climatechangedispatch--2020-04-01--Amid Outbreak, Chicken-Little Obama Frets About Trump’s ‘Climate Denial’

Written by Tyler O'Neil on .
Posted in Latest news On Tuesday , former President Barack Obama ripped into President Donald Trump ’ s decision to loosen environmental standards , comparing “ climate denial ” to the original skepticism officials expressed at reports of the coronavirus pandemic .
Yes , in the midst of a pandemic that is choking the economic life out of this country , Obama focused on climate change .
Obama shared an article from The Los Angeles Times entitled , “ Trump rolls back biggest U.S. effort to combat climate change.
” The article details Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards as the oil and gas industry struggles with extremely low prices amid an oil price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia .
This oil war has hit companies particularly hard during the coronavirus crisis .
Obama instituted the higher standards in 2012 and he likely sees this move as a blow to his legacy .
Yet rather than just complaining about Trump undermining his legacy , Obama used the tensions of the coronavirus crisis to spread fears about climate change .
“ We ’ ve seen all too terribly the consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the former president began .
“ We can ’ t afford any more consequences of climate denial .
All of us , especially young people , have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.
” In other words , Trump is facing another coronavirus ( climate change ) and his “ denial ” of the “ science ” will cost lives amid a hypothetical future disaster similar to the pandemic .
Oh , and while I ’ m attacking Trump — don ’ t forget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nod nod .
* As Americans hunker down in the coronavirus crisis , scared for their lives and livelihoods , Obama condemns one of the Trump administration ’ s moves to help America ’ s struggling economy by comparing it to the early skepticism — voiced by Democrats like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio as well as Trump — about the coronavirus pandemic .
Obama insinuated that skepticism about the pandemic — which did not prevent Trump from taking early decisive action against the coronavirus — was the equivalent of skepticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His tweet inflamed fears that climate change will be just as deadly as the virus .
This scaremongering comparison may achieve the opposite of Obama ’ s goals , however .
Some early models predicting the spread of coronavirus have recently been revised down , as evidence emerges that the spread — while horrific — is not as dire as previously modeled .
A recent study in Britain had originally predicted that 500,000 people would die from the virus , but the numbers were revised down to predict that 20,000 would die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx warned against alarmist models in a press conference last week .
She said government data does not suggest that 20 percent of the U.S. population would be infected with COVID-19 , contradicting dire predictions .
“ There ’ s no … reality on the ground where we can see that 60 to 70 percent of Americans are going to get infected in the next eight to 12 weeks , ” she insisted .
She added that 19 of the 50 states are showing a persistently low level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states each have fewer than 200 cases and are still working to contain the virus .
“ That ’ s almost 40 percent of the country with extraordinarily low numbers and they are testing , ” Birx said .
Even the flawed early coronavirus models are far more reliable than any climate change model .
While there remains much to learn about the coronavirus , experts understand it to act in a way similar to influenza .
The global climate , however , deals with hundreds of variables .
While it is possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate , it is nearly impossible to measure any such impacts on a global scale and prove that they are the direct result of carbon emissions .
Dire climate change predictions have proven false time and time again .
A 2004 DoD report predicted nuclear war by 2020 due to climate change .
That didn ’ t exactly work out .
In 2018 , the tiny Maldives Islands were scheduled to sink beneath the waves due to climate change — yet the islands have actually grown in recent years !
Climate alarmists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 50 years .
Yet people like Obama continue to insist that those who are skeptical about radical plans to upend the economy in order to avoid some hypothetical catastrophe are “ deniers.
” Trump ’ s move to lessen restrictions and help oil companies amid this crisis is far from a “ denial ” of “ science , ” and it is nothing like Obama ’ s insinuation that Trump did not act fast enough to combat the spread of coronavirus .

Written by Tyler O'Neil on Apr 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On Tuesday, former President Barack Obama ripped into President Donald Trump’s decision to loosen environmental standards, comparing “climate denial” to the original skepticism officials expressed at reports of the coronavirus pandemic.
Yes, in the midst of a pandemic that is choking the economic life out of this country, Obama focused on climate change.
Obama shared an article from The Los Angeles Times entitled, “Trump rolls back biggest U.S. effort to combat climate change.”
The article details Trump’s move to loosen fuel efficiency standards as the oil and gas industry struggles with extremely low prices amid an oil price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia.
This oil war has hit companies particularly hard during the coronavirus crisis. Obama instituted the higher standards in 2012 and he likely sees this move as a blow to his legacy.
Yet rather than just complaining about Trump undermining his legacy, Obama used the tensions of the coronavirus crisis to spread fears about climate change.
“We’ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic,” the former president began. “We can’t afford any more consequences of climate denial. All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.”
We’ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic. We can’t afford any more consequences of climate denial. All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall. https://t.co/K8Ucu7iVDK — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 31, 2020
In other words, Trump is facing another coronavirus (climate change) and his “denial” of the “science” will cost lives amid a hypothetical future disaster similar to the pandemic.
Oh, and while I’m attacking Trump — don’t forget to vote in November! *wink wink, nod nod.*
As Americans hunker down in the coronavirus crisis, scared for their lives and livelihoods, Obama condemns one of the Trump administration’s moves to help America’s struggling economy by comparing it to the early skepticism — voiced by Democrats like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio as well as Trump — about the coronavirus pandemic.
Obama insinuated that skepticism about the pandemic — which did not prevent Trump from taking early decisive action against the coronavirus — was the equivalent of skepticism about the dire predictions of climate alarmists.
His tweet inflamed fears that climate change will be just as deadly as the virus.
This scaremongering comparison may achieve the opposite of Obama’s goals, however.
Some early models predicting the spread of coronavirus have recently been revised down, as evidence emerges that the spread — while horrific — is not as dire as previously modeled.
A recent study in Britain had originally predicted that 500,000 people would die from the virus, but the numbers were revised down to predict that 20,000 would die in Britain.
White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx warned against alarmist models in a press conference last week.
She said government data does not suggest that 20 percent of the U.S. population would be infected with COVID-19, contradicting dire predictions.
“There’s no … reality on the ground where we can see that 60 to 70 percent of Americans are going to get infected in the next eight to 12 weeks,” she insisted.
She added that 19 of the 50 states are showing a persistently low level of cases despite reporting early infections.
Those states each have fewer than 200 cases and are still working to contain the virus. “That’s almost 40 percent of the country with extraordinarily low numbers and they are testing,” Birx said.
Even the flawed early coronavirus models are far more reliable than any climate change model. While there remains much to learn about the coronavirus, experts understand it to act in a way similar to influenza.
The global climate, however, deals with hundreds of variables.
While it is possible that carbon emissions may impact the global climate, it is nearly impossible to measure any such impacts on a global scale and prove that they are the direct result of carbon emissions.
Dire climate change predictions have proven false time and time again. A 2004 DoD report predicted nuclear war by 2020 due to climate change. That didn’t exactly work out.
In 2018, the tiny Maldives Islands were scheduled to sink beneath the waves due to climate change — yet the islands have actually grown in recent years! Climate alarmists have a record of failure going back more than 50 years.
Yet people like Obama continue to insist that those who are skeptical about radical plans to upend the economy in order to avoid some hypothetical catastrophe are “deniers.”
Trump’s move to lessen restrictions and help oil companies amid this crisis is far from a “denial” of “science,” and it is nothing like Obama’s insinuation that Trump did not act fast enough to combat the spread of coronavirus.
Read more at PJ Media
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-01--Magma Flood Linked To Sudden Ancient Global Warming Event

