climatechangedispatch--2020-06-25--IPCC And Skeptics Agree: Climate Change Not Causing Extreme Weather

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired Oxford physicist Ralph Alexander supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ’ s conclusion there is limited scientific evidence linking human-caused climate change to increases in extreme weather .
Alexander ’ s conclusions are also confirmed by recent documents produced by Heartland Senior Fellow Anthony Watts on the website “ Climate at a Glance.
” Alexander ’ s paper begins by remarking , “ [ t ] he purported link between extreme weather and global warming has captured the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more than any of the other claims made by the narrative of human-caused climate change.
” This is surprising because data and analyses from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) —the UN body that climate alarmists in academic , political , and media circles continually cite as the authoritative source of information on climate change—confirm that “ if there is any trend at all in extreme weather , it ’ s downward rather than upward .
Our most extreme weather , be it heatwave , drought , flood , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate , ” writes Alexander .
“ Recent atmospheric heat waves in western Europe , ” writes Alexander , “ pale in comparison with the soaring temperatures of the 1930s , a period when three of the seven continents and 32 of the 50 US states set all-time high-temperature records , which still stand today.
” Nor has IPCC discerned or identified any long-term trend in drought patterns , either in the United States or globally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased in recent years , there is no evidence floods are becoming more frequent or severe .
Alexander notes many recent flood events can be traced almost entirely to land-use changes , including channelization , deforestation , destruction of wetlands , and the building of dams .
“ Climate at a Glance : Floods ” confirms Alexander ’ s assessment , citing data showing there has been no evidence of increased flooding frequency or severity in the United States or elsewhere over the past century and a half .
Indeed , IPCC writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods , going so far as to state it has “ low confidence ” in even the “ sign ” of any changes .
In other words , it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe .
On top of that , a 2017 study on the climate impact of flooding for the United States and Europe , published in the Journal of Hydrology , found , “ The number of significant trends was about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and “ Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.
” Alexander notes hurricanes and tropical cyclones actually show a decreasing trend around the globe , with the frequency of land-falling hurricanes of any strength ( Categories 1 through 5 ) remaining unchanged for at least 50 years .
While the frequency of major North Atlantic hurricanes , which are the most studied , has increased during the past 20 years , the current heightened activity level is merely comparable to the 1950s and 1960s—a period when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes ” confirms Alexander ’ s hurricane conclusions , citing IPCC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) who report there has been no increase in number or severity of hurricanes as the planet has modestly warmed .
The United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike , experiencing its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period .
And IPCC ’ s 2018 Interim Report observes there is “ only low confidence for the attribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity to anthropogenic influences.
” “ Likewise , there is no trend in the frequency of tornadoes in the United States since at least as far back as 1954 .
The frequency of strong ( EF3 or greater ) tornadoes has even diminished over that interval .
The average number of strong tornadoes annually from 1986 to 2017 was 40 percent less than from 1954 to 1985 , ” writes Alexander concerning the absence of changes in tornado trends during the recent period of modest warming .
“ But what about droughts ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ droughts are increasing due to climate change !
” Not so , according to data from IPCC and other research bodies .
Indeed , IPCC reports droughts are becoming less severe , with the United States benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms .
In 2017 and 2019 , NOAA reported the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions .
Simultaneously , IPCC reports with “ high confidence ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) during the past 70 years , while IPCC has “ low confidence ” about any negative trends globally .
Extreme weather events do occur , but they are the result of “ natural patterns in the climate system , not global warming , ” writes Alexander .
In particular , he cites the periodic , although irregular shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation , which governs many extremes such as intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin and major floods in eastern North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ El Niño and La Niña cycles in the Pacific Ocean often cause catastrophic flooding in the western Americas , as well as severe droughts in Australia .
In Europe , recent heatwaves have been driven by changes in the jet stream that block normal weather patterns .
In short , the oft-repeated assertions that weather is getting more extreme is patently false .
Drought , flooding , hurricane , and tornado numbers are well within their normal historic range of severity and frequency .
Looking at the data , there is absolutely no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Epoch Times

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired Oxford physicist Ralph Alexander supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusion there is limited scientific evidence linking human-caused climate change to increases in extreme weather.
Alexander’s conclusions are also confirmed by recent documents produced by Heartland Senior Fellow Anthony Watts on the website “Climate at a Glance.”
Alexander’s paper begins by remarking, “[t]he purported link between extreme weather and global warming has captured the public imagination and attention of the mainstream media far more than any of the other claims made by the narrative of human-caused climate change.”
This is surprising because data and analyses from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the UN body that climate alarmists in academic, political, and media circles continually cite as the authoritative source of information on climate change—confirm that “if there is any trend at all in extreme weather, it’s downward rather than upward.
Our most extreme weather, be it heatwave, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado, occurred many years ago, long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate,” writes Alexander.
“Recent atmospheric heat waves in western Europe,” writes Alexander, “pale in comparison with the soaring temperatures of the 1930s, a period when three of the seven continents and 32 of the 50 US states set all-time high-temperature records, which still stand today.”
Nor has IPCC discerned or identified any long-term trend in drought patterns, either in the United States or globally.
And even though rainfall has modestly increased in recent years, there is no evidence floods are becoming more frequent or severe.
Alexander notes many recent flood events can be traced almost entirely to land-use changes, including channelization, deforestation, destruction of wetlands, and the building of dams.
“Climate at a Glance: Floods” confirms Alexander’s assessment, citing data showing there has been no evidence of increased flooding frequency or severity in the United States or elsewhere over the past century and a half.
Indeed, IPCC writes it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to state it has “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes.
In other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe.
On top of that, a 2017 study on the climate impact of flooding for the United States and Europe, published in the Journal of Hydrology, found, “The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone,” and “Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.”
Alexander notes hurricanes and tropical cyclones actually show a decreasing trend around the globe, with the frequency of land-falling hurricanes of any strength (Categories 1 through 5) remaining unchanged for at least 50 years.
While the frequency of major North Atlantic hurricanes, which are the most studied, has increased during the past 20 years, the current heightened activity level is merely comparable to the 1950s and 1960s—a period when the Earth was cooling, not warming.
“Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes” confirms Alexander’s hurricane conclusions, citing IPCC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who report there has been no increase in number or severity of hurricanes as the planet has modestly warmed.
The United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, experiencing its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period.
And IPCC’s 2018 Interim Report observes there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”
“Likewise, there is no trend in the frequency of tornadoes in the United States since at least as far back as 1954. The frequency of strong (EF3 or greater) tornadoes has even diminished over that interval. The average number of strong tornadoes annually from 1986 to 2017 was 40 percent less than from 1954 to 1985,” writes Alexander concerning the absence of changes in tornado trends during the recent period of modest warming.
“But what about droughts?” alarmists ask. “We know droughts are increasing due to climate change!”
Not so, according to data from IPCC and other research bodies. Indeed, IPCC reports droughts are becoming less severe, with the United States benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms.
In 2017 and 2019, NOAA reported the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
Simultaneously, IPCC reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Extreme weather events do occur, but they are the result of “natural patterns in the climate system, not global warming,” writes Alexander.
In particular, he cites the periodic, although irregular shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which governs many extremes such as intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin and major floods in eastern North America and western Europe.
Further, El Niño and La Niña cycles in the Pacific Ocean often cause catastrophic flooding in the western Americas, as well as severe droughts in Australia.
In Europe, recent heatwaves have been driven by changes in the jet stream that block normal weather patterns.
In short, the oft-repeated assertions that weather is getting more extreme is patently false.
Drought, flooding, hurricane, and tornado numbers are well within their normal historic range of severity and frequency. Looking at the data, there is absolutely no basis for alarm.
Read more at The Epoch Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-25--A Drowned World? The Latest False Alarm About The Climate

Written by Tom Finnerty on .
Posted in Latest news Bjorn Lomborg has an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “ Examining the Latest False Alarm on Climate , ( $ ) ” which contains a helpful illustration of the way the media uses studies to whip up anxiety around one of their pet projects .
In the piece , he discusses a spate of recent startling headlines all of which suggest that , in his words , “ Rising sea levels from climate change could flood 187 million people out of their homes.
” This claim has its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way back in 2011 , and when you actually read the paper , you see that it needed to make some pretty questionable assumptions in order to arrive at that figure .
As Lomborg explains , the paper found that “ 187 million could be forced to move in the unlikely event that , in the next 80 years , no one does anything to adapt to dramatic rises in sea level.
” In other words , in order for their projection to make sense , the paper ’ s authors had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already questionable ) projected out over a century and then disregard what we know about actual human behavior .
If sea-levels rise as much as these authors are claiming ( which is , once again , not certain ) , leading to significant coastal flooding , one hundred eighty-seven million people — not to mention their governments — aren ’ t just going to sit there until they ’ re neck-deep in water .
What would actually happen , says Lomborg , is we would deal with those problems as they arise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ headline , then , is a canard , based on dubiously applied data , whose object it is to frighten you into signing onto a sprawling environmentalist program .
While flooding will likely be a serious problem over the next 80 years , as it is in many parts of the world today , targeted policies and spending could go a long way towards reducing their human and financial costs .
They ’ re also more likely to be successful than the beef-and-airplane bans our mainstream media overlords have in mind .
Read @ @ @ @

