled.
Stopping short of a complete ban on fracking — which could jeopardize his prospects in key energy states like Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio — Biden is planning to block new permits for fracking on federal lands and waters. He would check new oil and gas developments in a similar manner.
These are just the highlights of his all-encompassing green platform.
While a few oil and gas industry executives see some room for common ground in Biden’s platform, most reject its key elements as unrealistic and unachievable.
To date, fossil fuel interests have donated seven times as much to the Trump campaign as they have to Biden’s.
The Democratic candidate receives heavy funding from Hollywood celebrities and climate change advocates like Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer.
Trump’s position on energy and the environment is essentially the polar opposite of Biden’s.
By nurturing the industry with deregulation and pipeline permits, Trump has transformed the U.S. into a global oil and gas powerhouse and a significant energy exporter.
He dismisses the Paris Accord as unbalanced and punitive to U.S. economic interests. Although pipeline expansions such as Dakota Access and Keystone XL were approved, they have been stymied by court injunctions.
U.S. energy development is also a key element of Trump’s foreign policy. He helped broker a deal between Saudi Arabia and Russia to end their vicious price war, thereby stabilizing the price of oil at around US$40 per barrel.
U.S. sanctions against Iran reduced that country’s production by two million barrels per day, enabling U.S. shale oil to capture a more significant share of the export market at the expense of the OPEC cartel. (Iran’s exports are now about 250,000 barrels per day.)
The tilt to Saudi Arabia and the hard-line on Iran risks being reversed should Biden adopt more of an Obama-era approach to America’s relations with both countries, as he is expected to do.
Trump can draw some strength from a growing tide of resistance, especially in rural areas, to green projects such as wind farms and solar spreads covering many square kilometers in pristine rural communities.
The backlash is powerful and spans the political and economic spectrum, including professionals, environmentalists, farmers, and concerned parents.
According to Vince Bielski, writing for Real Clear Investigations, “The resistance encountered by renewables in three states — New York, California, and Michigan — illustrates the depth and breadth of obstacles clouding dreams of a carbon-free future.”
A key problem is that, while many governors have lofty targets, such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s call for renewables to meet 70 percent of his state’s energy needs by 2030, working out the details often falls to rural counties with little or no experience managing or regulating complex industrial projects.
California’s extensive plans for solar development ran into a problem that has long thwarted fossil fuel development — threats to wildlife. Wind farms have been labeled as “California’s Cuisinarts,” due to the damage they cause to birds.
Climate change and green technologies are often favored in urban areas, but for those who bear the burden of implementation, the benefits are not substantial.
Many city dwellers will endorse the notion of a carbon-free economy until they are asked to pay or make a sacrifice for it, which is why “make the polluters pay” takes on easy resonance.
The pandemic has already wreaked havoc in the U.S. and Canadian energy sectors. Some see their resuscitation as critical to economic recovery.
Others see green initiatives as essential to the environment and as an economic replacement for fossil fuels. As the Trudeau government has learned, it is difficult to imagine a rational balance emerging from these two sharply divergent solitudes.
Some industry leaders accept the goal of zero carbon emissions by 2050 and are investing heavily in technologies that will get them there.
Yet ardent environmentalists have zero tolerance for fossil fuels or pipelines. They hold their spears close to their chests and have little appetite for compromise.
What is certain is that, for the Trudeau government, which deems climate change as the priority issue of our time, a Biden victory would be a boon.
However, for many Western Canadians who rely on a healthy oil and gas sector, a Trump victory would be cause for celebration.
Campaign promises are one thing. Implementation is quite another.
Even if Biden wins and the Democrats capture both the Senate and the House in the election, there is no guarantee the president will be able to deliver on his promises — as Obama himself learned during the first two years of his presidency when he had majorities in Congress but had little success with legislation.
An industry that has already invested tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas projects will not simply roll over quietly.
There will inevitably be court challenges and other delay tactics, especially in states where energy expansion is a significant element of the economy.
Although it has received scant publicity, American gross domestic product plunged 32.9 percent in the second quarter of this year — an all-time record — and almost 18 million Americans are still unemployed.
That is why the uppermost concern in the election will most certainly be the prospects for the U.S. economy.
The relevance of the opposing positions on energy and the environment hinges on the choice between the significant contribution of oil and gas to the economy now, and the hope that renewables will become a credible replacement in the future.
In the short term, it would be prudent for Americans (and Canadians) to opt for what they already know provides employment and economic growth.
Read more at National Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-12--Alarmists Are Freaking Out Facebook Allows Climate Opinion

Written by Tom Finnerty on .
Posted in Latest news The other day my wife texted me a New York Times article entitled “ How Facebook Handles Climate Disinformation , ” which included a subheader claiming that the social media giant ’ s policy of exempting opinion articles from fact-checking and warning labels “ amounts to a huge loophole for climate change deniers.
” She commented , “ Woo-hoo !
You ’ ve got a loophole !
” I thanked her but pointed out that I don ’ t think of myself as a climate change denier .
As Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in February , “ [ T ] he climate changes – it always has , it always will .
Of course , saying ‘ climate changes makes one a ‘ climate change denier.
’ Go figure.
” I am , in fact , a climate change affirmer !
Read the NYT article if you like , though it ’ d likely be a waste of your time .
The author complains that this supposed loophole allows “ industry statements ” to be given the same weight as “ peer-reviewed science , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement itself , specifically the green-energy industry , perpetually annoyed , as they always are , that their economically productive competitors should ever be given a hearing .
But the Left ’ s mounting pressure on our tech monopolies to censor opinions they disagree with really is worrisome .
One article I do recommend you read is Jacob Siegel ’ s latest , Google Censorship Is a Danger to Public Health , in which he examines the strange story surrounding the proposed COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine .
Siegel purposely doesn ’ t take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medication is effective for this purpose .
What he does do , however , is look at Google ’ s policy of suppressing data , and interpretations of data , which run counter to what he refers to as the “ expert opinion of the moment.
” He quotes the CEO of YouTube ( which Google owns ) explaining their new policy of removing “ problematic ” content , including “ anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations.
” As Siegel points out , this is “ a category which at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing masks , travel bans , and asserting that the virus is highly contagious.
” The fact that is especially chilling is that , on this shaky foundation , Google has gone as far as deleting a white paper which attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine directly from a doctor ’ s Google Drive .
Siegel asks , “ Did you know that a Google doc you created can be deleted with no warning or explanation by Google ?
” I certainly didn ’ t , but it is of a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deplatforming contrary voices ( not to mention pressuring businesses to divest from disfavored industries , oil and gas most of all ) .
This is an unfortunate tendency because critical and contrary voices have always been important for challenging consensuses for the purpose of uncovering the truth .
But for the nihilistic , fascist Left , the dominant variety in our day , the battle cries are “ The science is settled !
” and “ The time for talk is over !
” Somewhere behind all that denial of freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t hold up to scrutiny .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Tom Finnerty on Aug 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The other day my wife texted me a New York Times article entitled “How Facebook Handles Climate Disinformation,” which included a subheader claiming that the social media giant’s policy of exempting opinion articles from fact-checking and warning labels “amounts to a huge loophole for climate change deniers.”
She commented, “Woo-hoo! You’ve got a loophole!” I thanked her but pointed out that I don’t think of myself as a climate change denier.
As Chris Horner put it in a feature here back in February, “[T]he climate changes – it always has, it always will. Of course, saying ‘climate changes makes one a ‘climate change denier.’ Go figure.” I am, in fact, a climate change affirmer!
Read the NYT article if you like, though it’d likely be a waste of your time. The author complains that this supposed loophole allows “industry statements” to be given the same weight as “peer-reviewed science,” though her article reads like an industry statement itself, specifically the green-energy industry, perpetually annoyed, as they always are, that their economically productive competitors should ever be given a hearing.
But the Left’s mounting pressure on our tech monopolies to censor opinions they disagree with really is worrisome.
One article I do recommend you read is Jacob Siegel’s latest, Google Censorship Is a Danger to Public Health, in which he examines the strange story surrounding the proposed COVID-19 treatment hydroxychloroquine.
Siegel purposely doesn’t take a side in the debate about whether that medication is effective for this purpose.
What he does do, however, is look at Google’s policy of suppressing data, and interpretations of data, which run counter to what he refers to as the “expert opinion of the moment.”
He quotes the CEO of YouTube (which Google owns) explaining their new policy of removing “problematic” content, including “anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations.”
As Siegel points out, this is “a category which at various times during the pandemic would include wearing masks, travel bans, and asserting that the virus is highly contagious.”
The fact that is especially chilling is that, on this shaky foundation, Google has gone as far as deleting a white paper which attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine directly from a doctor’s Google Drive.
Siegel asks, “Did you know that a Google doc you created can be deleted with no warning or explanation by Google?”
I certainly didn’t, but it is of a piece with the trend of woke capital demonetizing and deplatforming contrary voices (not to mention pressuring businesses to divest from disfavored industries, oil and gas most of all).
This is an unfortunate tendency because critical and contrary voices have always been important for challenging consensuses for the purpose of uncovering the truth.
But for the nihilistic, fascist Left, the dominant variety in our day, the battle cries are “The science is settled!” and “The time for talk is over!”
Somewhere behind all that denial of freedom of speech they must know that their positions don’t hold up to scrutiny.
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