Written by Howard Lee on .
Posted in Latest news A study has cemented the link between an intense global warming episode 56 million years ago and volcanism in the North Atlantic , with implications for modern climate change .
Roughly 60 million years ago , circulation changes deep within our planet generated a hot current of rock — the Iceland plume — causing it to rise from the heart of Earth ’ s mantle .
When the mantle rock pierced the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean , lava spurted across Scotland , Ireland , and Greenland , scabbing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Causeway in Northern Ireland and Scotland ’ s Fingal ’ s Cave ( pictured ) .
That opening salvo was followed 4 million years later by a second gigantic pulse of hot mantle rock , which once again rode up the Iceland plume .
It swelled under the seafloor and lifted a wide region of ocean floor between Greenland and Europe into the air , forming a temporary land bridge connecting Scotland and Greenland .
Under the surface , the mantle blob melted , turning from solid rock to fluid magma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , through sediments .
As the magma spread , it formed thousands of horizontal sheets known as sills that cooked organic matter in the sediments .
This cooking produced methane and carbon dioxide gas that burst through vents in the seafloor .
As sheet after sheet of magma bled into the expanding bruise for millennia , more and more gas bubbled from the ocean like a boiling pot .
Evidence indicates that suspiciously close in time to all that igneous activity , the planet warmed by 5 degrees Celsius ( 9 degrees Fahrenheit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum , or PETM , the land suffered intense downpours , while ocean acidification and heat drove many marine species extinct .
Many land animals went extinct as well and were replaced by dwarf species .
The Arctic had alligators , giant tortoises , and vegetation typical of Florida today , and sea levels were around 300 feet higher than now .
The PETM has preoccupied climate scientists since its discovery in the early 1990s because of its parallels to today ’ s climate change , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge shift in the atmospheric carbon level , and a profound effect on life .
To produce those effects , a massive reservoir of carbon — around 10 trillion tons by recent estimates — must have been pumped into the sky .
But what was that carbon store ?
How could it be released so fast , and could a similar carbon reservoir be poised to amplify our current warming today ?
“ If we can understand … the closest analog that we ’ ve got in the past hundred million years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in better shape to think about what ’ s going to happen in our lifetimes , ” said Stephen Jones , a geologist at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom .
Because many of the North Atlantic ’ s volcanic features , which scientists collectively call the “ North Atlantic Igneous Province , ” formed concurrently with the PETM , they are a candidate for the cause of the warming .
But coincidence isn ’ t causation , and there have been good scientific reasons to doubt that the volcanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recently , a paper by Jones and his collaborators in Birmingham removed the last major doubt and showed that igneous activity was indeed the principal driver of the warming .
Although a great deal of North Atlantic volcanism happened close in time to the PETM , scientists were initially skeptical that it could have driven the warming .
Sedimentary layers that formed at the time had the wrong kind of carbon — they were rich in the isotope carbon-12 , indicating an organic carbon source rather than a volcanic one .
The leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s orbit around the sun melted a type of frozen methane just beneath the seabed called methane clathrates .
Yet scientists found scant evidence that enough clathrates existed in the pre-PETM world , or that they could have melted fast enough to drive the warming .
A possible missing link between the North Atlantic Igneous Province and organic carbon was spotted in 2004 in seismic scans through the seabed off the coast of Norway .
When Henrik Svensen of the University of Oslo and colleagues analyzed recorded echoes from air blasts produced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading upward from sills that formed around the time of the PETM .
They reasoned that the vents resulted from hot sills baking organic detritus , which is rich in carbon-12 .
This would have generated methane and carbon dioxide .
The gases would have erupted through the seabed and ocean and into the atmosphere , driving the PETM .
More vents have since been spotted on both sides of the Atlantic , and samples have been drilled from one of them .
Similar vents in Siberia and in South Africa have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Earth ’ s history — the Permian and the Jurassic respectively .
Still , few thought that igneous activity could act fast enough .
Geologists thought the sills formed over a few million years , whereas fossilized sediments show it took just a few thousand years to start the PETM .
The Birmingham team has closed that gap .
They found that with the Iceland plume , as Jones put it , “ you can turn the tap on … in five to ten thousand years .
”

Written by Howard Lee on Apr 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A study has cemented the link between an intense global warming episode 56 million years ago and volcanism in the North Atlantic, with implications for modern climate change.
Roughly 60 million years ago, circulation changes deep within our planet generated a hot current of rock — the Iceland plume — causing it to rise from the heart of Earth’s mantle.
When the mantle rock pierced the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean, lava spurted across Scotland, Ireland, and Greenland, scabbing into spectacular columned landscapes like the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland and Scotland’s Fingal’s Cave (pictured).
That opening salvo was followed 4 million years later by a second gigantic pulse of hot mantle rock, which once again rode up the Iceland plume.
It swelled under the seafloor and lifted a wide region of ocean floor between Greenland and Europe into the air, forming a temporary land bridge connecting Scotland and Greenland.
Under the surface, the mantle blob melted, turning from solid rock to fluid magma.
The magma then bled, bruise-like, through sediments. As the magma spread, it formed thousands of horizontal sheets known as sills that cooked organic matter in the sediments.
This cooking produced methane and carbon dioxide gas that burst through vents in the seafloor.
As sheet after sheet of magma bled into the expanding bruise for millennia, more and more gas bubbled from the ocean like a boiling pot.
Evidence indicates that suspiciously close in time to all that igneous activity, the planet warmed by 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit).
In this ancient warming event, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, the land suffered intense downpours, while ocean acidification and heat drove many marine species extinct.
Many land animals went extinct as well and were replaced by dwarf species. The Arctic had alligators, giant tortoises, and vegetation typical of Florida today, and sea levels were around 300 feet higher than now.
The PETM has preoccupied climate scientists since its discovery in the early 1990s because of its parallels to today’s climate change, including a temperature jump, ocean acidification, a huge shift in the atmospheric carbon level, and a profound effect on life.
To produce those effects, a massive reservoir of carbon — around 10 trillion tons by recent estimates — must have been pumped into the sky.
But what was that carbon store? How could it be released so fast, and could a similar carbon reservoir be poised to amplify our current warming today?
“If we can understand … the closest analog that we’ve got in the past hundred million years, then we’re going to be in better shape to think about what’s going to happen in our lifetimes,” said Stephen Jones, a geologist at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom.
Because many of the North Atlantic’s volcanic features, which scientists collectively call the “North Atlantic Igneous Province,” formed concurrently with the PETM, they are a candidate for the cause of the warming.
But coincidence isn’t causation, and there have been good scientific reasons to doubt that the volcanic activity could have caused climate change.
Recently, a paper by Jones and his collaborators in Birmingham removed the last major doubt and showed that igneous activity was indeed the principal driver of the warming.
The Wrong Kind of Carbon
Although a great deal of North Atlantic volcanism happened close in time to the PETM, scientists were initially skeptical that it could have driven the warming.
Sedimentary layers that formed at the time had the wrong kind of carbon — they were rich in the isotope carbon-12, indicating an organic carbon source rather than a volcanic one.
The leading theory was that fluctuations in Earth’s orbit around the sun melted a type of frozen methane just beneath the seabed called methane clathrates.
Yet scientists found scant evidence that enough clathrates existed in the pre-PETM world, or that they could have melted fast enough to drive the warming.
A possible missing link between the North Atlantic Igneous Province and organic carbon was spotted in 2004 in seismic scans through the seabed off the coast of Norway.
When Henrik Svensen of the University of Oslo and colleagues analyzed recorded echoes from air blasts produced by oil exploration ships, they saw vents leading upward from sills that formed around the time of the PETM.
They reasoned that the vents resulted from hot sills baking organic detritus, which is rich in carbon-12. This would have generated methane and carbon dioxide.
The gases would have erupted through the seabed and ocean and into the atmosphere, driving the PETM. More vents have since been spotted on both sides of the Atlantic, and samples have been drilled from one of them.
Similar vents in Siberia and in South Africa have been linked to global warming in different periods of Earth’s history — the Permian and the Jurassic respectively.
Still, few thought that igneous activity could act fast enough. Geologists thought the sills formed over a few million years, whereas fossilized sediments show it took just a few thousand years to start the PETM.
The Birmingham team has closed that gap. They found that with the Iceland plume, as Jones put it, “you can turn the tap on … in five to ten thousand years.”
Read rest at Quanta Magazine
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-01--Alarmists: Climate Change Making Nightingales’ Wings Shorter