Written by Tom Finnerty on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Bjorn Lomborg has an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Examining the Latest False Alarm on Climate, ($)” which contains a helpful illustration of the way the media uses studies to whip up anxiety around one of their pet projects.
In the piece, he discusses a spate of recent startling headlines all of which suggest that, in his words, “Rising sea levels from climate change could flood 187 million people out of their homes.”
This claim has its origin in a paper published all the way back in 2011, and when you actually read the paper, you see that it needed to make some pretty questionable assumptions in order to arrive at that figure.
As Lomborg explains, the paper found that “187 million could be forced to move in the unlikely event that, in the next 80 years, no one does anything to adapt to dramatic rises in sea level.”
In other words, in order for their projection to make sense, the paper’s authors had to take worst-case climate scenarios (which are already questionable) projected out over a century and then disregard what we know about actual human behavior.
If sea-levels rise as much as these authors are claiming (which is, once again, not certain), leading to significant coastal flooding, one hundred eighty-seven million people — not to mention their governments — aren’t just going to sit there until they’re neck-deep in water.
What would actually happen, says Lomborg, is we would deal with those problems as they arise.
We have more know-how and technology than ever to build dikes, surge barriers and dams, expand beaches and construct dunes, make ecosystem-based barriers like mangrove buffers, improve building codes and construction techniques, and use land planning and hazard mapping to minimize flooding.
The one hundred eighty-seven million displaced people headline, then, is a canard, based on dubiously applied data, whose object it is to frighten you into signing onto a sprawling environmentalist program.
While flooding will likely be a serious problem over the next 80 years, as it is in many parts of the world today, targeted policies and spending could go a long way towards reducing their human and financial costs.
They’re also more likely to be successful than the beef-and-airplane bans our mainstream media overlords have in mind.
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--2020-06-25--India’s Brush With The Notorious Worst-Case Climate Scenario

Written by Terence Corcoran on .
Posted in Latest news A new report from the Indian government on climate-change impacts and forecasts paints a grim scenario if greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled right now .
Trouble is , the “ grim impact ” is based on the notorious RCP8.5 extreme scenario that scientists such as the University of Colorado ’ s Matthew Burgess and colleagues now say should not be relied upon .
( Read Ross McKitrick ’ s recent column for Financial Post . )
According to India Climate Dialogue , the report forecasts that unless steps are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature over India will rise by approximately 4.4 degrees Celsius relative to the recent past ( 1976–2005 average ) .
The projections are based on “ the worst-case scenario used by climate modelers worldwide.
” So far , though , the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi doesn ’ t seem to be “ following the science.
” Last week , India opened coal mining to private investment , a move described as an attempt to create hundreds of thousands of jobs following an economic slump triggered by the coronavirus pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ India ’ s reliance on energy imports and develop the eastern and central parts of the country .
Whether the coal investment scheme is a good idea or not , Modi is right to be appearing to ignore the warnings that India is heading for a scorching increase in temperatures .
Guelph University economist Ross McKitrick comments that Indian economic growth from expanded use of fossil fuels “ will add thousands of dollars of annual income to the poor in India .
Climate change will subtract a few percents from that at most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain.
” The use of RCP8.5 represents another piece of political “ science.
” Any forecast from an RCP8.5 scenario is an impossible outlier , adds McKitrick .
“ It ’ s worthless.
” Read more at Financial Post

Written by Terence Corcoran on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new report from the Indian government on climate-change impacts and forecasts paints a grim scenario if greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled right now.
Trouble is, the “grim impact” is based on the notorious RCP8.5 extreme scenario that scientists such as the University of Colorado’s Matthew Burgess and colleagues now say should not be relied upon. (Read Ross McKitrick’s recent column for Financial Post.)
According to India Climate Dialogue, the report forecasts that unless steps are taken, between 2070 and 2099 average temperature over India will rise by approximately 4.4 degrees Celsius relative to the recent past (1976–2005 average).
The projections are based on “the worst-case scenario used by climate modelers worldwide.”
So far, though, the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi doesn’t seem to be “following the science.”
Last week, India opened coal mining to private investment, a move described as an attempt to create hundreds of thousands of jobs following an economic slump triggered by the coronavirus pandemic.
Modi said the move would help reduce India’s reliance on energy imports and develop the eastern and central parts of the country.
Whether the coal investment scheme is a good idea or not, Modi is right to be appearing to ignore the warnings that India is heading for a scorching increase in temperatures.
Guelph University economist Ross McKitrick comments that Indian economic growth from expanded use of fossil fuels “will add thousands of dollars of annual income to the poor in India. Climate change will subtract a few percents from that at most. It is still a massive net gain.”
The use of RCP8.5 represents another piece of political “science.” Any forecast from an RCP8.5 scenario is an impossible outlier, adds McKitrick. “It’s worthless.”
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-25--McDonald’s Canada Ends Trial Of Meatless Burger

Written by Amelia Lucas on .
Posted in Latest news Shares of Beyond Meat fell 7 % in morning trading after the CBC reported that McDonald ’ s stopped testing a burger made with its patties in Canada .
In a tweet to a consumer asking about the burger , McDonald ’ s Canada said that the test ended April 6 .
The chain has no plans to bring back the item at this time .
In September , McDonald ’ s joined the push for more meat alternatives in North America when it started testing the meat-free P.L.T .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded to another 24 locations in January for a 12-week test .
McDonald ’ s said in a statement that there has been no change to its relationship with Beyond Meat .
“ We ’ re evaluating learnings from our recent test to inform future menu options .
As we look ahead , we will plan to bring plant-based options to the menu at the right time for customers in individual markets , ” the company said .
Other international McDonald ’ s markets have found more success with meatless burgers .
Restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added veggie burgers made by Nestle to their menus .
In the United States , McDonald ’ s has yet to test a vegan burger .
The coronavirus pandemic led the chain to streamline its menus temporarily and to push back product launches , including a new chicken sandwich .

Written by Amelia Lucas on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Shares of Beyond Meat fell 7% in morning trading after the CBC reported that McDonald’s stopped testing a burger made with its patties in Canada.
In a tweet to a consumer asking about the burger, McDonald’s Canada said that the test ended April 6. The chain has no plans to bring back the item at this time.
McDonald’s stock was trading down 1%. […]
Hi there. Our Plant-Based Burger was being tested in several Markets until April 6th. We have no current plans to bring it back to our menu at this time. However, we will be sure to share your feedback with our team for future consideration. — McDonald’s Canada (@McDonaldsCanada) April 28, 2020
In September, McDonald’s joined the push for more meat alternatives in North America when it started testing the meat-free P.L.T. burger in southwestern Ontario. The test expanded to another 24 locations in January for a 12-week test.
McDonald’s said in a statement that there has been no change to its relationship with Beyond Meat.
“We’re evaluating learnings from our recent test to inform future menu options. As we look ahead, we will plan to bring plant-based options to the menu at the right time for customers in individual markets,” the company said.
Other international McDonald’s markets have found more success with meatless burgers. Restaurants in Germany, for example, have added veggie burgers made by Nestle to their menus.
In the United States, McDonald’s has yet to test a vegan burger. The coronavirus pandemic led the chain to streamline its menus temporarily and to push back product launches, including a new chicken sandwich.
Read rest at CNBC
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-25--New Climate Poll: People Concerned, Just Not Very Much