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-12--States That Switched To Green Energy Have Higher Costs, Little Growth

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Climate alarmists increasingly claim wind and solar power are cost-effective and will benefit the economy .
The truth is exactly the opposite .
Here ’ s an example and the real story : The August 8 issue of Electrek ’ s Climate Crisis Weekly newsletter leads with a story titled “ Which US states are leading and lagging in slashing CO2 emissions ?
” The article touts a paper published by the environmental activist World Resources Institute ( WRI ) claiming states that switch to wind and solar power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It glowingly publicizes states that have seen their economies grow , even as they have made the greatest carbon dioxide emission reductions .
What the WRI and Electrek fail to report is that the states experiencing the greatest drop in emissions also suffer from the highest energy costs in the nation and are experiencing slower-than-average economic growth .
According to Electrek , “ The leader of the pack [ in cutting carbon dioxide emissions ] ?
Maryland ( 38 % reduction ) , with New Hampshire ( 37 % ) , Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Maine ( 33 % ) trailing closely behind .
So why is the Northeast leading ?
One reason is that they ’ ve dropped coal .
It ’ s also got the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ( RGGI ) , an interstate agreement that caps emissions from power plants.
” By contrast , WRI lists Texas , Louisiana , North Dakota , Oklahoma , and South Dakota among the states lagging behind or increasing their greenhouse gas emissions .
During the Trump-era economic recovery , every state in the nation experienced substantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with rapidly rising electricity costs can claim some economic growth .
However , states that retain conventional electricity enjoy much lower electricity prices and have much more vibrant economies as a result .
As of March 2020 , before the coronavirus-related economic downturn struck , all but one of the states praised by WRI for large cuts in emissions ranked among the top 10 states in electricity prices .
In fact , RGGI states held seven of the top 10 spots for high electric prices .
By comparison , states like Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and South Dakota – states criticized by WRI for not reducing emissions as much – enjoy among the lowest electricity rates in the country .
Importantly , state economic growth closely corresponds with affordable electricity .
For example , Washington DC ’ s GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019 was a paltry 1.4 percent , with Maryland ’ s growth being only slightly better at 1.8 percent .
By comparison , states that retained conventional energy sources had among the most affordable electricity rates and the strongest economic growth in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon dioxide emissions climb by more than 3 percent since 2005 , experienced 5.1 percent GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019 .
Louisiana , Oklahoma , North Dakota , and South Dakota experienced 3.9 percent , 3.9 percent , 3.9 percent , and 3.6 percent GDP growth respectively .
WRI ’ s own accounting acknowledges regions making the steepest greenhouse gas emission cuts between 2005 through 2017 had the lowest economic growth .
WRI also admits that regions making the least emission reductions had the highest economic growth .
The lesson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switches to wind and solar power to cut emissions , the slower that state ’ s economy is going to grow .
Don ’ t let alarmists pull the wool over your eyes and claim differently .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate alarmists increasingly claim wind and solar power are cost-effective and will benefit the economy. The truth is exactly the opposite. Here’s an example and the real story:
The August 8 issue of Electrek’s Climate Crisis Weekly newsletter leads with a story titled “Which US states are leading and lagging in slashing CO2 emissions?”
The article touts a paper published by the environmental activist World Resources Institute (WRI) claiming states that switch to wind and solar power are experiencing economic growth in the process.
It glowingly publicizes states that have seen their economies grow, even as they have made the greatest carbon dioxide emission reductions.
What the WRI and Electrek fail to report is that the states experiencing the greatest drop in emissions also suffer from the highest energy costs in the nation and are experiencing slower-than-average economic growth.
According to Electrek, “The leader of the pack [in cutting carbon dioxide emissions]? Maryland (38% reduction), with New Hampshire (37%), Washington, DC (33%), and Maine (33%) trailing closely behind.
So why is the Northeast leading? One reason is that they’ve dropped coal. It’s also got the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an interstate agreement that caps emissions from power plants.”
By contrast, WRI lists Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota among the states lagging behind or increasing their greenhouse gas emissions.
During the Trump-era economic recovery, every state in the nation experienced substantial economic growth. So, even states with rapidly rising electricity costs can claim some economic growth.
However, states that retain conventional electricity enjoy much lower electricity prices and have much more vibrant economies as a result.
As of March 2020, before the coronavirus-related economic downturn struck, all but one of the states praised by WRI for large cuts in emissions ranked among the top 10 states in electricity prices.
In fact, RGGI states held seven of the top 10 spots for high electric prices. By comparison, states like Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota – states criticized by WRI for not reducing emissions as much – enjoy among the lowest electricity rates in the country.
Importantly, state economic growth closely corresponds with affordable electricity. For example, Washington DC’s GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019 was a paltry 1.4 percent, with Maryland’s growth being only slightly better at 1.8 percent.
By comparison, states that retained conventional energy sources had among the most affordable electricity rates and the strongest economic growth in the nation.
Texas, which saw its carbon dioxide emissions climb by more than 3 percent since 2005, experienced 5.1 percent GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019.
Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and South Dakota experienced 3.9 percent, 3.9 percent, 3.9 percent, and 3.6 percent GDP growth respectively.
WRI’s own accounting acknowledges regions making the steepest greenhouse gas emission cuts between 2005 through 2017 had the lowest economic growth.
WRI also admits that regions making the least emission reductions had the highest economic growth.
The lesson is clear: the more a state switches to wind and solar power to cut emissions, the slower that state’s economy is going to grow. Don’t let alarmists pull the wool over your eyes and claim differently.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-12--Polls Show Climate Change Issue Going Down In Flames Amid Pandemic