Written by Thomas D. Williams , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Climate change is causing the wings of nightingales to get shorter , endangering their ability to migrate , the Guardian newspaper reported Wednesday .
In what appeared an April fool ’ s joke at first glance , the UK ’ s flagship of climate alarmism announced that thanks to climate change there are barely 7,000 nesting pairs of nightingales left in England since fewer are able to make the journey from sub-Saharan Africa to breed in Europe .
Citing a study published in The Auk : Ornithological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural selection driven by climate change is causing the birds to evolve with shorter wings , ” which inhibits their migratory capabilities .
“ There is much evidence that climate change is having an effect on migratory birds , changing their arrival and laying dates and their physical features over the last few decades , ” said the study ’ s lead author Carolina Remacha of Madrid ’ s Complutense University .
The Guardian has been on the cutting edge of climate alarmism and announced in 2019 that it would no longer refer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ climate deniers.
” The newspaper updated its official in-house style guide to intensify its climate change rhetoric , adopting language meant to scare readers and motivate them to action .
“ Instead of ‘ climate change ’ the preferred terms are ‘ climate emergency , crisis or breakdown ’ and ‘ global heating ’ is favored over ‘ global warming , ’ although the original terms are not banned , ” the paper stated .
“ The phrase ‘ climate change , ’ for example , sounds rather passive and gentle when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catastrophe for humanity , ” said Katharine Viner , the Guardian ’ s editor-in-chief and a firm believer in an impending climate apocalypse .
“ Increasingly , climate scientists and organizations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology , and using stronger language to describe the situation we ’ re in , ” she said .
Citing the BBC , the Guardian declared : “ You do not need a ‘ denier ’ to balance the debate ” and those who dare question the accepted climate groupthink deserve no @ @ @ @ @

Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. on Apr 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate change is causing the wings of nightingales to get shorter, endangering their ability to migrate, the Guardian newspaper reported Wednesday.
In what appeared an April fool’s joke at first glance, the UK’s flagship of climate alarmism announced that thanks to climate change there are barely 7,000 nesting pairs of nightingales left in England since fewer are able to make the journey from sub-Saharan Africa to breed in Europe.
Citing a study published in The Auk: Ornithological Advances, the Guardian said that “natural selection driven by climate change is causing the birds to evolve with shorter wings,” which inhibits their migratory capabilities.
“There is much evidence that climate change is having an effect on migratory birds, changing their arrival and laying dates and their physical features over the last few decades,” said the study’s lead author Carolina Remacha of Madrid’s Complutense University.
The Guardian has been on the cutting edge of climate alarmism and announced in 2019 that it would no longer refer to “climate skeptics” but only “climate deniers.”
The newspaper updated its official in-house style guide to intensify its climate change rhetoric, adopting language meant to scare readers and motivate them to action.
“Instead of ‘climate change’ the preferred terms are ‘climate emergency, crisis or breakdown’ and ‘global heating’ is favored over ‘global warming,’ although the original terms are not banned,” the paper stated.
“The phrase ‘climate change,’ for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity,” said Katharine Viner, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief and a firm believer in an impending climate apocalypse.
“Increasingly, climate scientists and organizations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,” she said.
Citing the BBC, the Guardian declared: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate” and those who dare question the accepted climate groupthink deserve no place at the table.
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--2020-04-02--Carbon Credit Scam: Carbon Markets Flop As CO2 Declines

Written by CFACT Ed .
on .
Posted in Latest news Environmentalists and green bureaucrats have watched in shock as the coronavirus global shut down has now caused carbon credit markets to crash .
The European Union ’ s carbon credits price has fallen by 40 % this year so far .
This market was worth $ 215 billion last year , according to Bloomberg Environment .
The price drop has rubbed out two years of EU carbon market gains .
It turns out that if there are extremely low levels of carbon dioxide emissions , as is the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the companies doing the carbon-emitting don ’ t have to buy any carbon credits to make up for it .
And if no one is buying carbon credits to offset emissions , well , then the so-called “ market ” for carbon dies .
Wait a minute , isn ’ t the whole idea of these carbon credits to reduce CO₂ emissions ; what climate campaigners refer to as horrible pollution ?
As Luke Skywalker said when approaching the Death Star for the first time in Star Wars Episode IV : A New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad feeling about this.
” How is it then that if the ultimate goal of near-zero CO2 emissions is achieved , the long-coveted carbon credit market crashes ?
Quite plainly , it is because the existence of these markets sets up a perverse incentive .
To the average climate campaigner , the goal of such a “ market ” is to eventually bring CO₂ emissions to as close to zero as possible .
But for those companies making big bucks off of carbon credits , when the so-called “ pollution ” falls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t plan on giving that cash flow up any time soon .
Until recently , climate activists have been very successful convincing corporations and governments into going along with the scheme of “ carbon credits.
” This means , essentially , the more CO₂ you emit , the more credits you have to buy .
The cost of those credits is then supposedly invested in renewable energy projects , etc .
But the real goal isn ’ t to reduce CO₂ emissions at all .
The real goal is to make money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intent there is in climate action policies has been completely hijacked by those who see money-making opportunities – and not in a way that encourages innovation through free-market capitalism , but by creating schemes like carbon credit markets that siphon funds off of legitimate businesses and redistributes them to companies and individuals with the right connections in government .
You can ’ t claim to have a free market solution to something with a faux market only put in place by mandating government regulations .
A faux market is all carbon credits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon transfers , or whatever you want to brand them , will ever amount to .

Written by CFACT Ed. on Apr 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Environmentalists and green bureaucrats have watched in shock as the coronavirus global shut down has now caused carbon credit markets to crash.
The European Union’s carbon credits price has fallen by 40% this year so far. This market was worth $215 billion last year, according to Bloomberg Environment. The price drop has rubbed out two years of EU carbon market gains.
It turns out that if there are extremely low levels of carbon dioxide emissions, as is the case currently with businesses and industries shuttered, the companies doing the carbon-emitting don’t have to buy any carbon credits to make up for it.
And if no one is buying carbon credits to offset emissions, well, then the so-called “market” for carbon dies.
Wait a minute, isn’t the whole idea of these carbon credits to reduce CO₂ emissions; what climate campaigners refer to as horrible pollution?
As Luke Skywalker said when approaching the Death Star for the first time in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, “I have a very bad feeling about this.”
How is it then that if the ultimate goal of near-zero CO2 emissions is achieved, the long-coveted carbon credit market crashes?
Quite plainly, it is because the existence of these markets sets up a perverse incentive.
To the average climate campaigner, the goal of such a “market” is to eventually bring CO₂ emissions to as close to zero as possible.
But for those companies making big bucks off of carbon credits, when the so-called “pollution” falls, so do their profits. They don’t plan on giving that cash flow up any time soon.
Until recently, climate activists have been very successful convincing corporations and governments into going along with the scheme of “carbon credits.”
This means, essentially, the more CO₂ you emit, the more credits you have to buy. The cost of those credits is then supposedly invested in renewable energy projects, etc.
But the real goal isn’t to reduce CO₂ emissions at all.
The real goal is to make money.
Whatever good, yet misplaced, the intent there is in climate action policies has been completely hijacked by those who see money-making opportunities – and not in a way that encourages innovation through free-market capitalism, but by creating schemes like carbon credit markets that siphon funds off of legitimate businesses and redistributes them to companies and individuals with the right connections in government.
You can’t claim to have a free market solution to something with a faux market only put in place by mandating government regulations.
A faux market is all carbon credits, carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon transfers, or whatever you want to brand them, will ever amount to.
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--2020-04-02--Media Hail Obama’s Veiled Anti-Trump ‘Climate Denial’ Tweet