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Every few months one polling firm or another releases a survey asking people if they would like action on climate change .
And survey after survey says people would – if action is not too costly or disruptive .
A new Pew Research Center poll is being hyped by the Washington Post and other Establishment-Left media , but it does nothing to change the equation .
A June 23 survey conducted by the reports a majority of respondents say they are concerned about climate change along with other environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to prevent climate change .
As with other such surveys , however , the more important question is where their concern about climate ranks in relation to other issues and , crucially , how much they will personally be willing to pay to fight climate change .
The Pew poll doesn ’ t ask these questions , but others have and the answers are enlightening .
If you ask the public about almost any potential concern that is frequently in the headlines , poll respondents will say the government should do more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when surveys ask whether crime , economic growth , education , healthcare , immigration , jobs , retirement , taxes , terrorism , and similar issues are important – and whether the government should do more to solve these problems – majorities consistently say yes .
However , what we really need to know is how important each issue is relative to other matters of concern .
In a world of limited resources and limited voter attention , the government must focus on what the public is most concerned about and what will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls .
In this regard , climate change consistently ranks at or near the bottom on the list of public concerns .
For example , a United Nations poll surveying more than seven million respondents from 195 countries asked participants to rank 16 priorities .
Quality education ranked first and “ Action Taken on Climate Change ” ranked dead last .
The results of a survey conducted by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2019 are similar .
Survey participants were asked , “ How important are the following issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came in second-to-last among adults and third-to-last among teens in the number of people rating it as either “ extremely ” or “ very ” important .
The only category that consistently ranked lower than climate change was “ renewable energy.
” The new Pew poll touted by the Washington Post misleadingly asks if people think the government should tax the fossil fuel industry , or spend more on renewable energy sources , or impose tougher emission restrictions on power plants and automobiles to fight climate change .
Significant majorities of respondents say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollar figures to any of these policies .
When people think something will cost them nothing , they want it , but the number of takers declines sharply as the costs go up .
However , a 2017 University of Chicago and Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll , a 2015 survey conducted by The New York Times , Stanford University , and Resources for the Future , and the 2019 Post/Kaiser poll found the public wants to fight climate change only if it can be done for free or at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realist like me was surprised by how little money people are willing to spend to fight the mythical climate crisis !
More than half ( 60 percent ) of Post/Kaiser survey respondents said they believed the world had less than 10 years to prevent the worst effects of climate change .
Despite this , 51 percent of those surveyed would be “ somewhat ” or “ strongly ” opposed to paying a $ 2 monthly tax on U.S. residential electric bills to pay for the fight against climate change .
Similarly , 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gasoline tax to fight climate change .
The number of respondents opposed to hikes in electricity costs and gas taxes rose sharply when the proposed fees were increased : 71 percent oppose a $ 10 monthly tax on U.S. residential electric bills , and 74 percent oppose increasing the gas tax by 25 cents per gallon .
These relatively modest cost increases are far below what it would cost the average household to pay for the Green New Deal ( GND ) , or even the GND-lite carbon tax proposals being offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress .
In the end , the so-called climate crisis may concern many people in the abstract , but relatively few people rank it high compared to other public policy issues of concern , and fewer still are willing to pay very much to fight climate change .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Every few months one polling firm or another releases a survey asking people if they would like action on climate change.
And survey after survey says people would – if action is not too costly or disruptive. A new Pew Research Center poll is being hyped by the Washington Post and other Establishment-Left media, but it does nothing to change the equation.
A June 23 survey conducted by the reports a majority of respondents say they are concerned about climate change along with other environmental issues, and that government should do more to prevent climate change.
As with other such surveys, however, the more important question is where their concern about climate ranks in relation to other issues and, crucially, how much they will personally be willing to pay to fight climate change.
The Pew poll doesn’t ask these questions, but others have and the answers are enlightening.
If you ask the public about almost any potential concern that is frequently in the headlines, poll respondents will say the government should do more to fix the problem.
Indeed, when surveys ask whether crime, economic growth, education, healthcare, immigration, jobs, retirement, taxes, terrorism, and similar issues are important – and whether the government should do more to solve these problems – majorities consistently say yes.
However, what we really need to know is how important each issue is relative to other matters of concern.
In a world of limited resources and limited voter attention, the government must focus on what the public is most concerned about and what will motivate people when they go to the polls.
In this regard, climate change consistently ranks at or near the bottom on the list of public concerns.
For example, a United Nations poll surveying more than seven million respondents from 195 countries asked participants to rank 16 priorities. Quality education ranked first and “Action Taken on Climate Change” ranked dead last.
The results of a survey conducted by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2019 are similar.
Survey participants were asked, “How important are the following issues to you personally?”
Options included climate change, the economy, gun policy, health care, immigration, and renewable energy.
Climate change came in second-to-last among adults and third-to-last among teens in the number of people rating it as either “extremely” or “very” important.
The only category that consistently ranked lower than climate change was “renewable energy.”
The new Pew poll touted by the Washington Post misleadingly asks if people think the government should tax the fossil fuel industry, or spend more on renewable energy sources, or impose tougher emission restrictions on power plants and automobiles to fight climate change.
Significant majorities of respondents say yes, yet the survey attaches no dollar figures to any of these policies. When people think something will cost them nothing, they want it, but the number of takers declines sharply as the costs go up.
However, a 2017 University of Chicago and Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, a 2015 survey conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University, and Resources for the Future, and the 2019 Post/Kaiser poll found the public wants to fight climate change only if it can be done for free or at very little cost.
Even a climate realist like me was surprised by how little money people are willing to spend to fight the mythical climate crisis!
More than half (60 percent) of Post/Kaiser survey respondents said they believed the world had less than 10 years to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
Despite this, 51 percent of those surveyed would be “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed to paying a $2 monthly tax on U.S. residential electric bills to pay for the fight against climate change.
Similarly, 61 percent would reject a 10-cents-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax to fight climate change.
The number of respondents opposed to hikes in electricity costs and gas taxes rose sharply when the proposed fees were increased: 71 percent oppose a $10 monthly tax on U.S. residential electric bills, and 74 percent oppose increasing the gas tax by 25 cents per gallon.
These relatively modest cost increases are far below what it would cost the average household to pay for the Green New Deal (GND), or even the GND-lite carbon tax proposals being offered by a very few liberal Republicans in Congress.
In the end, the so-called climate crisis may concern many people in the abstract, but relatively few people rank it high compared to other public policy issues of concern, and fewer still are willing to pay very much to fight climate change.
That’s the important truth public polling firms should note.
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--2020-06-25--Minn. AG Keith Ellison Sues ExxonMobil, Koch For ‘Climate Deception’

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing ExxonMobil and other oil-and-gas entities of deceiving consumers about climate change , six months after New York suffered a major defeat with its climate-fraud litigation .
The consumer-protection lawsuit , which also named the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries , seeks what could be billions in damages to “ help Minnesota pay for the devastating consequences of climate change , ” as well as funding for a “ corrective public education campaign on the issue of climate change.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendants — API , ExxonMobil and Koch — for hiding the truth , for confusing the facts and muddling the waters to devastating effect , ” Mr. Ellison said in a news conference .
“ These defendants knowingly directed , conducted , and funded a campaign to deceive and defraud Minnesotans and Americans about the facts.
” Filed in Ramsey County District Court , the lawsuit comes with Democratic attorneys general in Massachusetts and Rhode Island also seeking to hold oil-and-gas companies responsible for allegedly covering up the impact of carbon-dioxide emissions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied .
In December , New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood lost a climate-fraud case against ExxonMobil four years in the making when a state judge called the allegations “ without merit , ” finding that she failed to show that the company “ made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor.
” In a statement , ExxonMobil spokesman Casey Norton called Mr. Ellison ’ s claims “ baseless and without merit , ” describing the lawsuit as “ part of a coordinated , politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legal proceedings like this waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money and do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change , ” said Mr. Norton .
“ ExxonMobil will continue to invest in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting society ’ s growing demand for energy.
” He cited a ruling earlier this month by a Texas court criticizing such climate lawsuits as “ lawfare , ” referring to a filing by a half-dozen California counties and municipalities seeking climate damages from ExxonMobil .
The Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ugly tool by which to seek the environmental policy changes the California parties desire , enlisting the judiciary to do the work that the other two branches of government can not or will not do , ” according to Law.com .
The Minnesota lawsuit alleged that the oil-and-gas entities violated state laws on consumer fraud , deceptive trade practices , and false advertising , which the Democrat Ellison referred to as “ climate deception.
” “ They deceived Minnesotans about the dominant role of fossil fuels in causing climate change in an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter who it may harm , ” said Mr. Ellison .
Backing the lawsuit was a host of climate groups , including MN350 , the Minnesota Youth Climate Strike , and Honor the Earth .
Two of the four attorneys listed on the complaint were special assistant attorneys general provided by the Bloomberg-funded State Impact Center at the New York University School of Law , which provides privately funded lawyers to state prosecutors to pursue climate litigation .