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news Even as Democrats place climate change at the forefront of their election strategy , polls show the novel coronavirus pandemic is taking the wind out of the climate issue ’ s sails .
A Harris Poll survey conducted for Fortune found that climate change has dropped since December from first to second-to-last on a list of a dozen issues facing society , according to Harris CEO Will Johnson , who added he was “ personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact , more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant , ” said Mr. Johnson in a Monday post .
“ COVID-19 and the recession have , of course , reordered priorities around the world .
Still , the coronavirus didn ’ t elbow aside other issues as muscularly as it did climate change.
” The post was headlined : “ Amid COVID-19 , Americans don ’ t care about climate change anymore.
” Meanwhile , a Gallup poll taken July 1-23 found climate change ranked last on a list of 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranking first and “ the government/poor leadership ” coming in second , while crime and the judicial system rose in importance .
Only 1 % of 1,007 U.S. adults surveyed ranked “ climate change/environment/pollution ” as “ the most important problem facing this country today , ” down from 2 % in the May 28-June 4 poll , according to the Gallup results released Aug. 5 .
The surveys come as Democrats for trillion-dollar investments in wind and solar energy as part of a national strategy to combat the rise in atmospheric carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate plan would spend $ 2 trillion to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 .
Previous surveys have shown that Americans are concerned about climate change but not concerned enough to open their wallets .
An AP-NORC poll released last year found that 68 % were unwilling to foot even a $ 10 increase in their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming .
“ Was there any amount Americans were willing to pay to combat climate change ?
Yes , one dollar , ” said the Cato Institute analysis .
“ Fifty‐seven percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be willing to pay $ 1 a month fee in their electric bills to combat climate change.
” Given a list of nine policy initiatives that could “ fight global warming or help the environment generally , ” the Harris Poll found that only one drew majority support : 51 % supported “ tax credits or rebates for greater energy efficiency in buildings.
” “ Moreover , 13 % of all respondents say the government should do nothing to improve the environment , a stance that rises to nearly one in five of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Mr. Johnson .
He noted that the pandemic has resulted in reduce greenhouse-gas emissions .
Airline travel has plummeted , and car travel has also decreased as many Americans work from home under shelter-in-place orders .
When the pandemic ends or comes under control , however , “ American adults say they ’ ll behave in ways that would increase their carbon footprint , ” Mr. Johnson said .
“ According to our survey , we ’ ll drive as much as we did before , take public transportation less , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clothes , and have more stuff packaged up and shipped to our homes , ” he said .
“ And most of us plan to jack up the home AC and heat even more than we already have.
” The poll of 1,083 representative respondents also found that a plurality , or 39 % , saw the pandemic as good for the environment in the short run , but damaging in the long term .
Climate activists have sought to connect the virus to global emissions .
Former Vice President Al Gore tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midst of two crises — the # coronavirus pandemic and climate change.
” “ The climate activists are still in shock over how their issue has collapsed as a concern among the public , ” said Climate Depot ’ s Marc Morano in an email .
“ The environmental left is now striving to figure out how to piggyback the climate issues onto COVID in order to stay relevant.
” Junk Science ’ s Steve Milloy , a member of President Trump ’ s EPA transition team , said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again Americans place a very low priority on climate change .
”

Written by Valerie Richardson on Aug 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Even as Democrats place climate change at the forefront of their election strategy, polls show the novel coronavirus pandemic is taking the wind out of the climate issue’s sails.
A Harris Poll survey conducted for Fortune found that climate change has dropped since December from first to second-to-last on a list of a dozen issues facing society, according to Harris CEO Will Johnson, who added he was “personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging.”
“Among Gen X men, in fact, more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant,” said Mr. Johnson in a Monday post. “COVID-19 and the recession have, of course, reordered priorities around the world. Still, the coronavirus didn’t elbow aside other issues as muscularly as it did climate change.”
The post was headlined: “Amid COVID-19, Americans don’t care about climate change anymore.”
Meanwhile, a Gallup poll taken July 1-23 found climate change ranked last on a list of 16 non-economic issues, with “coronavirus/diseases” ranking first and “the government/poor leadership” coming in second, while crime and the judicial system rose in importance.
Only 1% of 1,007 U.S. adults surveyed ranked “climate change/environment/pollution” as “the most important problem facing this country today,” down from 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll, according to the Gallup results released Aug. 5.
The surveys come as Democrats for trillion-dollar investments in wind and solar energy as part of a national strategy to combat the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Biden campaign’s climate plan would spend $2 trillion to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Previous surveys have shown that Americans are concerned about climate change but not concerned enough to open their wallets.
An AP-NORC poll released last year found that 68% were unwilling to foot even a $10 increase in their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming.
“Was there any amount Americans were willing to pay to combat climate change? Yes, one dollar,” said the Cato Institute analysis. “Fifty‐seven percent (57%) of Americans would be willing to pay $1 a month fee in their electric bills to combat climate change.”
Given a list of nine policy initiatives that could “fight global warming or help the environment generally,” the Harris Poll found that only one drew majority support: 51% supported “tax credits or rebates for greater energy efficiency in buildings.”
“Moreover, 13% of all respondents say the government should do nothing to improve the environment, a stance that rises to nearly one in five of all survey takers in the South,” said Mr. Johnson.
He noted that the pandemic has resulted in reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Airline travel has plummeted, and car travel has also decreased as many Americans work from home under shelter-in-place orders.
When the pandemic ends or comes under control, however, “American adults say they’ll behave in ways that would increase their carbon footprint,” Mr. Johnson said.
“According to our survey, we’ll drive as much as we did before, take public transportation less, bicycle or walk less, buy more clothes, and have more stuff packaged up and shipped to our homes,” he said. “And most of us plan to jack up the home AC and heat even more than we already have.”
The poll of 1,083 representative respondents also found that a plurality, or 39%, saw the pandemic as good for the environment in the short run, but damaging in the long term.
Climate activists have sought to connect the virus to global emissions. Former Vice President Al Gore tweeted in May that “we are in the midst of two crises — the #coronavirus pandemic and climate change.”
“The climate activists are still in shock over how their issue has collapsed as a concern among the public,” said Climate Depot’s Marc Morano in an email. “The environmental left is now striving to figure out how to piggyback the climate issues onto COVID in order to stay relevant.”
Junk Science’s Steve Milloy, a member of President Trump’s EPA transition team, said in a statement that the Gallup poll “shows that once again Americans place a very low priority on climate change.”
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-12--Amazon’s Founder Pumps $10B Into Secretive ‘Bezos Earth Fund’