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news Liberal media outlets were quick to shill for former President Barack Obama ’ s recent swipes at President Donald Trump .
CNN , USA Today and The Washington Post all pushed liberal spin stories elevating Obama ’ s tweet , which took two veiled shots at the Trump administration .
One alleged the administration ’ s denial “ of warnings of a pandemic.
” Obama ’ s other shot bleated about the consequences of “ climate denial ” over Trump ’ s decision to roll back his auto emission standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , Obama compared “ Coronavirus Response To Climate Change Denials.
” Obama ’ s tweet stated : “ We ’ ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic .
We can ’ t afford any more consequences of climate denial .
All of us , especially young people , have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Liberal outlets quickly elevated their media darling ’ s veiled swipes at the president .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst .
The Post attempted to downplay the ridiculousness of Obama ’ s tweet by headlining their story : “ ‘ A tricky balance ’ : Obama seeks to inform and reassure the public on coronavirus while avoiding confrontation with Trump.
” The outlet ’ s lead paragraphs read like something that would come straight out of Obama ’ s public relations office : CNN ’ s story , headlined “ Obama slams rollback of vehicle emission standards in rare rebuke of Trump , ” bloviated that : “ The comment is notable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his successor , who has focused on undoing his legacy — particularly his environmental and climate policies.
” The paper continued to follow Obama ’ s lead and proceeded to denigrate Trump : Interesting that the outlets seemed to paint the former president as being hesitant to rip his predecessor .
PBS captured a 2018 video of Obama lambasting Trump : Also , nowhere did the stories listed above mention the recent Gallup poll that showed 60 percent of Americans support the president ’ s handling of the coronavirus , showing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its former president , at least on that point .
Proof-positive the media will continue to ram their eco-extremist politics down the American people ’ s throats amidst a pandemic .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Apr 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Liberal media outlets were quick to shill for former President Barack Obama’s recent swipes at President Donald Trump.
CNN, USA Today and The Washington Post all pushed liberal spin stories elevating Obama’s tweet, which took two veiled shots at the Trump administration.
One alleged the administration’s denial “of warnings of a pandemic.” Obama’s other shot bleated about the consequences of “climate denial” over Trump’s decision to roll back his auto emission standards.
Forbes Magazine reported that in doing this, Obama compared “Coronavirus Response To Climate Change Denials.”
Obama’s tweet stated: “We’ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic. We can’t afford any more consequences of climate denial. All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.” [Emphasis added.]
We’ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic. We can’t afford any more consequences of climate denial. All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall. https://t.co/K8Ucu7iVDK — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 31, 2020
Liberal outlets quickly elevated their media darling’s veiled swipes at the president.
The Post’s story was arguably the worst.
The Post attempted to downplay the ridiculousness of Obama’s tweet by headlining their story: “‘A tricky balance’: Obama seeks to inform and reassure the public on coronavirus while avoiding confrontation with Trump.”
The outlet’s lead paragraphs read like something that would come straight out of Obama’s public relations office:
“For weeks, former president Barack Obama has chosen not to respond to the taunts as President Trump seeks to deflect responsibility for the widespread coronavirus outbreak in the United States by shifting some blame to his predecessor. But on Tuesday, Obama appeared to fight back,” [emphasis added].
CNN’s story, headlined “Obama slams rollback of vehicle emission standards in rare rebuke of Trump,” bloviated that: “The comment is notable as the former President seldom publicly criticizes his successor, who has focused on undoing his legacy — particularly his environmental and climate policies.”
USA Today’s story, headlined “Barack Obama takes veiled swipe at Donald Trump’s handling of coronavirus pandemic.”
The outlet puffed that:
“Former President Barack Obama appeared to take a swipe at President Donald Trump’s initial skepticism of the coronavirus pandemic, a rare rebuff for a president who tends not to weigh in on the work of other presidents.”
The paper continued to follow Obama’s lead and proceeded to denigrate Trump:
“The Trump administration has faced sharp criticism for its handling of the coronavirus outbreak, which has crippled the U.S. economy and claimed more than 3,100 lives as of Tuesday.”
It continued:
“Trump initially sought to downplay the pandemic and suggested opening up the economy by Easter, or April 12, as recently as last week.” [Emphasis added.]
Interesting that the outlets seemed to paint the former president as being hesitant to rip his predecessor. PBS captured a 2018 video of Obama lambasting Trump:
“It did not start with Donald Trump. He is a symptom, not the cause. … We are Americans. We’re supposed to stand up to bullies – not follow them. We’re supposed to stand up to discrimination, and we’re sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathizers,” [emphasis added.]
Also, nowhere did the stories listed above mention the recent Gallup poll that showed 60 percent of Americans support the president’s handling of the coronavirus, showing that the majority of the public is at odds with its former president, at least on that point.
Proof-positive the media will continue to ram their eco-extremist politics down the American people’s throats amidst a pandemic.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-02--Bandwagon Of Weather Doom Washed Away By Tidal Wave Of Data

Written by Andrew Montford on .
Posted in Latest news According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , for each degree of global warming , the amount of water vapor in the air should increase by about 6-7 % .
As with so many things the IPCC talks about , this small change is supposed to lead to calamity .
That ’ s because increasing water vapor is supposed to lead to “ intensification of the hydrological cycle , ” in other words , floods , and droughts .
Demetris Koutsoyiannis , a hydrologist at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken it upon himself to undertake a major review of the scientific data to see what evidence there is for this actually happening in practice .
His findings , currently up for open peer review at the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences , [ i ] make for uncomfortable reading for the IPCC and its fellow-travelers on the bandwagon of doom .
It seems , for example , that although relative humidity is supposed to stay constant under global warming , it is actually falling .
Dew points are supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; in particular , there appears to be little or no change in equatorial regions , where the largest share of evaporation of water from the oceans takes place .
If we ’ re not seeing change there , then increased flooding is off the agenda .
And Koutsoyiannis finds that the amount of water vapor in the air is increasing at roughly one-third of the IPCC ’ s predicted rate .
If the rate of water vapor increase really is so low , then by the time we hit the ( in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll still only have experienced a 4 % increase , which as Koutsoyiannis points out is negligible given the normal variability of hydrological cycles .
Where are the deluges and floods going to come from ?
It doesn ’ t end there either .
There are lots of other ways in which intensification of the hydrological cycle might show up .
You can measure the amount of water vapor in columns of the atmosphere .
That should be increasing with global warming too , right ?
Koutsoyiannis finds no trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase too – the IPCC says by 1-3 % per degree of global warming .
The problem with this claim is that it ’ s within the “ noise ” of normal variability anyway ; no surprise then that Koutsoyiannis sees no meaningful trends in the data .
The limited data on evaporation are telling the same story ( or lack of one ) too .
What about extremes of rainfall ?
Koutsoyannis reviews a variety of measures : changes in daily maxima , days with rainfall over a threshold and so on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks at the sea .
And he draws a blank everywhere .
As well as being an eminent scientist , Koutosoyiannis also has a deep interest in the scientific knowledge and practice of the ancient world , and this has colored his view of the climate scare .
As he says in his conclusions , the small changes that are exciting climate scientists today would not even have been discussed by ancient engineers , who would have seen them as just noise in the ever-changing patterns of hydrological cycles .
Similarly , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of no interest to those making practical decisions about flood protection and water storage .
And he wonders whether , with the data refuting the climatologists ’ predictions so clearly , it isn ’ t time that hydrologists shifted their attention away from prophecies of doom , and back onto making a real contribution to people ’ s lives .
You can see his point .

Written by Andrew Montford on Apr 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for each degree of global warming, the amount of water vapor in the air should increase by about 6-7%.
As with so many things the IPCC talks about, this small change is supposed to lead to calamity. That’s because increasing water vapor is supposed to lead to “intensification of the hydrological cycle,” in other words, floods, and droughts.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a hydrologist at the National Technical University of Athens, has taken it upon himself to undertake a major review of the scientific data to see what evidence there is for this actually happening in practice.
His findings, currently up for open peer review at the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,[i] make for uncomfortable reading for the IPCC and its fellow-travelers on the bandwagon of doom.
It seems, for example, that although relative humidity is supposed to stay constant under global warming, it is actually falling.
Dew points are supposed to be increasing, but mostly they are not; in particular, there appears to be little or no change in equatorial regions, where the largest share of evaporation of water from the oceans takes place.
If we’re not seeing change there, then increased flooding is off the agenda.
And Koutsoyiannis finds that the amount of water vapor in the air is increasing at roughly one-third of the IPCC’s predicted rate.
If the rate of water vapor increase really is so low, then by the time we hit the (in)famous two-degree target for global warming, we’ll still only have experienced a 4% increase, which as Koutsoyiannis points out is negligible given the normal variability of hydrological cycles.
Where are the deluges and floods going to come from?
It doesn’t end there either.
There are lots of other ways in which intensification of the hydrological cycle might show up.
You can measure the amount of water vapor in columns of the atmosphere. That should be increasing with global warming too, right? Koutsoyiannis finds no trend.
Average rainfall across the planet should increase too – the IPCC says by 1-3% per degree of global warming.
The problem with this claim is that it’s within the “noise” of normal variability anyway; no surprise then that Koutsoyiannis sees no meaningful trends in the data.
The limited data on evaporation are telling the same story (or lack of one) too.
What about extremes of rainfall? Koutsoyannis reviews a variety of measures: changes in daily maxima, days with rainfall over a threshold and so on, he looks on land and he looks at the sea.
And he draws a blank everywhere.
As well as being an eminent scientist, Koutosoyiannis also has a deep interest in the scientific knowledge and practice of the ancient world, and this has colored his view of the climate scare.
As he says in his conclusions, the small changes that are exciting climate scientists today would not even have been discussed by ancient engineers, who would have seen them as just noise in the ever-changing patterns of hydrological cycles.
Similarly, he points out that such small changes are of no interest to those making practical decisions about flood protection and water storage.
And he wonders whether, with the data refuting the climatologists’ predictions so clearly, it isn’t time that hydrologists shifted their attention away from prophecies of doom, and back onto making a real contribution to people’s lives.
You can see his point.
[i] https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/hess-2020-120/
Read more at GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-02--Internet Bashes Obama For Using Pandemic To Push Climate Alarmism