Written by Valerie Richardson on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing ExxonMobil and other oil-and-gas entities of deceiving consumers about climate change, six months after New York suffered a major defeat with its climate-fraud litigation.
The consumer-protection lawsuit, which also named the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries, seeks what could be billions in damages to “help Minnesota pay for the devastating consequences of climate change,” as well as funding for a “corrective public education campaign on the issue of climate change.”
“We’re here suing these defendants — API, ExxonMobil and Koch — for hiding the truth, for confusing the facts and muddling the waters to devastating effect,” Mr. Ellison said in a news conference. “These defendants knowingly directed, conducted, and funded a campaign to deceive and defraud Minnesotans and Americans about the facts.”
Filed in Ramsey County District Court, the lawsuit comes with Democratic attorneys general in Massachusetts and Rhode Island also seeking to hold oil-and-gas companies responsible for allegedly covering up the impact of carbon-dioxide emissions on the climate, which the industry has denied.
In December, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood lost a climate-fraud case against ExxonMobil four years in the making when a state judge called the allegations “without merit,” finding that she failed to show that the company “made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor.”
In a statement, ExxonMobil spokesman Casey Norton called Mr. Ellison’s claims “baseless and without merit,” describing the lawsuit as “part of a coordinated, politically motivated campaign against energy companies.”
“Legal proceedings like this waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money and do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change,” said Mr. Norton. “ExxonMobil will continue to invest in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting society’s growing demand for energy.”
He cited a ruling earlier this month by a Texas court criticizing such climate lawsuits as “lawfare,” referring to a filing by a half-dozen California counties and municipalities seeking climate damages from ExxonMobil.
The Texas justices slammed the lawsuit as “an ugly tool by which to seek the environmental policy changes the California parties desire, enlisting the judiciary to do the work that the other two branches of government cannot or will not do,” according to Law.com.
The Minnesota lawsuit alleged that the oil-and-gas entities violated state laws on consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising, which the Democrat Ellison referred to as “climate deception.”
“They deceived Minnesotans about the dominant role of fossil fuels in causing climate change in an effort to keep their profits flowing, no matter who it may harm,” said Mr. Ellison.
Backing the lawsuit was a host of climate groups, including MN350, the Minnesota Youth Climate Strike, and Honor the Earth.
Mr. Ellison also received a helping hand from Democratic billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Two of the four attorneys listed on the complaint were special assistant attorneys general provided by the Bloomberg-funded State Impact Center at the New York University School of Law, which provides privately funded lawyers to state prosecutors to pursue climate litigation.
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--2020-06-25--Science Giant Dennis Avery Passes Away

Science Giant Dennis Avery Passes Away

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Another giant of science , history , and scholarship has left our world .
Dennis T. Avery died June 21 at age 83 .
With the passing of this “ gifted scholar and communicator , the world became a less interesting place , ” former Heartland Institute president and CEO Joe Bast commented .
Avery ’ s career was indeed remarkable for its breadth and depth .
Born in 1936 in Lansing , Michigan , he earned degrees in journalism and economics from Michigan State University and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a variety of federal government agencies before retiring in 1989 as Senior Agricultural Analyst for the U.S. State Department .
Among his many other awards and honors , he received the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983 .
After moving to northwestern Virginia in 1990 , he launched the Center for Global Food Issues and began his international consulting , lecturing , and writing career .
His farming operations practiced no-till agriculture , which utilizes biotech seeds and herbicides to help preserve soil structure and organisms , moisture , organic matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and soil biodiversity , while reducing erosion .
Avery practiced and studied what he wrote about in his books and articles .
His 1995 book Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic : The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming was used in classrooms throughout the world .
His 2007 New York Times bestseller , Unstoppable Global Warming : Every 1500 Years ( coauthored by S. Fred Singer ) became “ the Bible of the fast-growing ‘ global warming skeptics ’ movement , ” Bast said .
( Dr. Singer died in April 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last manuscript , Climate and Collapse , will be published posthumously .
For many years he monitored developments in world food production , farm product demand , the safety and security of food supplies , and the sustainability of world agriculture .
As a staff member of the President ’ s National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber , he wrote the Commission ’ s landmark report , Food and Fiber for the Future .
He traveled widely as a speaker , testified before Congress , appeared on many radio and television news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publications like Time magazine , The Washington Post , and The Farm Journal .
Dennis was a frequent speaker at climate change conferences hosted by The Heartland Institute ( available on YouTube ) , contributed to the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change ( NIPCC ) , and traveled to Katowice , Poland , to join other scholars in presenting contrarian , real-world opinions on climate change at the United Nations 24th Conference of the Parties ( COP-24 ) in December 2018 .
Countless people read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , environmental and agricultural issues , and on climate changes throughout history , as warmer periods helped civilizations to flourish , while little ice ages and droughts caused many to disappear .
I was honored to edit and distribute some of his columns and delighted to hoist occasional beers with him while we discussed these topics and the sad decline of civil , civilized discourse and debate over them in recent years .
As Joe Bast observed , “ In an age when angry exchanges between partisans get much more attention than scholarship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not silent presence .
He was a true gentleman and scholar , willing to calmly and patiently explain complex issues , even as others tried to shout down or cancel opposing views ” – or even prosecute and jail anyone presenting those views .
My family and I spent a glorious day on his farm , feeding and enjoying the animals , savoring a delicious dinner prepared by his delightful wife and Center for Global Food Issues associate Anne , and chatting on into the night about multiple topics .
His friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , energetic , humble and well informed ” – as much as for his “ ready smile and quick dry wit.
” Dennis was admired and loved by his family and his many colleagues and friends around the United States and world .
He revered history and conducted lengthy , painstaking research in search of the truth on every topic he addressed , even when the truth was uncomfortable .
Dennis is survived by his wife Anne , sons Adam and Alex , daughter Amy , stepson Kevin , brother Lawrence , sister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebration of his life will be held at a later date .
Memorials may be given to Covenant Presbyterian Church ( 2001 North Coalter Street , Staunton , VA 24401 ) or a charity of choice in his name .
We will all miss him , but his amazing legacy will live on .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of Eco-Imperialism : Green power , Black Death , and other books and articles on energy , environment , climate @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Another giant of science, history, and scholarship has left our world. Dennis T. Avery died June 21 at age 83.
With the passing of this “gifted scholar and communicator, the world became a less interesting place,” former Heartland Institute president and CEO Joe Bast commented.
Avery’s career was indeed remarkable for its breadth and depth.
Born in 1936 in Lansing, Michigan, he earned degrees in journalism and economics from Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin, then worked for a variety of federal government agencies before retiring in 1989 as Senior Agricultural Analyst for the U.S. State Department.
Among his many other awards and honors, he received the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983.
After moving to northwestern Virginia in 1990, he launched the Center for Global Food Issues and began his international consulting, lecturing, and writing career.
His farming operations practiced no-till agriculture, which utilizes biotech seeds and herbicides to help preserve soil structure and organisms, moisture, organic matter, and nutrients, thereby improving drainage and soil biodiversity, while reducing erosion.
Avery practiced and studied what he wrote about in his books and articles.
His 1995 book Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming was used in classrooms throughout the world.
His 2007 New York Times bestseller, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (coauthored by S. Fred Singer) became “the Bible of the fast-growing ‘global warming skeptics’ movement,” Bast said. (Dr. Singer died in April 2020 at 95.)
Avery’s last manuscript, Climate and Collapse, will be published posthumously.
For many years he monitored developments in world food production, farm product demand, the safety and security of food supplies, and the sustainability of world agriculture.
As a staff member of the President’s National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber, he wrote the Commission’s landmark report, Food and Fiber for the Future.
He traveled widely as a speaker, testified before Congress, appeared on many radio and television news programs, and was often quoted in publications like Time magazine, The Washington Post, and The Farm Journal.
Dennis was a frequent speaker at climate change conferences hosted by The Heartland Institute (available on YouTube), contributed to the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and traveled to Katowice, Poland, to join other scholars in presenting contrarian, real-world opinions on climate change at the United Nations 24th Conference of the Parties (COP-24) in December 2018.
Countless people read his informative and entertaining articles on energy, environmental and agricultural issues, and on climate changes throughout history, as warmer periods helped civilizations to flourish, while little ice ages and droughts caused many to disappear.
I was honored to edit and distribute some of his columns and delighted to hoist occasional beers with him while we discussed these topics and the sad decline of civil, civilized discourse and debate over them in recent years.
As Joe Bast observed, “In an age when angry exchanges between partisans get much more attention than scholarship and debate, Dennis maintained a dignified but not silent presence. He was a true gentleman and scholar, willing to calmly and patiently explain complex issues, even as others tried to shout down or cancel opposing views” – or even prosecute and jail anyone presenting those views.
My family and I spent a glorious day on his farm, feeding and enjoying the animals, savoring a delicious dinner prepared by his delightful wife and Center for Global Food Issues associate Anne, and chatting on into the night about multiple topics.
His friends remember him as “inquisitive, articulate, energetic, humble and well informed” – as much as for his “ready smile and quick dry wit.”
Dennis was admired and loved by his family and his many colleagues and friends around the United States and world.
He revered history and conducted lengthy, painstaking research in search of the truth on every topic he addressed, even when the truth was uncomfortable.
Dennis is survived by his wife Anne, sons Adam and Alex, daughter Amy, stepson Kevin, brother Lawrence, sister Carol, and five grandchildren.
A celebration of his life will be held at a later date. Memorials may be given to Covenant Presbyterian Church (2001 North Coalter Street, Staunton, VA 24401) or a charity of choice in his name.
We will all miss him, but his amazing legacy will live on.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black Death, and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-25--Swedish Grocery Chain To Give Climate Score To All Products