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news owner and Big Tech mogul Jeff Bezos is looking to make good on his $ 10 billion “ Bezos Earth Fund ” eco-extremist pledge to fight climate change .
Vox Recode reported that “ Bezos has quietly started a new company that appears involved in the historic push ” to combat “ human-induced ” climate change .
Specifically , Bezos started a new venture company called Fellowship Ventures LLC , which applied for the “ Bezos Earth Fund ” trademark in July .
According to Recode , this was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be key to his plans , or perhaps even run the charitable program outright.
” The creation of the company is the first glimpse into the most serious philanthropic play yet by the world ’ s richest man , even as other details remain hidden .
Bezos aides have consistently declined to share any information about his climate change giving — including basic questions about how it will be structured — since it was first announced in February .
If Bezos does plan to use the LLC to make donations , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Earth Fund as LLCs are not required to file publicly available tax documents.
” Trademark experts told Recode that “ it ’ s also possible , however , for the LLC to merely end up owning the trademark to the ‘ Bezos Earth Fund ’ name and then lend that trademark to another to-be-created Bezos ’ s entity that may be structured in a more transparent way , such as a traditional foundation.
” The Bezos ’ s team reportedly isn ’ t saying anything .
However , “ [ i @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ventures is working on other projects on Bezos ’ s behalf , too , although the full scope of its work isn ’ t clear.
” This isn ’ t all Bezos has been doing to advance his radical green agenda .
In September 2019 , the company released a report headlined “ The Climate Pledge , ” where it called “ on signatories to be net-zero carbon across their businesses by 2040—a decade ahead of the Paris Accord ’ s goal of 2050.
” The Big Tech company doubled down in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ We are all in on The Climate Pledge : net-zero carbon by 2040.
” Recently , Bezos ’ s Amazon announced it was changing the name of Seattle ’ s KeyArena to the “ Climate Pledge Arena.
” Bezos proclaimed with glee in an Instagram post that the stadium “ will be the first net zero carbon certified arena in the world.
” To make things even more cringeworthy , Bezos said that the arena will be using “ reclaimed rainwater in the ice system to create the greenest ice in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Contact Amazon at ( 206 ) 266-1000 and demand that the platform and Jeff Bezos provide transparency about the company he ’ s building to further his leftist progressive climate agenda : Companies need to design open systems so that they can be held accountable while giving weight to privacy concerns .
If you have been censored , contact us at the Media Research Center contact form , and help us hold Big Tech accountable .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Aug 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Washington Post owner and Big Tech mogul Jeff Bezos is looking to make good on his $10 billion “Bezos Earth Fund” eco-extremist pledge to fight climate change.
Vox Recode reported that “Bezos has quietly started a new company that appears involved in the historic push” to combat “human-induced” climate change.
Specifically, Bezos started a new venture company called Fellowship Ventures LLC, which applied for the “Bezos Earth Fund” trademark in July.
According to Recode, this was “a move that suggests the LLC will be key to his plans, or perhaps even run the charitable program outright.”
According to Recode:
The creation of the company is the first glimpse into the most serious philanthropic play yet by the world’s richest man, even as other details remain hidden. Bezos aides have consistently declined to share any information about his climate change giving — including basic questions about how it will be structured — since it was first announced in February.
If Bezos does plan to use the LLC to make donations, according to Recode, “it would limit transparency into the Earth Fund as LLCs are not required to file publicly available tax documents.”
Trademark experts told Recode that “it’s also possible, however, for the LLC to merely end up owning the trademark to the ‘Bezos Earth Fund’ name and then lend that trademark to another to-be-created Bezos’s entity that may be structured in a more transparent way, such as a traditional foundation.”
The Bezos’s team reportedly isn’t saying anything. However, “[i]t’s likely that Fellowship Ventures is working on other projects on Bezos’s behalf, too, although the full scope of its work isn’t clear.”
This isn’t all Bezos has been doing to advance his radical green agenda.
In September 2019, the company released a report headlined “The Climate Pledge,” where it called “on signatories to be net-zero carbon across their businesses by 2040—a decade ahead of the Paris Accord’s goal of 2050.”
The Big Tech company doubled down in a sustainability blog on June 23, 2020: “We are all in on The Climate Pledge: net-zero carbon by 2040.”
Recently, Bezos’s Amazon announced it was changing the name of Seattle’s KeyArena to the “Climate Pledge Arena.”
Bezos proclaimed with glee in an Instagram post that the stadium “will be the first net zero carbon certified arena in the world.”
To make things even more cringeworthy, Bezos said that the arena will be using “reclaimed rainwater in the ice system to create the greenest ice in the NHL.”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact Amazon at (206) 266-1000 and demand that the platform and Jeff Bezos provide transparency about the company he’s building to further his leftist progressive climate agenda: Companies need to design open systems so that they can be held accountable while giving weight to privacy concerns. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-12--German Public TV Under Fire For Using Discredited Hockey Stick Graph

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news ZDF meteorologist Özden Terli ( pictured ) has been a topic at this blog several times .
Now ‘ Die Welt ’ science editor Axel Bojanowski has taken a closer look at a weather report , particularly a chart that Terli presented July 24 , 2020 .
The article is behind a paywall but is worth the money .
The centerpiece is the chart from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research ( PIK ) .
It depicts a hockey stick temperature curve that is supposed to convey drama .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The weather report of the “ Heute Journal ” on ZDF on July 24th presented something that was supposed to be sensational .
Moderator Özden Terli presented a graph that allegedly showed the course of the global average temperature since the Ice Age .
At first ‘ the warming was very slow , ’ Terli explained , ‘ and then it was stable for a long time ’ .
Suddenly , however , since around 1900 , the temperature “ jumped up ” .
The graph showed an almost vertical red line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all temperatures since the Ice Age .
“ This jump is quite enormous , ” Terli said .
Millions of viewers were shown that the present day would be warmer than all the rest of human civilization .
The discovery could only be a scientific sensation , or a hoax.
” Bojanowski interviewed several experts on the subject and their reactions speak volumes because the graph cleverly mixed two things together , namely smoothed averages from the past with measured current values .
Fluctuations in the past can thus no longer be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : it is dubious .
Bojanowski analyzes : The graph was a sleight of hand : the steep red line at the end was not comparable to the data in the previous period .
It showed annually measured average temperatures on Earth since the end of the 19th century .
However , no such precise records exist for earlier times .
Most of the time in the history of civilization can only be shown with average values .
Often there is only one temperature value for hundreds of years , or data has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only its average value is shown – short-term warming or cooling is not shown .
In order to make the period from industrialization to the present day ( the steep red line ) comparable with the data for the rest of the time , it should therefore only be shown as a dot showing the average temperature from 1900 to the present day – the red line would only be an inconspicuous dot.
” And because Bojanowski has been there before , the subject of drought can be brought up again .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to changes in the climate system .
But without going into other sources .
Perhaps the weatherman would then have noticed that annual precipitation in Germany has increased over the past 120 years .
… It ’ s astonishing that the head of ZDF Wetter , Katka Horneffer , allows Özden Terli to include such inserts in the weather report again and again .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Aug 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
By Die kalte Sonne (German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Disinformation at ZDF German public broadcasting?
ZDF meteorologist Özden Terli (pictured) has been a topic at this blog several times. Now ‘Die Welt’ science editor Axel Bojanowski has taken a closer look at a weather report, particularly a chart that Terli presented July 24, 2020.
The article is behind a paywall but is worth the money. The centerpiece is the chart from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
It depicts a hockey stick temperature curve that is supposed to convey drama. Excerpt from the article in Die Welt:
The weather report of the “Heute Journal” on ZDF on July 24th presented something that was supposed to be sensational. Moderator Özden Terli presented a graph that allegedly showed the course of the global average temperature since the Ice Age. At first ‘the warming was very slow,’ Terli explained, ‘and then it was stable for a long time’. Suddenly, however, since around 1900, the temperature “jumped up”. The graph showed an almost vertical red line, the peak of which far exceeded all temperatures since the Ice Age. “This jump is quite enormous,” Terli said. Millions of viewers were shown that the present day would be warmer than all the rest of human civilization. The discovery could only be a scientific sensation, or a hoax.”
Bojanowski interviewed several experts on the subject and their reactions speak volumes because the graph cleverly mixed two things together, namely smoothed averages from the past with measured current values.
Fluctuations in the past can thus no longer be seen. The experts’ verdict was unanimous: it is dubious. Bojanowski analyzes:
The graph was a sleight of hand: the steep red line at the end was not comparable to the data in the previous period. It showed annually measured average temperatures on Earth since the end of the 19th century. However, no such precise records exist for earlier times. Most of the time in the history of civilization can only be shown with average values. Often there is only one temperature value for hundreds of years, or data has been “smoothed”, i.e. only its average value is shown – short-term warming or cooling is not shown. In order to make the period from industrialization to the present day (the steep red line) comparable with the data for the rest of the time, it should therefore only be shown as a dot showing the average temperature from 1900 to the present day – the red line would only be an inconspicuous dot.”
And because Bojanowski has been there before, the subject of drought can be brought up again. In a weather report, Terli attributed this to changes in the climate system. But without going into other sources.
Perhaps the weatherman would then have noticed that annual precipitation in Germany has increased over the past 120 years. … It’s astonishing that the head of ZDF Wetter, Katka Horneffer, allows Özden Terli to include such inserts in the weather report again and again.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-13--Kamala’s Nutty Green Vision: Ban Plastic Straws, Limit Red Meat