Written by Carlos Garcia on .
Posted in Latest news Former President Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration for rolling back policies he put into place to combat global warming , but many objected to his comparison to the coronavirus pandemic .
“ We ’ ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic , ” Obama tweeted .
“ We can ’ t afford any more consequences of climate denial.
” “ All of us , especially young people , have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision from the Trump administration would rescind gas mileage and emission requirements imposed in 2012 under Obama .
SEE ALSO : Amid Outbreak , Chicken-Little Obama Frets About Trump ’ s ‘ Climate Denial ’ Obama ’ s attempt to conflate the global coronavirus pandemic with climate change found many critics on social media .
“ Sorry , we ’ re working on a global pandemic right now , call back later , ” responded Ben Shapiro .
Others , like liberal actress Bette Midler , endorsed Obama ’ s tweet and attacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t catch a break from the viciousness of the Trump administration , ” she responded .
“ They keep piling it on , knowing we are focused on the coronavirus.
” Read more at The Blaze

Written by Carlos Garcia on Apr 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former President Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration for rolling back policies he put into place to combat global warming, but many objected to his comparison to the coronavirus pandemic.
“We’ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic,” Obama tweeted. “We can’t afford any more consequences of climate denial.”
“All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall,” he concluded.
The decision from the Trump administration would rescind gas mileage and emission requirements imposed in 2012 under Obama.
SEE ALSO: Amid Outbreak, Chicken-Little Obama Frets About Trump’s ‘Climate Denial’
Obama’s attempt to conflate the global coronavirus pandemic with climate change found many critics on social media.
“Sorry, we’re working on a global pandemic right now, call back later,” responded Ben Shapiro.
Sorry, we’re working on a global pandemic right now, call back later https://t.co/9JejtvX3FQ — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 31, 2020
“Talk about tone deaf,” said California lawmaker John Dennis.
Talk about tone deaf. https://t.co/eVhOxvPY89 — John Dennis for Congress (@RealJohnDennis) March 31, 2020
“Dear Dumbo, Warmer temperatures slow the virus,” said Peabody-award winning actor Nick Searcy.
Dear Dumbo, Warmer temperatures slow the virus. https://t.co/MNY1R0XJYK — Nick Searcy, INTERNATIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) March 31, 2020
Others, like liberal actress Bette Midler, endorsed Obama’s tweet and attacked President Donald Trump.
“We can’t catch a break from the viciousness of the Trump administration,” she responded. “They keep piling it on, knowing we are focused on the coronavirus.”
Read more at The Blaze
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-02--Major Climate Summit In Glasgow Postponed Over COVID-19

Written by Matt McGrath on .
Posted in Latest news A key climate summit in Glasgow will be delayed until next year due to disruption caused by the coronavirus .
The announcement was made in a joint statement from the UK and UN after a “ virtual ” meeting of officials .
Dozens of world leaders were due to attend the COP26 gathering that was set to run in Glasgow from November 9 this year .
It is expected that the conference will now take place by the middle of next year .
As the virus has spread around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectation in recent weeks that the COP26 talks would be delayed .
Around 30,000 delegates , journalists and environmental campaigners were due in Scotland for the meeting .
However , the changing priorities that coronavirus has forced on governments can be clearly seen in Glasgow ’ s Scottish Events Campus ( pictured ) , which was due to host the talks .
It is now set to become a temporary hospital to house patients affected by COVID-19 .
The decision to move COP26 was taken by UN officials , including UN climate chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sharma , who is president-designate of the meeting .
“ The world is currently facing an unprecedented global challenge and countries are rightly focusing their efforts on saving lives and fighting COVID-19 , ” Mr. Sharma said in a statement .
“ That is why we have decided to reschedule COP26.
” “ We will continue working tirelessly with our partners to deliver the ambition needed to tackle the climate crisis and I look forward to agreeing on a new date for the conference.
” Five years on from the landmark Paris agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new improved climate action plans on the table at the Glasgow meeting .
Environmental groups said the decision was understandable .
“ Postponing COP26 is the right thing to do – public health and safety must come first now , ” said Laurence Tubiana , one of the architects of the Paris agreement and CEO of the European Climate Foundation .
“ This crisis has shown that international cooperation and solidarity are essential to protect global well-being and peace .
COP26 next year should become a centerpiece of revitalized global cooperation.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy with rows between the UK and Scottish governments , and with Claire O ’ Neill , the minister originally appointed to run the talks , sacked by Prime Minister Boris Johnson .
While the delay was almost inevitable in the light of coronavirus , some officials believe there may be a silver lining .
Governments are set to spend huge amounts to boost their economies once the pandemic is over .
There ’ s a view that when the summit is eventually held , it could be an important forum for ensuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable projects .
“ The pandemic will also reorder to an extent the priorities for COP26 , as alongside the UN climate process countries will be devising stimulus packages for economies hard-hit by the crisis , ” said Adair Turner , Senior Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking .

Written by Matt McGrath on Apr 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A key climate summit in Glasgow will be delayed until next year due to disruption caused by the coronavirus.
The announcement was made in a joint statement from the UK and UN after a “virtual” meeting of officials.
Dozens of world leaders were due to attend the COP26 gathering that was set to run in Glasgow from November 9 this year.
It is expected that the conference will now take place by the middle of next year.
As the virus has spread around the world, there has been a growing expectation in recent weeks that the COP26 talks would be delayed.
Around 30,000 delegates, journalists and environmental campaigners were due in Scotland for the meeting.
However, the changing priorities that coronavirus has forced on governments can be clearly seen in Glasgow’s Scottish Events Campus (pictured), which was due to host the talks.
It is now set to become a temporary hospital to house patients affected by COVID-19.
The decision to move COP26 was taken by UN officials, including UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa and UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma, who is president-designate of the meeting.
“The world is currently facing an unprecedented global challenge and countries are rightly focusing their efforts on saving lives and fighting COVID-19,” Mr. Sharma said in a statement.
“That is why we have decided to reschedule COP26.”
“We will continue working tirelessly with our partners to deliver the ambition needed to tackle the climate crisis and I look forward to agreeing on a new date for the conference.”
Five years on from the landmark Paris agreement, all nations were due to put new improved climate action plans on the table at the Glasgow meeting.
Environmental groups said the decision was understandable.
“Postponing COP26 is the right thing to do – public health and safety must come first now,” said Laurence Tubiana, one of the architects of the Paris agreement and CEO of the European Climate Foundation.
“This crisis has shown that international cooperation and solidarity are essential to protect global well-being and peace. COP26 next year should become a centerpiece of revitalized global cooperation.”
The summit has had its fair share of controversy with rows between the UK and Scottish governments, and with Claire O’Neill, the minister originally appointed to run the talks, sacked by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
While the delay was almost inevitable in the light of coronavirus, some officials believe there may be a silver lining.
Governments are set to spend huge amounts to boost their economies once the pandemic is over.
There’s a view that when the summit is eventually held, it could be an important forum for ensuring that money is spent on sustainable and renewable projects.
“The pandemic will also reorder to an extent the priorities for COP26, as alongside the UN climate process countries will be devising stimulus packages for economies hard-hit by the crisis,” said Adair Turner, Senior Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read rest at BBC
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-03--NOAA’s Latest Bogus Climate Scare: ‘Near-Annual’ Reef Bleaching