Written by Chris Tomlinson on .
Posted in Latest news Swedish supermarket chain Coop has announced it will be creating new “ sustainability ” labels for all of its food products , including their climate impact .
The Swedish company announced the new labels , which will be accessed on electronic devices by scanning a bar code .
Coop compared the sustainability labels to ingredients labels , a practice the company began as early as 1946 .
“ Many of our members and customers today are looking for guidance on how to make sustainable choices in stores , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each individual has affected the earth ’ s resources , climate , and society , ” Coop CEO Magnus Johansson said in a press release .
“ We want to change the food industry so that we become even more sustainable and we hope , of course , that the entire industry will follow us in this initiative , ” Johansson added .
The company said the sustainability score will be determined by ten different ratings , including whether products are locally sourced and their claimed impact on climate change .
“ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but at the same time , a major negative impact on the local population ’ s life and work environment in production .
For us at Coop , it is important to show several aspects of a product ’ s impact , ” Charlotta Szczepanowski , Coop ’ s Head of Sustainability and Quality , said .
Coop ’ s proposal has been supported by major American politicians in the past including Democratic Senator Kamala Harris , who said last year that she backed climate impact labels on food .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , expand what ’ s on those cans of those things you buy in the grocery store , ” Harris said .
She added : “ We should expand the list .
And included in that should be a measure of the impact on the environment.
” Others , such as those involved with the European Commission ’ s Farm to Fork ( F2F ) Strategy , have stated that the public should not only consider eating a more vegetable-based diet but also consider alternative forms of protein such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Magnus Söderlund shocked many last year when he floated the idea of cannibalism as a climate-saving idea .

Written by Chris Tomlinson on Jun 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Swedish supermarket chain Coop has announced it will be creating new “sustainability” labels for all of its food products, including their climate impact.
The Swedish company announced the new labels, which will be accessed on electronic devices by scanning a bar code. Coop compared the sustainability labels to ingredients labels, a practice the company began as early as 1946.
“Many of our members and customers today are looking for guidance on how to make sustainable choices in stores, which is why we will begin to show how each individual has affected the earth’s resources, climate, and society,” Coop CEO Magnus Johansson said in a press release.
“We want to change the food industry so that we become even more sustainable and we hope, of course, that the entire industry will follow us in this initiative,” Johansson added.
The company said the sustainability score will be determined by ten different ratings, including whether products are locally sourced and their claimed impact on climate change.
“A commodity may have a small climate imprint, but at the same time, a major negative impact on the local population’s life and work environment in production. For us at Coop, it is important to show several aspects of a product’s impact,” Charlotta Szczepanowski, Coop’s Head of Sustainability and Quality, said.
Coop’s proposal has been supported by major American politicians in the past including Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, who said last year that she backed climate impact labels on food.
“I’ve always believed that we should, you know, expand what’s on those cans of those things you buy in the grocery store,” Harris said. She added: “We should expand the list. And included in that should be a measure of the impact on the environment.”
Others, such as those involved with the European Commission’s Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy, have stated that the public should not only consider eating a more vegetable-based diet but also consider alternative forms of protein such as insects.
Swedish academic and behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund shocked many last year when he floated the idea of cannibalism as a climate-saving idea.
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--2020-06-26--CO2 Not A Threat To Oceans

CO2 Not A Threat To Oceans

Written by Dr. Jay Lehr on .
Posted in Latest news For the past three decades , the public has been taught by the news media and the folks who make a living composing mathematical equations they claim to simulate how our planet ’ s climate operates , that our oceans are in jeopardy .
They have all told you one of the biggest falsehoods in human history .
They say that carbon dioxide , the only reason man can inhabit Earth , is causing the planet to heat up to a dangerous level and the oceans will become unlivable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof of these lies whatever .
Civilization has generally been most prosperous under warmer than colder conditions .
We do know that as many as nine times more folks perish from excessive cold than excessive heat .
The oceans are prospering with more CO2 overhead .
Be that as it may much of the public has bought the scare .
Regardless of what scientists on the right side of the issue come up with to thwart the misinformation , they are drowned out by the media and the well-financed climate modelers on whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of dollars .
Little of the true reality supported by science has succeeded in winning over the world ’ s governments to scientific reality .
Now comes along biologist Jim Steele of the CO2 Coalition and former Research Director of San Francisco State ’ s Sierra Nevada ’ s Field Campus to drop a blockbuster of truly new knowledge .
He has proven how our Oceans , all of them , are benefitting enormously by the increase in carbon dioxide which man ’ s industrialization has produced .
The global warming scaremongers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could lower the pH of the oceans to where they become acidic , killing off ocean life .
This is physically and chemically impossible , and now we can better understand the enormous benefits CO2 is bringing to the oceans .
The Ocean “ acidification ” from carbon dioxide emissions preached by the scaremongers would require an impossible ten-fold decrease in the alkalinity of surface waters .
Even if atmospheric CO2 concentrations triple from today ’ s four percent of one percent , which would take about 600 years , today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7.8 , still well above neutral 7 .
Ocean health has improved as a result of greater CO2 , as it feeds phytoplankton that stimulates the ocean ’ s food chain .
CO2 allows phytoplankton such as algae , bacteria , and seaweed to feed the rest of the open ocean food chain .
As carbon dioxide moves through this food web , much of it sinks or is transported away from the surface .
A high surface pH allows the ocean to store 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere .
Digestion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storage there for centuries .
Periodic upwelling recycles carbon and nutrients from deep ocean waters to sunlit surface waters .
Upwelling injects far more ancient CO2 into the surface than diffuses from there atmospheric CO2 .
Upwelling at first lowers surface pH , but then stimulates photosynthesis , which raises surface pH .
It is a necessary process to generate bursts of life that sustain many ocean life forms .
When CO2 enters ocean water , it creates a bicarbonate ion plus a hydrogen ion , resulting in a slight decrease in pH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So marine organisms convert bicarbonate and hydrogen ions into usable CO2 , and pH rises again .
Contrary to popular claims that rising CO2 leads to shell disintegration , slightly lower pH does not stop marine organisms from using carbonate ions in building their shells .
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is governed by the balance between stored carbon and CO2 released back to the atmosphere .
On land , carbon is continuously stored as organic material in living and dead organisms , with some carbon eventually buried in sediments .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of the northern hemisphere ’ s forests and reduced the Earth ’ s ability to store terrestrial carbon .
Just as deforestation does today , that loss of forests should have increased atmospheric CO2 .
Instead , atmospheric CO2 decreased !
It appears that the missing CO2 was stored in the ocean .
Across the earth ’ s upwelling regions , ocean surface pH is primarily affected by the upwelling of ancient stored carbon , rather than human activities .
The ocean surface is seldom in equilibrium with the atmosphere .
Recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentrations of CO2 to 1,000 ppm and temporarily lowers surface pH .
The upwelling of old carbon and other nutrients then stimulates photosynthesis in phytoplankton and seagrasses , which then reduces pH .
It is now estimated that 90 percent of the difference in pH between surface waters and deeper waters results from the downward movement of ocean life .
When transformed into organic matter , CO2 can be rapidly exported downwards .
For example , anchovy and sardine fecal pellets sink 780 meters in a day .
Tiny diatoms , which account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photosynthesis , are believed to sink at rates over 500 meters per day because of their dense silica shells .
Upwelling is a vital dynamic that brings carbon and nutrients , otherwise sequestered in the ocean ’ s depths , back to the surface .
Although there may be negative consequences of low-pH and low-oxygen upwelled waters , without the upwelling of low-pH waters , global marine productivity would be greatly reduced .
In the political arena of climate change , crucial factors are misleadingly ignored by those claiming that rising CO2 leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of living organisms are protected by organic tissues that insulate the shells from changes in ocean chemistry .
Mollusk shells are typically covered by a periostracum .
This allows mollusks to thrive near low pH volcanic vents , or in acidic freshwater , or when buried in low pH sediments .
Coral skeletons are protected by their layer of living coral polyps .
When shell-forming organisms die they lose that layer of protective tissue and their shells or skeletons may indeed dissolve .
However , dissolution also releases carbonate ions , which buffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in pH .
Slightly lower pH does not stop ocean organisms from converting bicarbonate ions into shell-building carbonate ions .
Some climate modelers incorrectly suggest that a small drop in pH will inhibit shell-building in marine organisms .
The ability to make shells despite experiencing atmospheric CO2 much higher than today has been preserved in massive deposits of calcium carbonate shells .
So what is the bottom line , the take home to share with friends ?
The oceans will not become acidic — CO2 enriches all life in the ocean .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oceans are becoming less of a great habitat for marine life due to rising atmospheric CO2 .
CO2 is quickly consumed by photosynthesizing bacteria , plankton , and algae .
Greater productivity allows more organic carbon to be exported to depths where it can be sequestered for hundreds to thousands of years .
It is highly likely that the recently increased productivity and increased sequestration of carbon have offset any pH effects from added atmospheric CO2 .
So now you have one more of the fraudulent global warming scares put to rest @