Written by Hannah Bleau on .
Posted in Latest news Joe Biden ( D ) announced Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) as his running mate on Tuesday — someone who holds far-left positions , particularly on climate change , an issue central to the progressive wing ’ s vision for America .
Despite initially positioning herself as a more “ moderate ” candidate during the primary , Harris holds a common vision with the far-left , proposing a ban on plastic straws and altering the food pyramid as part of a greater effort to address climate change .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ moderate ” candidate , has demonstrated his willingness to embrace radical left-wing policies .
While the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force displayed Biden ’ s ease in moving further to the left , his choice for a running mate reinforced that reality .
While climate change remains among the least important issues for Americans moving into the 2020 election , it remains a central piece in the Democrat Party ’ s overall platform , and Harris ’ s vision is just as radical as those of Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Green New Deal .
“ We must have and adopt a Green New Deal , ” Harris said during a debate last summer .
“ On day one as president , I would reenter us in the Paris Agreement and put it in place so we would be carbon neutral by 2030.
” That same summer , Harris teamed up with Ocasio-Cortez to advance the “ Climate Equity Act , ” which would rate economic regulations “ based on its impact on low-income communities , which are disproportionately affected by climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zones , near highways or power plants , or adjacent to polluted lands known as brownfields , ” according to the New York Times .
Harris doubled down on her radical positions during CNN ’ s Climate Change Town Hall last September , expressing support for both banning plastic straws and creating incentives to end the use of single-use plastic altogether .
“ I think we have to create incentives to ban these — we have to create incentives , and there is no question that we have seen innovation takes place when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think we should , yes , ” Harris said when asked if we should ban plastic straws .
“ I ’ m going to be honest , it ’ s really difficult to drink out of a paper straw…we ’ ve got to kind of perfect that one a little bit more.
” She added that officials should “ encourage innovation.
” “ And I think we can do a little better than some of those flimsy plastic straws .
But we do need to ban the plastic , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris said she would “ support changing dietary guidelines — the food pyramid ” to reduce red meat consumption as part of a greater effort to address climate change .
“ I ’ ve actually worked on this issue in the past , and it ’ s about consumer awareness , ” Harris said , reminding the audience that she , too , enjoys a burger from “ time to time.
” “ I strongly believe the American consumer is left without the information that you need and deserve to have about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your body or surrounding yourselves with and the health implications of those things , ” she said .
“ The California Democrat added that included upon that list ‘ should be a measure of the impact on the environment , ’ ” as Breitbart News reported at the time .
Despite her advocacy for consumer awareness , Harris gleefully participated in the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry in Iowa in September — which featured over 10,000 sizzling steaks — even busting a move at the event : Notably , Biden assisted organizers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the purported impact red meat has on the environment :

Written by Hannah Bleau on Aug 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Joe Biden (D) announced Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his running mate on Tuesday — someone who holds far-left positions, particularly on climate change, an issue central to the progressive wing’s vision for America.
Despite initially positioning herself as a more “moderate” candidate during the primary, Harris holds a common vision with the far-left, proposing a ban on plastic straws and altering the food pyramid as part of a greater effort to address climate change.
Biden, whom many have described as a “moderate” candidate, has demonstrated his willingness to embrace radical left-wing policies.
While the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force displayed Biden’s ease in moving further to the left, his choice for a running mate reinforced that reality.
While climate change remains among the least important issues for Americans moving into the 2020 election, it remains a central piece in the Democrat Party’s overall platform, and Harris’s vision is just as radical as those of Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — champions of the Green New Deal.
“We must have and adopt a Green New Deal,” Harris said during a debate last summer. “On day one as president, I would reenter us in the Paris Agreement and put it in place so we would be carbon neutral by 2030.”
That same summer, Harris teamed up with Ocasio-Cortez to advance the “Climate Equity Act,” which would rate economic regulations “based on its impact on low-income communities, which are disproportionately affected by climate change because they are often in flood zones, near highways or power plants, or adjacent to polluted lands known as brownfields,” according to the New York Times.
Harris doubled down on her radical positions during CNN’s Climate Change Town Hall last September, expressing support for both banning plastic straws and creating incentives to end the use of single-use plastic altogether.
“I think we have to create incentives to ban these — we have to create incentives, and there is no question that we have seen innovation takes place when leaders lead,” she said.
“I think we should, yes,” Harris said when asked if we should ban plastic straws. “I’m going to be honest, it’s really difficult to drink out of a paper straw…we’ve got to kind of perfect that one a little bit more.”
She added that officials should “encourage innovation.”
“And I think we can do a little better than some of those flimsy plastic straws. But we do need to ban the plastic,” she reiterated.
When you’re finally old enough to drink but can’t get too loose in front of big mom #ThanksgivingWithBlackFamilies pic.twitter.com/HKynEziFMZ — Darrin Owens – Madam VP Kamala Harris Stan Account (@darrinlance) November 26, 2019
During that same forum, Harris said she would “support changing dietary guidelines — the food pyramid” to reduce red meat consumption as part of a greater effort to address climate change.
“I’ve actually worked on this issue in the past, and it’s about consumer awareness,” Harris said, reminding the audience that she, too, enjoys a burger from “time to time.”
“I strongly believe the American consumer is left without the information that you need and deserve to have about what it is that you are putting in your body or surrounding yourselves with and the health implications of those things,” she said.
“The California Democrat added that included upon that list ‘should be a measure of the impact on the environment,’” as Breitbart News reported at the time.
Despite her advocacy for consumer awareness, Harris gleefully participated in the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry in Iowa in September — which featured over 10,000 sizzling steaks — even busting a move at the event:
I don’t know if you heard, but I’m moving to Iowa! Thank you, @PolkDems, for putting on a fantastic #SteakFry and giving us the opportunity to bring our campaign directly to Iowans. We’re going to win this thing by coming together and fighting for the best of who we are. pic.twitter.com/z6gu9sBe6g — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 21, 2019
Notably, Biden assisted organizers in grilling the steaks, demonstrating no concern for the purported impact red meat has on the environment:
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-13--Really Concerned About CO2 Emissions? Embrace Nuclear