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Climate alarmists are back with a new and far-fetched Great Barrier Reef scare , just a few years after their most recent claims of massive coral death in the Reef proved false .
No , alarmists , we are not entering a period of “ near-annual ” widespread bleaching .
Mark Eakin , coordinator of Coral Reef Watch at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , told the Australian edition of The Guardian that rising ocean temperatures may have pushed the world ’ s coral reefs into annual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corals can ’ t recover .
However , this year ’ s bleaching hardly qualifies as the “ mass bleaching ” Eakin describes .
Even The Guardian acknowledged , “ Many areas of the Great Barrier Reef are known to have experienced severe bleaching this summer , likely killing many corals , but others , including tourist reefs near Cairns and the Whitsundays , only experienced mild bleaching .
Most offshore reefs in the far north escaped bleaching entirely.
” The reefs in the far north , which have “ escaped bleaching entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the equator and thus in the warmest water .
Climate at a Glance : Coral Reefs provides a summary of the scientific evidence regarding coral reefs and climate change .
The summary documents that corals have existed continuously for the past 40 million years , surviving and evolving in temperatures and carbon dioxide levels significantly higher than what exists today .
Indeed , corals thrive in warm water , not cold water .
Among the myriad factors thought to have driven recent coral bleaching episodes are , “ oxybenzone ( a chemical found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearby coastal lands , and cold temperatures like those recorded in 2010 off the Florida coast.
” Australian coral reef expert Dr. Peter Ridd recently debunked claims in 2016 that up to 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef died during a bleaching event .
“ At the extreme , 8 percent died , ” Ridd reported .
“ There ’ s about the same amount of coral now as there was in 1995 , ” Ridd added .
“ Of all the ecosystems in the world , in fact , the Reef @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increasing [ temperatures ] , whether that ’ s natural or whether that ’ s anthropogenic .
Half a degree temperature change certainly doesn ’ t cause mass bleaching events.
” Still , other peer-reviewed studies have indicated modestly warmer oceans cause an expansion of corals ’ ranges .
For instance , a team of Japanese scientists published a study in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters indicating corals off the coast of Japan expanded their range as water temperatures increased .
The scientists , with access to 80 years of national records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corals were expanding poleward as waters warmed , reporting , “ [ f ] our major coral species categories , including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas , showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s , whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction .
”

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Apr 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate alarmists are back with a new and far-fetched Great Barrier Reef scare, just a few years after their most recent claims of massive coral death in the Reef proved false.
No, alarmists, we are not entering a period of “near-annual” widespread bleaching.
Mark Eakin, coordinator of Coral Reef Watch at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the Australian edition of The Guardian that rising ocean temperatures may have pushed the world’s coral reefs into annual “mass bleaching” events from which corals can’t recover.
However, this year’s bleaching hardly qualifies as the “mass bleaching” Eakin describes.
Even The Guardian acknowledged, “Many areas of the Great Barrier Reef are known to have experienced severe bleaching this summer, likely killing many corals, but others, including tourist reefs near Cairns and the Whitsundays, only experienced mild bleaching. Most offshore reefs in the far north escaped bleaching entirely.”
The reefs in the far north, which have “escaped bleaching entirely,” are the ones closest to the equator and thus in the warmest water.
Climate at a Glance: Coral Reefs provides a summary of the scientific evidence regarding coral reefs and climate change.
The summary documents that corals have existed continuously for the past 40 million years, surviving and evolving in temperatures and carbon dioxide levels significantly higher than what exists today.
Indeed, corals thrive in warm water, not cold water. Among the myriad factors thought to have driven recent coral bleaching episodes are, “oxybenzone (a chemical found in sunscreen), sediment runoff from nearby coastal lands, and cold temperatures like those recorded in 2010 off the Florida coast.”
Australian coral reef expert Dr. Peter Ridd recently debunked claims in 2016 that up to 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef died during a bleaching event. “At the extreme, 8 percent died,” Ridd reported.
“There’s about the same amount of coral now as there was in 1995,” Ridd added.
“Of all the ecosystems in the world, in fact, the Reef is the one best able to adapt to increasing [temperatures], whether that’s natural or whether that’s anthropogenic. Half a degree temperature change certainly doesn’t cause mass bleaching events.”
Still, other peer-reviewed studies have indicated modestly warmer oceans cause an expansion of corals’ ranges.
For instance, a team of Japanese scientists published a study in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters indicating corals off the coast of Japan expanded their range as water temperatures increased.
The scientists, with access to 80 years of national records from temperate areas of Japan, found corals were expanding poleward as waters warmed, reporting, “[f]our major coral species categories, including two key species for reef formation in tropical areas, showed poleward range expansions since the 1930s, whereas no species demonstrated southward range shrinkage or local extinction.”
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--2020-04-03--Phase 4 May Be Dem’s Last Chance To Pass The Green New Deal

Written by Mark Krebs on .
Posted in Latest news Yes ; another “ stimulus ” bill is possible and perhaps even likely .
Expect Nancy Pelosi ’ s “ Green New Deal ” to be part of this effort given that the Senate and the President said NO to subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines in the CARES Act .
Numerous special interests didn ’ t get their piece of the pie and were promised another shot in order to move the CARES Act out of the Senate .
It ’ s all politics , not consumer economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election year , trading campaign contributions for legislative favors .
As we all know , such “ horse-trading ” is pretty much par for the course to move legislation .
In most cases , however , such intentions are not well-publicized .
This time , some have been revealed .
MasterResource has covered the latest : • Green New Deal 2 : “ A Green Stimulus to Rebuild Our Economy ” • “ How Embarrassing .
This Is a National Emergency ” Wind and Solar try an 11th-hour sneak For another example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily in Green Bank Supporters Look To The Next Stimulus : ( 6 ) ELECTRIFICATION.—The term ‘ electrification ’ means the installation , construction , or use of end-use electric technology that replaces existing fossil-fuel-based technology .
“ ( 7 ) ENERGY EFFICIENCY.—The term ‘ energy efficiency ’ means any project , technology , function , or measure that results in the reduction of energy use required to achieve the same level of service or output prior to the application of such project , technology , function , or measure , or substantially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would have occurred prior to the application of such project , technology , function , or measure .
“ ( 8 ) FUEL SWITCHING.—The term ‘ fuel switching ’ means any project that replaces a fossil-fuel-based heating system with an electric-powered system or one powered by biomass-generated heat .
Master Resource readers may recall the “ Green Bank ” concept from a critique back in 2009 by none other than Jerry Taylor : Busting the “ Clean Energy Bank ” ( another problem with Waxman-Markey ) .
His logic , then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then and now , the fundamental purpose of “ Green Banks ” is to allow ( highly speculative , at best ) carbon reductions to substitute for reduced energy consumption as a metric for energy efficiency ( which is already site-based ) .
That ’ s exactly what the highlighted “ or ” does in the above excerpt .
It is also noteworthy that the bill neglects to define what clean energy is .
Most certainly , any direct use of fossil fuels won ’ t be deemed clean , despite any adverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t forget that just before the World was upended by the coronavirus , we had another deep-decarbonization electrification bill : the 555-page American Energy Innovation Act ( AEIA ) .
After AEIS started to flounder in Mid-March , DOE ’ s new Secretary Brouillette stepped-in on behalf of the proposed legislation as quoted by E & E Daily on March 13 in an article titled Brouillette Urges Progress On Stalled Energy Package .
• Spending authorizations in the bill would add to some $ 24 billion over the next five fiscal years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects on storage , nuclear and carbon capture .
• During remarks to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Boards , Brouillette urged lawmakers to continue deliberations .
• “ And we hope that they continue their work in the United States Senate and perhaps move forward to pass this bill and to begin some cooperation with the House , as well , ” he added .
“ We ’ d like to see that work go forward ; we ’ re very happy that they ’ re doing that.
” Why would Brouillette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s DOE ’ s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ( EERE ) official mission and strategic plan ( both unchanged since the Obama Administration ) and most of that $ 24 Billion would be overseen by DOE/EERE .
Since “ clean energy ” unfairly discriminates against the leading ( and clean ) alternatives to electricity , this is contrary to the best interests of free markets and providing affordable energy for consumers .
In short , this picking of winners and losers does not help “ make America great again.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their subcontractors are also pushing this “ clean energy ” transition through the publication of studies , webinars , etc .
that push energy regulators to “ virtue signal ” using OPM ( other people ’ s money ) .
Such on-going conditioning was the subject of past Master Resource author Ken Costello in an article titled The Politicization Of Public Utility Regulation .
So , what gives ?
Unwittingly or otherwise , Congress ( along with the Agencies whose budgets they dictate ) and energy regulators are picking away at liberty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem hesitant exchanging a little more personal freedom for the perception of financial security ( think $ 1,200 “ free ” checks courtesy of the CARES Act ) .
Eventually , however , that perception fades as reality sets in .
Freedom to choose , as long as that choice is electric , is economic capture that is perpetuated via regulatory capture .
To truly make America great again , don ’ t further entrench corporate-crony Darwinism “ where only the connected survive.
” Instead : • “ Just say no ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Getting past the coronavirus crisis is obviously the most immediate need .
However , this is likely a short-term crisis .
Contrary to the claims of the Green New Deal ( GND ) advocates , there are more important long-term crises .
These include : • Meeting the needs of a growing global population ( independent of the current coronavirus ) .
• Guarding against and reacting to a future Pandemic .
In addition to GND priorities , all of these three looming crises will require efforts that we can ’ t resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional comments regarding 2 and 3 : • The tab for all 3 coronavirus legislation enacted so far is about $ 7 Trillion , and there will likely be more to follow .
Problem-solving by printing more money causes other problems ; namely reduced buying power .
This can be especially devastating for low or fixed-income consumers .
• “ An article titled Earth ’ s Soil Could Absorb 5.5 Billion Tonnes of CO2 Annually , if We Get It Right summarized some recent soil science research .
To put 5.5 Billion tons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years atmospheric carbon has increased at a rate of about 15.6 billion tons per year ( @ 1ppm = 7.81 Gigatonnes of CO ) .
Thus , theoretically , natural , photosynthetic soil sequestration of carbon could decrease atmospheric CO “ excess ” by about 1/3 .
Not bad ; especially considering it ’ s something we should probably be doing anyway given the benefits of reduced inorganic chemical use , improved yields , less runoff , etc.
, etc .
estimated at + $ 85 Billion just for the US .
Thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than free .
And in so sequestering “ excess ” atmospheric carbon , the claimed rationale for eliminating the use of fossil fuels could be greatly reduced and environmental progress celebrated .
In summary , job one is to ultimately defeat the coronavirus .
Job 2 should be to prevail against economic parasitic infestations that would inflate prices and further weaken the economy by eliminating alternatives to electricity .
Deep decarbonization in the name of averting a climate “ crisis ” is a ruse .
Government policy should favor the most efficient and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent it is a problem ) , rather than inordinate funding of the costliest and most “ high tech ” as is current subsidy groveling practice .
( For a series of posts on this topic , see here . )