Written by Dr. Jay Lehr on Jun 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
For the past three decades, the public has been taught by the news media and the folks who make a living composing mathematical equations they claim to simulate how our planet’s climate operates, that our oceans are in jeopardy.
They have all told you one of the biggest falsehoods in human history.
They say that carbon dioxide, the only reason man can inhabit Earth, is causing the planet to heat up to a dangerous level and the oceans will become unlivable for marine life.
There is no proof of these lies whatever. Civilization has generally been most prosperous under warmer than colder conditions.
We do know that as many as nine times more folks perish from excessive cold than excessive heat. The oceans are prospering with more CO2 overhead. Be that as it may much of the public has bought the scare.
Regardless of what scientists on the right side of the issue come up with to thwart the misinformation, they are drowned out by the media and the well-financed climate modelers on whom governments around the world have showered countless billions of dollars.
Little of the true reality supported by science has succeeded in winning over the world’s governments to scientific reality.
Now comes along biologist Jim Steele of the CO2 Coalition and former Research Director of San Francisco State’s Sierra Nevada’s Field Campus to drop a blockbuster of truly new knowledge.
He has proven how our Oceans, all of them, are benefitting enormously by the increase in carbon dioxide which man’s industrialization has produced.
The global warming scaremongers have falsely preached that additional carbon dioxide could lower the pH of the oceans to where they become acidic, killing off ocean life.
This is physically and chemically impossible, and now we can better understand the enormous benefits CO2 is bringing to the oceans.
The Ocean “acidification” from carbon dioxide emissions preached by the scaremongers would require an impossible ten-fold decrease in the alkalinity of surface waters.
Even if atmospheric CO2 concentrations triple from today’s four percent of one percent, which would take about 600 years, today’s surface pH of 8.2 would plateau at 7.8, still well above neutral 7.
Ocean health has improved as a result of greater CO2, as it feeds phytoplankton that stimulates the ocean’s food chain.
CO2 allows phytoplankton such as algae, bacteria, and seaweed to feed the rest of the open ocean food chain. As carbon dioxide moves through this food web, much of it sinks or is transported away from the surface.
A high surface pH allows the ocean to store 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. Digestion of carbon at lower depths allows for storage there for centuries.
Periodic upwelling recycles carbon and nutrients from deep ocean waters to sunlit surface waters. Upwelling injects far more ancient CO2 into the surface than diffuses from there atmospheric CO2.
Upwelling at first lowers surface pH, but then stimulates photosynthesis, which raises surface pH. It is a necessary process to generate bursts of life that sustain many ocean life forms.
When CO2 enters ocean water, it creates a bicarbonate ion plus a hydrogen ion, resulting in a slight decrease in pH. However, photosynthesis requires CO2.
So marine organisms convert bicarbonate and hydrogen ions into usable CO2, and pH rises again.
Contrary to popular claims that rising CO2 leads to shell disintegration, slightly lower pH does not stop marine organisms from using carbonate ions in building their shells.
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is governed by the balance between stored carbon and CO2 released back to the atmosphere.
On land, carbon is continuously stored as organic material in living and dead organisms, with some carbon eventually buried in sediments.
During the last major glaciation, expanding glaciers destroyed much of the northern hemisphere’s forests and reduced the Earth’s ability to store terrestrial carbon.
Just as deforestation does today, that loss of forests should have increased atmospheric CO2. Instead, atmospheric CO2 decreased! It appears that the missing CO2 was stored in the ocean.
Across the earth’s upwelling regions, ocean surface pH is primarily affected by the upwelling of ancient stored carbon, rather than human activities. The ocean surface is seldom in equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Recent upwelling of subsurface carbon typically raises surface concentrations of CO2 to 1,000 ppm and temporarily lowers surface pH.
The upwelling of old carbon and other nutrients then stimulates photosynthesis in phytoplankton and seagrasses, which then reduces pH.
It is now estimated that 90 percent of the difference in pH between surface waters and deeper waters results from the downward movement of ocean life.
When transformed into organic matter, CO2 can be rapidly exported downwards.
For example, anchovy and sardine fecal pellets sink 780 meters in a day. Tiny diatoms, which account for half of the ocean’s photosynthesis, are believed to sink at rates over 500 meters per day because of their dense silica shells.
Upwelling is a vital dynamic that brings carbon and nutrients, otherwise sequestered in the ocean’s depths, back to the surface.
Although there may be negative consequences of low-pH and low-oxygen upwelled waters, without the upwelling of low-pH waters, global marine productivity would be greatly reduced.
In the political arena of climate change, crucial factors are misleadingly ignored by those claiming that rising CO2 leads to shell disintegration.
First, shells of living organisms are protected by organic tissues that insulate the shells from changes in ocean chemistry. Mollusk shells are typically covered by a periostracum.
This allows mollusks to thrive near low pH volcanic vents, or in acidic freshwater, or when buried in low pH sediments. Coral skeletons are protected by their layer of living coral polyps.
When shell-forming organisms die they lose that layer of protective tissue and their shells or skeletons may indeed dissolve. However, dissolution also releases carbonate ions, which buffers the surrounding waters and inhibits any further change in pH.
Slightly lower pH does not stop ocean organisms from converting bicarbonate ions into shell-building carbonate ions. Some climate modelers incorrectly suggest that a small drop in pH will inhibit shell-building in marine organisms.
The ability to make shells despite experiencing atmospheric CO2 much higher than today has been preserved in massive deposits of calcium carbonate shells.
So what is the bottom line, the take home to share with friends? The oceans will not become acidic — CO2 enriches all life in the ocean.
There is no evidence to suggest that the oceans are becoming less of a great habitat for marine life due to rising atmospheric CO2.
CO2 is quickly consumed by photosynthesizing bacteria, plankton, and algae. Greater productivity allows more organic carbon to be exported to depths where it can be sequestered for hundreds to thousands of years.
It is highly likely that the recently increased productivity and increased sequestration of carbon have offset any pH effects from added atmospheric CO2.
So now you have one more of the fraudulent global warming scares put to rest.
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--2020-06-26--Apocalyptic Science: How The West Is Destroying Itself