Written by Norman Rogers on .
Posted in Latest news In the words of James Hansen , the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming , wind and solar are “ grotesque ” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions .
Michael Shellenberger , a prominent activist , has the same opinion .
Hansen and Shellenberger , as well as many other global warming activists , have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity .
Nuclear reactors don ’ t emit CO2 .
Coal and natural gas do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either , but opportunities for expansion are limited .
In the United States , most of the good sites have already been developed .
Wind and solar are grotesque because there are many problems .
Promoters of wind and solar simply lie about the problems .
Reducing emissions of CO2 by one metric tonne , 1,000 kilograms , or 2,204 pounds , is called a carbon offset .
Carbon offsets are bought and sold , usually for less than $ 10 each .
If you build wind or solar plants to displace electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will generate carbon offsets .
Each carbon offset generated will cost about $ 60 if electricity from a coal plant is displaced .
If electricity from a natural gas plant is displaced , the cost per carbon offset will be about $ 160 .
Wind and solar are expensive methods of generating carbon offsets .
Wind and solar are not remotely competitive with coal or natural gas for generating electricity .
The promoters of wind and solar lie about this constantly , claiming that they are close to competitive .
The lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or misrepresent the massive subsidies that wind and solar get , amounting to 75 % of the cost .
Then they compare the subsidized cost of wind or solar with the total cost of gas or coal .
But wind or solar can ’ t replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure because they are erratic sources of electricity .
The existing infrastructure has to be retained when you add wind or solar because sometimes the wind doesn ’ t blow or the sun doesn ’ t shine .
The only fair comparison is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar per kilowatt-hour ( kWh ) with the marginal cost of gas or coal electricity .
That marginal cost is essentially the cost of the fuel .
The only economic benefit of wind or solar is reducing fuel consumption in existing fossil fuel plants .
It is hard to build wind or solar installations that generate electricity for less than 8-cents per kWh , but the cost of the fuel , for either gas or coal , is about 2-cents per kWh .
Wind and solar cost four times too much to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficulty if they are the source of more than about 25 % of the electricity in a grid .
Getting to 50 % generally involves adding expensive batteries , further destroying the economics , and the usefulness for CO2 reduction .
The only justification for wind and solar is the reduction of CO2 emissions , but wind and solar are limited and costly for this purpose .
CO2-free nuclear energy can be both economical and practical .
That , clearly is the reason why prominent global warming activists are advocating nuclear , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed global warming crisis .
Neither nuclear nor coal is currently cost-competitive with natural gas .
It ’ s not that nuclear or coal is so expensive as it is that natural gas , thanks to fracking , is incredibly cheap .
Gas that costs more than $ 10 per MMBtu ( million British thermal units ) a decade ago , now costs less than $ 2 .
Gas-generating plants are very cheap to build and incredibly efficient .
A gas plant using a combination of a gas turbine and a steam turbine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the gas into electricity .
By contrast , a coal plant struggles to reach 40 % .
Both coal and nuclear are handicapped by well-organized and unprincipled political opposition from the Sierra Club and similar organizations .
The Sierra Club hates natural gas too , but most of their efforts go into scaring people with the imaginary danger of coal .
The Sierra Club doesn ’ t need to expend much effort scaring people with nuclear because the nuclear industry has already been destroyed in the U.S. thanks to previous efforts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have one very important advantage over gas .
They have fuel on-site to continue operating if fuel deliveries are interrupted .
For coal , this is around 30 days , for nuclear , more than a year .
Some gas plants can temporarily use oil from local tanks , but in most cases that won ’ t last long .
Gas deliveries can be interrupted by pipeline failure or sabotage .
The pumping stations on natural gas pipelines are increasingly powered by electricity , rather than gas , creating a circular firing squad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry with a big future .
That future is materializing in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe .
Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap , around four times cheaper than gas or coal .
Nuclear reactors don ’ t have smokestacks and they don ’ t emit CO2 .
New designs will dramatically lower costs , increase safety , and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear .
It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future , nuclear may be cost-competitive with natural gas .
It is an intellectual and economic failure that the 30 U.S. states with policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions , called renewable portfolio standards , mostly explicitly exclude nuclear power as part of the plan .
Instead , they effectively mandate wind and solar .
There are signs of reform as some states have provided support to prevent nuclear power stations from being closed .
The global warming hysteria movement is surely one of the most successful junk science campaigns ever launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way for a science establishment to gain fame and money .
The many responsible scientists that object are attacked , if not fired .
Money trumps ethics every time .
The environmental movement needs looming catastrophes too , so they act as PR men for the science establishment .
The tragedy is that our legislators swallow these lies and waste billions on boondoggles like wind and solar .
It is ironic that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere has a bountiful effect on plant growth , greening the Earth , and increasing agricultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 is a boon .
If you still believe in the global warming hysteria movement , you should face reality and dump wind and solar for nuclear .
Wind and solar are not appropriate for the problem they are assigned to solve .
Nuclear is .
Norman Rogers is the author of the book : Dumb Energy : A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy .

Written by Norman Rogers on Aug 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In the words of James Hansen, the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming, wind and solar are “grotesque” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions.
Michael Shellenberger, a prominent activist, has the same opinion. Hansen and Shellenberger, as well as many other global warming activists, have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity.
Nuclear reactors don’t emit CO2. Coal and natural gas do. Hydroelectric electricity does not emit CO2 either, but opportunities for expansion are limited. In the United States, most of the good sites have already been developed.
Wind and solar are grotesque because there are many problems. Promoters of wind and solar simply lie about the problems.
Reducing emissions of CO2 by one metric tonne, 1,000 kilograms, or 2,204 pounds, is called a carbon offset. Carbon offsets are bought and sold, usually for less than $10 each.
If you build wind or solar plants to displace electricity from natural gas or coal plants, you will generate carbon offsets. Each carbon offset generated will cost about $60 if electricity from a coal plant is displaced.
If electricity from a natural gas plant is displaced, the cost per carbon offset will be about $160. Wind and solar are expensive methods of generating carbon offsets.
Wind and solar are not remotely competitive with coal or natural gas for generating electricity. The promoters of wind and solar lie about this constantly, claiming that they are close to competitive.
The lies have two major components. They ignore or misrepresent the massive subsidies that wind and solar get, amounting to 75% of the cost. Then they compare the subsidized cost of wind or solar with the total cost of gas or coal.
But wind or solar can’t replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure because they are erratic sources of electricity.
The existing infrastructure has to be retained when you add wind or solar because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.
The only fair comparison is to analyze the total cost of wind or solar per kilowatt-hour (kWh) with the marginal cost of gas or coal electricity. That marginal cost is essentially the cost of the fuel.
The only economic benefit of wind or solar is reducing fuel consumption in existing fossil fuel plants.
It is hard to build wind or solar installations that generate electricity for less than 8-cents per kWh, but the cost of the fuel, for either gas or coal, is about 2-cents per kWh. Wind and solar cost four times too much to be competitive.
Wind and solar run into difficulty if they are the source of more than about 25% of the electricity in a grid.
Getting to 50% generally involves adding expensive batteries, further destroying the economics, and the usefulness for CO2 reduction.
The only justification for wind and solar is the reduction of CO2 emissions, but wind and solar are limited and costly for this purpose. CO2-free nuclear energy can be both economical and practical.
That, clearly is the reason why prominent global warming activists are advocating nuclear, rather than wind and solar to alleviate the supposed global warming crisis.
Neither nuclear nor coal is currently cost-competitive with natural gas. It’s not that nuclear or coal is so expensive as it is that natural gas, thanks to fracking, is incredibly cheap.
Gas that costs more than $10 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) a decade ago, now costs less than $2. Gas-generating plants are very cheap to build and incredibly efficient.
A gas plant using a combination of a gas turbine and a steam turbine can turn 65% of the energy in the gas into electricity. By contrast, a coal plant struggles to reach 40%.
Both coal and nuclear are handicapped by well-organized and unprincipled political opposition from the Sierra Club and similar organizations. The Sierra Club hates natural gas too, but most of their efforts go into scaring people with the imaginary danger of coal.
The Sierra Club doesn’t need to expend much effort scaring people with nuclear because the nuclear industry has already been destroyed in the U.S. thanks to previous efforts of the environmental movement.
Coal and nuclear have one very important advantage over gas. They have fuel on-site to continue operating if fuel deliveries are interrupted. For coal, this is around 30 days, for nuclear, more than a year.
Some gas plants can temporarily use oil from local tanks, but in most cases that won’t last long. Gas deliveries can be interrupted by pipeline failure or sabotage.
The pumping stations on natural gas pipelines are increasingly powered by electricity, rather than gas, creating a circular firing squad effect.
Nuclear electricity is a young industry with a big future. That future is materializing in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe.
Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap, around four times cheaper than gas or coal. Nuclear reactors don’t have smokestacks and they don’t emit CO2.
New designs will dramatically lower costs, increase safety, and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear.
It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind and solar but demonizes nuclear. In the future, nuclear may be cost-competitive with natural gas.
It is an intellectual and economic failure that the 30 U.S. states with policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions, called renewable portfolio standards, mostly explicitly exclude nuclear power as part of the plan.
Instead, they effectively mandate wind and solar. There are signs of reform as some states have provided support to prevent nuclear power stations from being closed.
The global warming hysteria movement is surely one of the most successful junk science campaigns ever launched. Predicting a catastrophe is a great way for a science establishment to gain fame and money.
The many responsible scientists that object are attacked, if not fired. Money trumps ethics every time. The environmental movement needs looming catastrophes too, so they act as PR men for the science establishment.
The tragedy is that our legislators swallow these lies and waste billions on boondoggles like wind and solar.
It is ironic that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere has a bountiful effect on plant growth, greening the Earth, and increasing agricultural production. Rather than a threat, CO2 is a boon.
If you still believe in the global warming hysteria movement, you should face reality and dump wind and solar for nuclear. Wind and solar are not appropriate for the problem they are assigned to solve. Nuclear is.
Norman Rogers is the author of the book: Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.
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--2020-08-13--Kamala’s Anti-Fracking Stance Is Biden’s Albatross In Swing States