Written by Mark Krebs on Apr 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Yes; another “stimulus” bill is possible and perhaps even likely. Expect Nancy Pelosi’s “Green New Deal” to be part of this effort given that the Senate and the President said NO to subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines in the CARES Act.
Numerous special interests didn’t get their piece of the pie and were promised another shot in order to move the CARES Act out of the Senate.
It’s all politics, not consumer economics, for the pack of lobbyists in an election year, trading campaign contributions for legislative favors.
As we all know, such “horse-trading” is pretty much par for the course to move legislation. In most cases, however, such intentions are not well-publicized.
This time, some have been revealed. MasterResource has covered the latest:
For another example, as reported by E&E Daily in Green Bank Supporters Look To The Next Stimulus:
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said that she’s pushing leaders on the Energy and Commerce Committee to get her bill, H.R. 5416, the “National Climate Bank Act,” into talks for future relief packages.
Excerpts from H.R. 5416:
(6) ELECTRIFICATION.—The term ‘electrification’ means the installation, construction, or use of end-use electric technology that replaces existing fossil-fuel-based technology. “(7) ENERGY EFFICIENCY.—The term ‘energy efficiency’ means any project, technology, function, or measure that results in the reduction of energy use required to achieve the same level of service or output prior to the application of such project, technology, function, or measure, or substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions relative to emissions that would have occurred prior to the application of such project, technology, function, or measure. “(8) FUEL SWITCHING.—The term ‘fuel switching’ means any project that replaces a fossil-fuel-based heating system with an electric-powered system or one powered by biomass-generated heat.
Master Resource readers may recall the “Green Bank” concept from a critique back in 2009 by none other than Jerry Taylor: Busting the “Clean Energy Bank” (another problem with Waxman-Markey). His logic, then, can be used against him today.
Then and now, the fundamental purpose of “Green Banks” is to allow (highly speculative, at best) carbon reductions to substitute for reduced energy consumption as a metric for energy efficiency (which is already site-based). That’s exactly what the highlighted “or” does in the above excerpt.
It is also noteworthy that the bill neglects to define what clean energy is. Most certainly, any direct use of fossil fuels won’t be deemed clean, despite any adverse environmental consequences of renewables.
…snip…
American Energy Innovation Act (Green New Deal Lite)
Don’t forget that just before the World was upended by the coronavirus, we had another deep-decarbonization electrification bill: the 555-page American Energy Innovation Act (AEIA).
After AEIS started to flounder in Mid-March, DOE’s new Secretary Brouillette stepped-in on behalf of the proposed legislation as quoted by E&E Daily on March 13 in an article titled Brouillette Urges Progress On Stalled Energy Package.
Excerpts:
Spending authorizations in the bill would add to some $24 billion over the next five fiscal years to beef up clean energy research and demonstration projects on storage, nuclear and carbon capture.
During remarks to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Boards, Brouillette urged lawmakers to continue deliberations.
“And we hope that they continue their work in the United States Senate and perhaps move forward to pass this bill and to begin some cooperation with the House, as well,” he added. “We’d like to see that work go forward; we’re very happy that they’re doing that.”
Why would Brouillette advocate for clean energy? Because it’s DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) official mission and strategic plan (both unchanged since the Obama Administration) and most of that $24 Billion would be overseen by DOE/EERE.
Since “clean energy” unfairly discriminates against the leading (and clean) alternatives to electricity, this is contrary to the best interests of free markets and providing affordable energy for consumers.
In short, this picking of winners and losers does not help “make America great again.”
DOE/EERE “National Labs” and their subcontractors are also pushing this “clean energy” transition through the publication of studies, webinars, etc. that push energy regulators to “virtue signal” using OPM (other people’s money).
Such on-going conditioning was the subject of past Master Resource author Ken Costello in an article titled The Politicization Of Public Utility Regulation.
Looking Ahead
So, what gives? Unwittingly or otherwise, Congress (along with the Agencies whose budgets they dictate) and energy regulators are picking away at liberty and choice.
Most people don’t seem hesitant exchanging a little more personal freedom for the perception of financial security (think $1,200 “free” checks courtesy of the CARES Act).
Eventually, however, that perception fades as reality sets in. Freedom to choose, as long as that choice is electric, is economic capture that is perpetuated via regulatory capture.
To truly make America great again, don’t further entrench corporate-crony Darwinism “where only the connected survive.” Instead:
Focus Congress upon implementing Trump’s budget cuts “Just say no” to energy subsidies; all of them.
Getting past the coronavirus crisis is obviously the most immediate need. However, this is likely a short-term crisis. Contrary to the claims of the Green New Deal (GND) advocates, there are more important long-term crises. These include:
Reducing our national debt Meeting the needs of a growing global population (independent of the current coronavirus). Guarding against and reacting to a future Pandemic.
In addition to GND priorities, all of these three looming crises will require efforts that we can’t resolve by simply printing more money. Some additional comments regarding 2 and 3:
The tab for all 3 coronavirus legislation enacted so far is about $7 Trillion, and there will likely be more to follow. Problem-solving by printing more money causes other problems; namely reduced buying power. This can be especially devastating for low or fixed-income consumers.
“An article titled Earth’s Soil Could Absorb 5.5 Billion Tonnes of CO2 Annually, if We Get It Right summarized some recent soil science research. To put 5.5 Billion tons per year into perspective, in recent years atmospheric carbon has increased at a rate of about 15.6 billion tons per year (@ 1ppm = 7.81 Gigatonnes of CO 2 ). Thus, theoretically, natural, photosynthetic soil sequestration of carbon could decrease atmospheric CO 2 “excess” by about 1/3. Not bad; especially considering it’s something we should probably be doing anyway given the benefits of reduced inorganic chemical use, improved yields, less runoff, etc., etc. estimated at +$85 Billion just for the US. Thus, possibly, this may be better than free. And in so sequestering “excess” atmospheric carbon, the claimed rationale for eliminating the use of fossil fuels could be greatly reduced and environmental progress celebrated.
Conclusion
In summary, job one is to ultimately defeat the coronavirus. Job 2 should be to prevail against economic parasitic infestations that would inflate prices and further weaken the economy by eliminating alternatives to electricity. Deep decarbonization in the name of averting a climate “crisis” is a ruse.
Government policy should favor the most efficient and productive means of cutting carbon (to the extent it is a problem), rather than inordinate funding of the costliest and most “high tech” as is current subsidy groveling practice. (For a series of posts on this topic, see here.)
Read more at MasterResource
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-03--NASA Data Shows No Greenland Warming, Melting In Nearly 100 Years