Written by Bruce Pardy on .
Posted in Latest news New academic doctrines dismiss science — real science — in favor of political agendas , in which theory trumps facts .
If you live in a Western nation like Canada in the 21st century , you have more freedom , prosperity , and peace than most of the rest of the world at most other times in history .
Yet these countries have never been at greater risk .
The threat is not pandemics , climate change , or war but something more insidious .
Modern Western civilization grew out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18th centuries .
The ascendancy of reason in human affairs produced the scientific method and later the Industrial Revolution .
Add in the rule of law , individual liberty , private property , and capitalism , and you have the basic recipe that has raised most of humanity out of poverty over two centuries .
New academic doctrines are moving the world , or at least the West , from this triumph to decline .
They dismiss science — real science — in favor of political agendas , in which theory trumps facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Theory and its related doctrines , yet these ideas today drive government policies and shape public attitudes .
Capitalism is oppressive .
Private property rights cause environmental destruction .
Prosperity causes climate change .
The most serious threat to the West is not China or Russia but its visceral disgust with itself .
A growing proportion of people — in universities , the media , politics , and corporate structures — now reject the premises upon which their own thriving societies are built .
Critical Theory opposes everything that makes the West work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to explain and understand with logic , analysis , and the scientific method , these doctrines are less theories than programs .
Their purpose is to condemn cultural norms , tear down existing orders , and transform society .
It all starts with Marx .
Between the two world wars , scholars at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt began to investigate why Marxism was failing to catch on in the West .
They broadened Marx ’ s tight focus on economic oppression of the working class and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is premised on the ideas that power and oppression define relationships throughout society , that knowledge is socially contingent , and those unjust Western institutions should be collapsed and reconstituted .
As Marx wrote , “ the philosophers have only interpreted the world , in various ways .
The point , however , is to change it.
” Critical Theory should not be confused with critical thinking .
To think critically is to reason .
Critical Theory ’ s imperatives are ideological assertions not based on scientific data or deduction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Traditional and Critical Theory , ” Max Horkheimer , sometimes referred to as the father of critical theory , distinguished between the scientific or empirical tradition of inquiry and a critical approach that integrates numerous disciplines and incorporates historical and social influences in the enterprise of inquiry .
Unlike the scientific method , which accepts observation as evidence and reproducibility as confirmation of truth , in Critical Theory , knowledge is contingent upon its origins and the social environment from which it comes .
While Critical Theory shares Marx ’ s condemnation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic relationships , it rejects Marx ’ s essential empiricism in favor of melding science , philosophy , sociology , and history into a single interdisciplinary inquiry .
Critical Theory is not a singular school of thought but a scholarly umbrella that consists of multiple approaches and variations that defy easy encapsulation .
Like Critical Theory , they are activist and political .
They lead with their conclusions .
Embedded within them is the central tenet of postmodernism , a philosophical movement of the mid- to late 20th century .
Postmodernism challenges the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that observation and rationality can identify objective truth , whether moral or scientific .
The argument has merit : neither morality nor the scientific premise that what we perceive is real are capable of proof .
Postmodernism ’ s Achilles heel is not its central thesis but its failure to follow it .
If there is no truth , then no universal conclusions can be reached , and therefore all questions must be left to individuals .
Postmodernism embraces Critical Theory and vice versa .
Progressives are apt to insist that truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts that they do not like , but otherwise , eagerly enforce “ truths ” that they prefer .
There is no truth .
The term “ social justice ” has been used for centuries to mean various things , but the modern version is Critical Social Justice , in which people are not unique individuals but members of identity groups .
Power , privilege , and oppression define the relationships between groups , which are either victims or perpetrators .
The concept of “ intersectionality ” takes account of historically oppressed traits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the groups to which the person therefore belongs .
As political tools , Critical Theory and its variations are brilliant .
Any challenge to their legitimacy can be interpreted as a demonstration of their thesis : the assertion of reason , logic , and evidence to justify oppression is a manifestation of privilege and power .
Thus the challenger risks the stigma of the oppressor .
They conquer civilizations by harnessing human weakness : fear , guilt , resentment , and righteousness .
A little boy can say that the Emperor has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speak .
James Lindsay , an independent American critic of Critical Theory and Social Justice , who along with his partners Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian , masterminded the “ Grievance Studies Hoax , ” in which they managed to get seven academic papers of critical theory and identity studies nonsense accepted for publication in scholarly journals , calls Critical Theory a “ Kafka-trap.
” If you deny that you are a witch , then you are a witch .
And if you do not deny it , then you are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hear something often enough from people in authority and you begin to believe it .
In the decades following its birth at the Frankfurt School , Critical Theory and its variations made an inexorable march through universities , influencing such disparate disciplines as sociology , literary criticism , and linguistics , infiltrating professional schools like teachers ’ colleges and law schools , and dominating “ grievance studies ” such as women ’ s studies , gender studies , and media studies .
The final conquest is now in progress inside science , technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Generations of graduates , taught to believe in Critical Theory rather than how to think critically about it , now populate governments , corporate boards , human resource departments , courts , media outlets , teachers ’ unions , school boards , and classrooms .
Critical Theory is embedded in elementary school curricula .
Children carry the guilt and resentment of living in a society that they are taught is fundamentally unjust .
No coup is more effective than one committed by a people against itself .
Evidence of the ascendancy of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to rely on evidence , to seek consistency , and to insist that individuals have ownership of their own lives are features of an oppressive culture .
Do not expect bedrock principles of Canadian law and society to withstand this subversion .
The ground began to shift long ago , and a kind of cultural apocalypse is well underway .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Bruce Pardy on Jun 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
New academic doctrines dismiss science — real science — in favor of political agendas, in which theory trumps facts.
If you live in a Western nation like Canada in the 21st century, you have more freedom, prosperity, and peace than most of the rest of the world at most other times in history.
Yet these countries have never been at greater risk. The threat is not pandemics, climate change, or war but something more insidious.
Modern Western civilization grew out of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. The ascendancy of reason in human affairs produced the scientific method and later the Industrial Revolution.
Add in the rule of law, individual liberty, private property, and capitalism, and you have the basic recipe that has raised most of humanity out of poverty over two centuries.
New academic doctrines are moving the world, or at least the West, from this triumph to decline. They dismiss science — real science — in favor of political agendas, in which theory trumps facts.
Few people are familiar with Critical Theory and its related doctrines, yet these ideas today drive government policies and shape public attitudes. Capitalism is oppressive. Private property rights cause environmental destruction. Prosperity causes climate change.
The most serious threat to the West is not China or Russia but its visceral disgust with itself.
A growing proportion of people — in universities, the media, politics, and corporate structures — now reject the premises upon which their own thriving societies are built.
Critical Theory opposes everything that makes the West work.
Unlike traditional academic inquiry, which seeks to explain and understand with logic, analysis, and the scientific method, these doctrines are less theories than programs.
Their purpose is to condemn cultural norms, tear down existing orders, and transform society.
It all starts with Marx. Between the two world wars, scholars at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt began to investigate why Marxism was failing to catch on in the West.
They broadened Marx’s tight focus on economic oppression of the working class and developed the doctrine known as Critical Theory, which is premised on the ideas that power and oppression define relationships throughout society, that knowledge is socially contingent, and those unjust Western institutions should be collapsed and reconstituted.
As Marx wrote, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
Critical Theory should not be confused with critical thinking. To think critically is to reason. Critical Theory’s imperatives are ideological assertions not based on scientific data or deduction.
In his seminal 1937 essay, “Traditional and Critical Theory,” Max Horkheimer, sometimes referred to as the father of critical theory, distinguished between the scientific or empirical tradition of inquiry and a critical approach that integrates numerous disciplines and incorporates historical and social influences in the enterprise of inquiry.
Unlike the scientific method, which accepts observation as evidence and reproducibility as confirmation of truth, in Critical Theory, knowledge is contingent upon its origins and the social environment from which it comes.
While Critical Theory shares Marx’s condemnation of capitalism and the power imbalances that define economic relationships, it rejects Marx’s essential empiricism in favor of melding science, philosophy, sociology, and history into a single interdisciplinary inquiry.
Critical Theory is not a singular school of thought but a scholarly umbrella that consists of multiple approaches and variations that defy easy encapsulation. Like Critical Theory, they are activist and political. They lead with their conclusions.
Embedded within them is the central tenet of postmodernism, a philosophical movement of the mid- to late 20th century. Postmodernism challenges the premises of Enlightenment reason, particularly the claim that observation and rationality can identify objective truth, whether moral or scientific.
The argument has merit: neither morality nor the scientific premise that what we perceive is real are capable of proof.
Postmodernism’s Achilles heel is not its central thesis but its failure to follow it. If there is no truth, then no universal conclusions can be reached, and therefore all questions must be left to individuals.
Postmodernism embraces Critical Theory and vice versa. Progressives are apt to insist that truth is relative and subjective when they encounter facts that they do not like, but otherwise, eagerly enforce “truths” that they prefer. There is no truth.
The term “social justice” has been used for centuries to mean various things, but the modern version is Critical Social Justice, in which people are not unique individuals but members of identity groups.
Power, privilege, and oppression define the relationships between groups, which are either victims or perpetrators.
The concept of “intersectionality” takes account of historically oppressed traits that intersect in any one person and the groups to which the person therefore belongs.
As political tools, Critical Theory and its variations are brilliant. Any challenge to their legitimacy can be interpreted as a demonstration of their thesis: the assertion of reason, logic, and evidence to justify oppression is a manifestation of privilege and power.
Thus the challenger risks the stigma of the oppressor. They conquer civilizations by harnessing human weakness: fear, guilt, resentment, and righteousness.
A little boy can say that the Emperor has no clothes, but adults are too afraid to speak. James Lindsay, an independent American critic of Critical Theory and Social Justice, who along with his partners Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian, masterminded the “Grievance Studies Hoax,” in which they managed to get seven academic papers of critical theory and identity studies nonsense accepted for publication in scholarly journals, calls Critical Theory a “Kafka-trap.”
If you deny that you are a witch, then you are a witch. And if you do not deny it, then you are a witch for sure.
Indoctrination works. Hear something often enough from people in authority and you begin to believe it.
In the decades following its birth at the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory and its variations made an inexorable march through universities, influencing such disparate disciplines as sociology, literary criticism, and linguistics, infiltrating professional schools like teachers’ colleges and law schools, and dominating “grievance studies” such as women’s studies, gender studies, and media studies.
The final conquest is now in progress inside science, technology, engineering, and medical faculties.
Generations of graduates, taught to believe in Critical Theory rather than how to think critically about it, now populate governments, corporate boards, human resource departments, courts, media outlets, teachers’ unions, school boards, and classrooms.
Critical Theory is embedded in elementary school curricula. Children carry the guilt and resentment of living in a society that they are taught is fundamentally unjust. No coup is more effective than one committed by a people against itself.
Evidence of the ascendancy of these new doctrines is everywhere. To reason, to rely on evidence, to seek consistency, and to insist that individuals have ownership of their own lives are features of an oppressive culture.
Do not expect bedrock principles of Canadian law and society to withstand this subversion. The ground began to shift long ago, and a kind of cultural apocalypse is well underway.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-26--Extinction Rebellion Spokeswoman Quits To Join Pro-Nuclear Group