Written by Jennifer A Dlouhy on .
Posted in Latest news Less than two hours after Kamala Harris was named Joe Biden ’ s running mate , President Donald Trump had cast the California Democrat as the oil industry and fracking foe .
“ She is against fracking .
She ’ s against petroleum products , ” Trump said at a White House news conference Tuesday .
“ I mean , how do you do that and go into Pennsylvania or Ohio or Oklahoma or the great state of Texas ?
She ’ s against fracking .
Fracking ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a line Trump will surely use again and again against Harris , the former California attorney general who has vowed to fight the fossil fuel industry in court , embraced the Green New Deal and last September said there was “ no question ” she ’ d ban hydraulic fracturing .
But the criticism may have limited appeal beyond Trump ’ s political base and is likely to boost enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket among progressive voters .
Harris ’ s positions on the issue put her to the left of Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek an outright ban on fracking , which could only be imposed through congressional action .
Nevertheless , Harris and Biden have both promised to curtail oil and gas development on federal lands and waters managed by the U.S. government .
And a senior campaign official reiterated last month that Biden would block new fracking on federal lands .
The “ fracking ” technique is used to coax oil and gas out of some 95 % of U.S. wells today , and Trump has been touting his support for the industry as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other swing states .
More from Election Biden ’ s energy agenda was already “ setting up to be the greenest in U.S. history , ” but adding Harris to the ticket signals the Biden administration would “ aggressively ” pursue its policy goals , ClearView Energy Partners said in a research note to clients .
Some oil industry figures already fearful of Biden ’ s environmental agenda worry Harris would bolster his resolve to combat climate change and stifle fossil fuel development , including through regulations making them more expensive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasize the importance of oil and gas as an engine driving the U.S. economy and critical to its post-pandemic recovery .
“ The oil and gas industry represents about 8 % of the American economy , ” and is “ a very important component of our recovery , ” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said by phone .
“ The world looks a lot different behind the desk in the Oval Office than it does on the campaign trail , and we ’ re an industry that represents 10 million American workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that recovery.
” The oil and gas industry faces significant headwinds , not least from the historic drop in demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic .
Gas companies seeking to build new pipelines have been stymied in court recently , and some economists have argued a more effective recovery plan would involve green-friendly policies .
As California attorney general , Harris filed lawsuits against Phillips 66 , ConocoPhillips and other oil companies for alleged environmental violations .
Her office secured criminal indictments against Plains All American Pipeline LP for a 2015 spill in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in convictions in 2018 after Harris was elected to the Senate .
Harris also has a history of tangling with oil refiners that have operations in California — a pugilistic approach that could add heft to Biden ’ s threat to target fossil fuel executives and “ put them in jail.
” For instance , Harris opposed Chevron Corp. ’ s planned expansion of a refinery in Richmond on grounds it risked accidents and would exacerbate climate change .
And Harris criticized a bid by Valero Energy Corp. to receive rail shipments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk for spills and explosions along an expected Northern California route .
Nevertheless , some environmental activists have complained Harris didn ’ t do enough to pursue oil companies for misleading the public on the risks of climate change .
Though Harris ’ s office was reported to have investigated Exxon Mobil Corp. on climate accusations , it never filed a suit — an approach later pursued by other attorneys general in Massachusetts and New York .
Harris has since been supportive of the efforts and last year joined other senators in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against oil companies by San Francisco and Oakland .

Written by Jennifer A Dlouhy on Aug 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Less than two hours after Kamala Harris was named Joe Biden’s running mate, President Donald Trump had cast the California Democrat as the oil industry and fracking foe.
“She is against fracking. She’s against petroleum products,” Trump said at a White House news conference Tuesday.
“I mean, how do you do that and go into Pennsylvania or Ohio or Oklahoma or the great state of Texas? She’s against fracking. Fracking’s a big deal.”
It’s a line Trump will surely use again and again against Harris, the former California attorney general who has vowed to fight the fossil fuel industry in court, embraced the Green New Deal and last September said there was “no question” she’d ban hydraulic fracturing.
But the criticism may have limited appeal beyond Trump’s political base and is likely to boost enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket among progressive voters.
Harris’s positions on the issue put her to the left of Biden, who has made clear he would not seek an outright ban on fracking, which could only be imposed through congressional action.
Nevertheless, Harris and Biden have both promised to curtail oil and gas development on federal lands and waters managed by the U.S. government.
And a senior campaign official reiterated last month that Biden would block new fracking on federal lands.
The “fracking” technique is used to coax oil and gas out of some 95% of U.S. wells today, and Trump has been touting his support for the industry as he campaigns for a second term in Pennsylvania and other swing states.
More from Election
Biden’s energy agenda was already “setting up to be the greenest in U.S. history,” but adding Harris to the ticket signals the Biden administration would “aggressively” pursue its policy goals, ClearView Energy Partners said in a research note to clients.
Some oil industry figures already fearful of Biden’s environmental agenda worry Harris would bolster his resolve to combat climate change and stifle fossil fuel development, including through regulations making them more expensive to produce.
But industry advocates plan to emphasize the importance of oil and gas as an engine driving the U.S. economy and critical to its post-pandemic recovery.
“The oil and gas industry represents about 8% of the American economy,” and is “a very important component of our recovery,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said by phone.
“The world looks a lot different behind the desk in the Oval Office than it does on the campaign trail, and we’re an industry that represents 10 million American workers and will be a key part of that recovery.”
The oil and gas industry faces significant headwinds, not least from the historic drop in demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
Gas companies seeking to build new pipelines have been stymied in court recently, and some economists have argued a more effective recovery plan would involve green-friendly policies.
As California attorney general, Harris filed lawsuits against Phillips 66, ConocoPhillips and other oil companies for alleged environmental violations.
Her office secured criminal indictments against Plains All American Pipeline LP for a 2015 spill in Santa Barbara, California, which resulted in convictions in 2018 after Harris was elected to the Senate.
Harris also has a history of tangling with oil refiners that have operations in California — a pugilistic approach that could add heft to Biden’s threat to target fossil fuel executives and “put them in jail.”
For instance, Harris opposed Chevron Corp.’s planned expansion of a refinery in Richmond on grounds it risked accidents and would exacerbate climate change.
And Harris criticized a bid by Valero Energy Corp. to receive rail shipments of crude at its Benecia refinery, emphasizing the risk for spills and explosions along an expected Northern California route.
Nevertheless, some environmental activists have complained Harris didn’t do enough to pursue oil companies for misleading the public on the risks of climate change.
Though Harris’s office was reported to have investigated Exxon Mobil Corp. on climate accusations, it never filed a suit — an approach later pursued by other attorneys general in Massachusetts and New York.
Harris has since been supportive of the efforts and last year joined other senators in an amicus brief supporting a climate lawsuit against oil companies by San Francisco and Oakland.
Read rest at Bloomberg
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-14--Cambodia’s Enviro Minister Lies About Climate Change’s Impact