Written by Kirye and Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Recently I tweeted that according to NASA GHCN V3 data , three of four stations in Iceland saw no warming from 1922 – 2018 : But then NASA adjusted the V3 data and called it GHCN V4 “ unadjusted ” .
The chart shown above in my tweet toggles between the prior V3 chart and the “ unadjusted ” V4 .
See the difference ?
Note how the lack of warming has been removed and now the V4 data show modest warming .
The missing heat was found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sense , global warming has been “ man-made ” – done through statistical fudging and not human activity .
Today we also take a look at Greenland .
The map that follows shows the location of the stations we ’ ve been looking at : Looking at Greenland V4 mean annual temperatures at the Nuuk and Tasiilaq stations , we see the following plots : Here even NASA ’ s V4 data still show no warming .
In fact , we saw pronounced cooling from the 1960s to the early 1990s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , a 2017 paper by Kabashi et al shows a downward trend “ in accordance with a North Atlantic-wide cooling ” : So no wonder Greenland ’ s glaciers have stopped appearing in alarmist headlines .
After the brief 1990-2010 period of melting , Greenland ’ s ice sheet mass losses have significantly decelerated since 2013 – a reversal from the rapid retreat from the 1990s to 2012 driven by cloud forcing and the NAO ( Ruan et al.
, 2019 ) .
The 47 largest Greenland glaciers also experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rather insignificant retreat from 2013 to 2018 ( Andersen et al.
, 2019 ) .
Only 21 of the 47 Greenland glaciers retreated in 2018 , 12 advanced , and the other 14 showed no trends in either direction ( Polar Portal , 2019 ) .
Greenland ’ s largest glacier , Jakobshavn , earned headlines in 2019 for its surprising and non-predicted rapid thickening in recent years .
In short , absolutely zero alarm up in Greenland – unless your concern is cooling .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kirye and Pierre Gosselin on Apr 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Recently I tweeted that according to NASA GHCN V3 data, three of four stations in Iceland saw no warming from 1922 – 2018:
In Iceland, 3 of 4 stations have been a cooling or there has been no warming trend from 1922 to 2018, according to GHCN V3 Unadjusted data.
GHCN V4 Unadjusted data shows how NASA changed the temperature data during the same period.#地球温暖化? #温暖化？ #気候変動 #ClimateChange pic.twitter.com/XjCe4KCqjg — キリエ (@KiryeNet) April 1, 2020
But then NASA adjusted the V3 data and called it GHCN V4 “unadjusted”. The chart shown above in my tweet toggles between the prior V3 chart and the “unadjusted” V4. See the difference?
Note how the lack of warming has been removed and now the V4 data show modest warming. The missing heat was found – in the statistics! So in a sense, global warming has been “man-made” – done through statistical fudging and not human activity.
Greenland
Today we also take a look at Greenland. The map that follows shows the location of the stations we’ve been looking at:
Looking at Greenland V4 mean annual temperatures at the Nuuk and Tasiilaq stations, we see the following plots:
Here even NASA’s V4 data still show no warming. In fact, we saw pronounced cooling from the 1960s to the early 1990s. Since 2002, Greenland temps have stabilized.
Recent findings confirm cooling
In fact, a 2017 paper by Kabashi et al shows a downward trend “in accordance with a North Atlantic-wide cooling”:
Greenland’s glaciers stable
So no wonder Greenland’s glaciers have stopped appearing in alarmist headlines.
After the brief 1990-2010 period of melting, Greenland’s ice sheet mass losses have significantly decelerated since 2013 – a reversal from the rapid retreat from the 1990s to 2012 driven by cloud forcing and the NAO (Ruan et al., 2019).
The 47 largest Greenland glaciers also experienced a “relatively stable” period of a rather insignificant retreat from 2013 to 2018 (Andersen et al., 2019).
Only 21 of the 47 Greenland glaciers retreated in 2018, 12 advanced, and the other 14 showed no trends in either direction (Polar Portal, 2019).
Greenland’s largest glacier, Jakobshavn, earned headlines in 2019 for its surprising and non-predicted rapid thickening in recent years.
In short, absolutely zero alarm up in Greenland – unless your concern is cooling.
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--2020-04-03--Reuters Invents Fake Seaweed Crisis As Harvests More Than Double

Written by Tiffany Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Reuters published a March 30 article claiming climate change is causing a crisis in seaweed growth and harvesting .
However , the facts say just the opposite .
According to a 2018 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report , the global seaweed harvest more than doubled between 2005 and 2015 .
Reuters is inventing a fake climate crisis and hoping people will simply believe the claim without bothering to check the facts .
The Reuters article , titled , “ India ’ s women seaweed divers swim against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change is changing ocean conditions and reducing the seaweed harvest .
“ The women talk about the harsh conditions of the sea , the rising tides and the great physical strength required to hold one ’ s breath and go down to the depths .
But with every passing year , yields are falling… , ” Reuters claims .
To bolster its claim , Reuters quoted a climate-activist scientist .
“ With the rise in sea temperature and salinity , seaweed growth has declined in the last decade , ” Reuters quoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute in Ramanathapuram district .
But objective facts say just the opposite .
The United Nations 2018 report , “ The global status of seaweed production , trade , and utilization , ” reports global seaweed production was 14.7 million tons in 2005 , growing to 30.4 million tons in 2015 .
So , how does Reuters reconcile a doubling of global production with “ every passing year , yields are falling ” ?
For one , Reuters does not cite any actual data , globally or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked to ( alarmist ) scientists , so the claim must be true .
Also , Reuters chose to focus on India , which is only a small player in global seaweed production .
India does not rank in the top 10 seaweed producers , and India produces less than 0.1 percent of the global seaweed harvest .
It appears unlikely that India is defying the global trend and that seaweed harvests are declining there , but even if that is so , that would be just one very minor country that defies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend .
Reuters blasts out scary headlines seeking to ramp up fears of a climate crisis , but here – like with so many other scary climate claims – scientific facts completely obliterate the asserted Climate Delusion .

Written by Tiffany Taylor on Apr 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Reuters published a March 30 article claiming climate change is causing a crisis in seaweed growth and harvesting. However, the facts say just the opposite.
According to a 2018 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, the global seaweed harvest more than doubled between 2005 and 2015.
Reuters is inventing a fake climate crisis and hoping people will simply believe the claim without bothering to check the facts.
The Reuters article, titled, “India’s women seaweed divers swim against the tide of climate change,” claims climate change is changing ocean conditions and reducing the seaweed harvest.
“The women talk about the harsh conditions of the sea, the rising tides and the great physical strength required to hold one’s breath and go down to the depths. But with every passing year, yields are falling…,” Reuters claims.
To bolster its claim, Reuters quoted a climate-activist scientist. “With the rise in sea temperature and salinity, seaweed growth has declined in the last decade,” Reuters quoted K. Eswaran, a scientist at the Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute in Ramanathapuram district.
But objective facts say just the opposite. The United Nations 2018 report, “The global status of seaweed production, trade, and utilization,” reports global seaweed production was 14.7 million tons in 2005, growing to 30.4 million tons in 2015.
So, how does Reuters reconcile a doubling of global production with “every passing year, yields are falling”?
For one, Reuters does not cite any actual data, globally or from India. Reuters can claim it talked to (alarmist) scientists, so the claim must be true.
Also, Reuters chose to focus on India, which is only a small player in global seaweed production. India does not rank in the top 10 seaweed producers, and India produces less than 0.1 percent of the global seaweed harvest.
It appears unlikely that India is defying the global trend and that seaweed harvests are declining there, but even if that is so, that would be just one very minor country that defies the wonderful news regarding the overall global trend.
Reuters blasts out scary headlines seeking to ramp up fears of a climate crisis, but here – like with so many other scary climate claims – scientific facts completely obliterate the asserted Climate Delusion.
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