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news An article in the Khmer Times , “ Climate change is seriously impacting Cambodia , says the ministry , ” found with my daily Google search of the term ‘ climate change , ’ quotes a spokesman for the country ’ s Environment Ministry , Neth Pheaktra , saying : “ Between 1996 and 2020 , Cambodia witnessed 3,681 floods , 1,375 droughts , and 1,917 hurricanes , all of which killed 1,292 people and destroyed 14,761 houses , 1,875 hospitals , three million hectares of crops damaged and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pheaktra attributes the majority of these events and harms to human-caused climate change .
In the same article , Hak Mao , the director of Cambodia ’ s Department of Climate Change , even as he acknowledges nature has a role in climate change , claimed , “ Naturally occurring climate change impact has resulted in declining agricultural yields ….
” I can ’ t speak about the number of floods , droughts , deaths , or houses and schools destroyed by natural disasters in Cambodia between 1996 and 2020 , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data , but I can say based on widely available data collected by the United Nations and various other agencies , the claim that 1,917 hurricanes stuck Cambodia since 1996 is wholly fabricated .
Less than half that number ( 767 ) of cyclones , hurricanes , and typhoons made landfall in total worldwide , across all basins , between 1970 and 2019 .
And between 1970 and 2010 the Northern Indian Ocean basin , which is where Cambodia lies , experienced only 48 total landfalling hurricanes , only 17 of which occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14-year-period in which no hurricanes struck land on five separate years .
So , unless Cambodia experienced more than 1,800 hurricanes between 1996 and 2020 that no agency anywhere in the world but his own recorded or measured , the Environment Ministry spokesman either misspoke or simply made the hurricane numbers up .
Cambodia ’ s environment spokesman and its director of the department of climate change are equally mistaken concerning the impact climate change has had on crop yields in the country over the past several decades .
Data from the U.N. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cambodia ’ s rice production—rice being by far its biggest agricultural crop—has grown dramatically since 1979 .
In 1979 , Cambodian farmers ’ rice paddies produced 538,000 metric tons of rice in 1979 .
By comparison , rice yields increased to 10,647,212 metric tons in 2017 , a new record .
Indeed , rice production has more than doubled in Cambodia since 2004 , with new records being set for the amount of rice produced 11 of the past 13 years .
FAO data also shows Cambodia ’ s production of cassava , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has increased even more dramatically than rice production as seen in Figure 1 below .
After more than 40 years of relatively flat annual production , cassava production increased more than 21 fold between 2004 and 2017 , from 362,050 metric tons in 2004 to 7,646,022 metric tons in 2017 .
Unless they are just trying to garner headlines and raise the profile and funding opportunities for their departments and ministries , Cambodian bureaucrats , as with all government agents around the world , should stick to the facts about crop production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consequences of all-natural disasters , rather using the uncritical fake news media to generate unjustified fears of climate change .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
An article in the Khmer Times, “Climate change is seriously impacting Cambodia, says the ministry,” found with my daily Google search of the term ‘climate change,’ quotes a spokesman for the country’s Environment Ministry, Neth Pheaktra, saying:
“Between 1996 and 2020, Cambodia witnessed 3,681 floods, 1,375 droughts, and 1,917 hurricanes, all of which killed 1,292 people and destroyed 14,761 houses, 1,875 hospitals, three million hectares of crops damaged and around 1,000 schools.”
In the article, Pheaktra attributes the majority of these events and harms to human-caused climate change.
In the same article, Hak Mao, the director of Cambodia’s Department of Climate Change, even as he acknowledges nature has a role in climate change, claimed, “Naturally occurring climate change impact has resulted in declining agricultural yields ….”
I can’t speak about the number of floods, droughts, deaths, or houses and schools destroyed by natural disasters in Cambodia between 1996 and 2020, I don’t have access to the data, but I can say based on widely available data collected by the United Nations and various other agencies, the claim that 1,917 hurricanes stuck Cambodia since 1996 is wholly fabricated.
Less than half that number (767) of cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons made landfall in total worldwide, across all basins, between 1970 and 2019.
And between 1970 and 2010 the Northern Indian Ocean basin, which is where Cambodia lies, experienced only 48 total landfalling hurricanes, only 17 of which occurred between 1996 and 2010, during a 14-year-period in which no hurricanes struck land on five separate years.
So, unless Cambodia experienced more than 1,800 hurricanes between 1996 and 2020 that no agency anywhere in the world but his own recorded or measured, the Environment Ministry spokesman either misspoke or simply made the hurricane numbers up.
Cambodia’s environment spokesman and its director of the department of climate change are equally mistaken concerning the impact climate change has had on crop yields in the country over the past several decades.
Data from the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization shows Cambodia’s rice production—rice being by far its biggest agricultural crop—has grown dramatically since 1979.
In 1979, Cambodian farmers’ rice paddies produced 538,000 metric tons of rice in 1979.
By comparison, rice yields increased to 10,647,212 metric tons in 2017, a new record. Indeed, rice production has more than doubled in Cambodia since 2004, with new records being set for the amount of rice produced 11 of the past 13 years.
FAO data also shows Cambodia’s production of cassava, another major agricultural crop for the country, has increased even more dramatically than rice production as seen in Figure 1 below.
After more than 40 years of relatively flat annual production, cassava production increased more than 21 fold between 2004 and 2017, from 362,050 metric tons in 2004 to 7,646,022 metric tons in 2017.
Unless they are just trying to garner headlines and raise the profile and funding opportunities for their departments and ministries, Cambodian bureaucrats, as with all government agents around the world, should stick to the facts about crop production, hurricanes, and the true causes and consequences of all-natural disasters, rather using the uncritical fake news media to generate unjustified fears of climate change.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-14--Study Of Prior Global Temperature Estimates Suggests ‘No Change’ In 100 Years

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news In the early 1900s , the globally-averaged distribution of calculated @ @ @ @ @ 14°C ( 57.2F ) and 15°C ( 59F ) .
For 1991-2018 , HadCRUT , @ @ @ @ @ also estimate today ’ s global temperature is about 14.5°C ( 58.1°F ) .
Scientists @ @ @ @ @ temperature has been an ongoing pursuit since the early 19th century .
A new study @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ) suggests the generally agreed-upon global temperature from 1877 to 1913 from dozens of @ @ @ @ @ ( 57.9°F ) .
Problematically , HadCRUT , Berkley , and NASA GISS also indicate @ @ @ @ @ temperature of about 14.5°C ( 58.1°F ) .
This would suggest there has been “ @ @ @ @ @ averaged near-surface temperature over the past 100 years.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kenneth Richard on Aug 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In the early 1900s, the globally-averaged distribution of calculated surface temperature estimates ranged between 14°C (57.2F) and 15°C (59F).
For 1991-2018, HadCRUT, Berkeley, and NASA GISS also estimate today’s global temperature is about 14.5°C (58.1°F).
Scientists estimating Earth’s surface temperature has been an ongoing pursuit since the early 19th century.
A new study (Kramm et al., 2020) suggests the generally agreed-upon global temperature from 1877 to 1913 from dozens of calculated results was about 14.4°C (57.9°F).
Problematically, HadCRUT, Berkley, and NASA GISS also indicate 1991-2018 had a global surface temperature of about 14.5°C (58.1°F).
This would suggest there has been “no change in the globally averaged near-surface temperature over the past 100 years.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print