Written by Dan Sales on .
Posted in Latest news Extinction Rebellion ’ s spokeswoman has quit the protest group to become a nuclear power campaigner .
Zion Lights , 36 , has left the climate change cause , which brought London to a standstill last year , to join pro-nuke outfit Environmental Progress .
The former XR communications head said she had felt ‘ duped ’ after being surrounded by anti-nuclear campaigners until she read more into the radioactive fuel .
Mother-of-two Zion said : ‘ The facts didn ’ t really change , but once I understood them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was born in the West Midlands and given her unusual name as a baby , said : ‘ I have a long history of campaigning on environmental issues , most recently as a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion UK .
‘ Now , I have quit the organization to take up a position as a campaigner for nuclear power.
’ The Environment Progress site suggests she joined their group on Sunday , with her profile dated that day .
Zion , who was grilled on the Andrew Neil Show last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by anti-nuclear activists , I had allowed the fear of radiation , nuclear waste and weapons of mass destruction to creep into my subconscious .
I realized I had been duped into anti-science sentiment all this time.
’ It is an astonishing turnaround since her views in 2014 when she said there was no clear answer on the safety of nuclear power .
There was little reaction from Extinction Rebellion today after the news of her transfer was published .
Its website dodges the question of what it thinks about nuclear power saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of views ’ .
The group continues : ‘ We believe a social movement is best built as a “ broad church ” and that respectful discussions should take place within the movement on a variety of topics.
’ Zion has previously spoken about being worried about the environment since she was a child .
She was inspired after seeing an advert on television which said ‘ it is not too late ’ .
Recounting the experience , she said : ‘ I remember seeing it and having the horrible feeling of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late ?
”

Written by Dan Sales on Jun 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Extinction Rebellion’s spokeswoman has quit the protest group to become a nuclear power campaigner.
Zion Lights, 36, has left the climate change cause, which brought London to a standstill last year, to join pro-nuke outfit Environmental Progress.
The former XR communications head said she had felt ‘duped’ after being surrounded by anti-nuclear campaigners until she read more into the radioactive fuel.
Mother-of-two Zion said: ‘The facts didn’t really change, but once I understood them I did change my mind.’
Zion, who was born in the West Midlands and given her unusual name as a baby, said: ‘I have a long history of campaigning on environmental issues, most recently as a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion UK.
‘Now, I have quit the organization to take up a position as a campaigner for nuclear power.’
The Environment Progress site suggests she joined their group on Sunday, with her profile dated that day.
Zion, who was grilled on the Andrew Neil Show last year, added to City Am: ‘Surrounded by anti-nuclear activists, I had allowed the fear of radiation, nuclear waste and weapons of mass destruction to creep into my subconscious. I realized I had been duped into anti-science sentiment all this time.’
It is an astonishing turnaround since her views in 2014 when she said there was no clear answer on the safety of nuclear power.
There was little reaction from Extinction Rebellion today after the news of her transfer was published.
Its website dodges the question of what it thinks about nuclear power saying it wanted to welcome ‘a variety of views’.
The group continues: ‘We believe a social movement is best built as a “broad church” and that respectful discussions should take place within the movement on a variety of topics.’
Zion has previously spoken about being worried about the environment since she was a child.
She was inspired after seeing an advert on television which said ‘it is not too late’.
Recounting the experience, she said: ‘I remember seeing it and having the horrible feeling of what if we are letting it be too late?”
Read more at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-26--Why Climate Activists Must Go Nuclear — Or Go Extinct

Written by Michael Shellenberger on .
Posted in Latest news In October 2019 , the British climate activist group Extinction Rebellion carried out two weeks of civil disobedience in London and other cities around the world .
Six thousand activists blocked the five main bridges that cross the River Thames , which flows through London , preventing people from getting to work or home .
An Extinction Rebellion spokesperson went on national television and made a series of alarming claims .
“ Billions of people are going to die.
” “ Life on Earth is dying.
” And , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some journalists pushed back .
The BBC ’ s Andrew Neil interviewed a visibly uncomfortable Extinction Rebellion spokesperson in her mid-30s named Zion Lights .
“ One of your founders , Roger Hallam , said in April , ‘ Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years , ’ ” said Neil .
“ What ’ s the scientific basis for these claims ?
” “ These claims have been disputed , admittedly , ” Lights said .
“ There are some scientists who are agreeing and some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply not true .
But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.
” “ But most scientists don ’ t agree with this , ” said Neil .
“ I looked through [ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ’ s recent reports ] and see no reference to billions of people going to die , or children going to die in under 20 years… How would they die ?
” Responded Lights , “ Mass migration around the world is already taking place due to prolonged drought in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are wildfires in Indonesia , the Amazon rainforest , also Siberia , the Arctic.
” “ These are really important problems , ” Neil said , “ and they can cause fatalities .
But they don ’ t cause billions of deaths .
They don ’ t mean that our young people will all be dead in 20 years.
” “ I ’ ve seen young girls on television , part of your demonstration… crying because they think they ’ re going to die in five or six years , crying because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll ever see adulthood , ” said Neil .
“ And yet there ’ s no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making.
” “ I ’ m not saying that because I ’ m alarming children , ” replied Lights .
“ They ’ re learning about the consequences.
” [ … ] In December , I interviewed Lights , by phone .
A lifelong environmentalist , Lights is the author of the 2015 book , The Guide to Green Parenting , which has been praised by climate activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader Natalie Bennet .
Shortly after she told me her history , we started to argue .
“ Let ’ s talk about the claims , ” I said .
“ Billions are going to die ?
” “ I didn ’ t say that , ” Lights said .
“ Roger [ Hallam ] said it.
” “ It doesn ’ t matter !
” she said .
“ They have as much power as I do .
So it ’ s not fair to say he represents us.
” Lights explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the normal sense .
It is officially leaderless .
[ … ] Lights then said something that caught my attention .
“ I ’ m like you , ” she said .
“ I think we need nuclear.
” Lights said she had quit the Green Party 10 years earlier over its opposition to nuclear .
“ I was in Greenpeace , Friends of the Earth , and got sucked into this idea of nuclear not being safe , ” she explained .
Lights told me she changed her mind after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact , safer than other energy sources .
“ I said , ‘ That ’ s not what I ’ ve been told.
’ And he said , ‘ Don ’ t just listen to what people tell you.
’ And so I looked it up and he was right .
The data shows it is safe .
And I realized solar panels and batteries are not going to meet demand .
The more I read the more I realized , ‘ Oh no !
These things I believed aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Time Magazine ’ s “ Hero of the Environment , ” Green Book Award Winner , and President of Environmental Progress , a research and policy organization .
He is also the author of several bestselling books , including Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All .

Written by Michael Shellenberger on Jun 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In October 2019, the British climate activist group Extinction Rebellion carried out two weeks of civil disobedience in London and other cities around the world.
Six thousand activists blocked the five main bridges that cross the River Thames, which flows through London, preventing people from getting to work or home.
An Extinction Rebellion spokesperson went on national television and made a series of alarming claims. “Billions of people are going to die.” “Life on Earth is dying.” And, “Governments aren’t addressing it.”
Some journalists pushed back. The BBC’s Andrew Neil interviewed a visibly uncomfortable Extinction Rebellion spokesperson in her mid-30s named Zion Lights.
“One of your founders, Roger Hallam, said in April, ‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years,’” said Neil. “What’s the scientific basis for these claims?”
“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” Lights said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying that they’re simply not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”
“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent reports] and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children going to die in under 20 years… How would they die?”
Responded Lights, “Mass migration around the world is already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, also Siberia, the Arctic.”
“These are really important problems,” Neil said, “and they can cause fatalities. But they don’t cause billions of deaths. They don’t mean that our young people will all be dead in 20 years.”
“Perhaps not in 20 years,” acknowledged Lights.
“I’ve seen young girls on television, part of your demonstration… crying because they think they’re going to die in five or six years, crying because they don’t think they’ll ever see adulthood,” said Neil.
“And yet there’s no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making.”
“I’m not saying that because I’m alarming children,” replied Lights. “They’re learning about the consequences.” […]
In December, I interviewed Lights, by phone. A lifelong environmentalist, Lights is the author of the 2015 book, The Guide to Green Parenting, which has been praised by climate activist Bill McKibben and former British Green Party leader Natalie Bennet.
Shortly after she told me her history, we started to argue.
“Let’s talk about the claims,” I said.
“Billions are going to die?”
“I didn’t say that,” Lights said. “Roger [Hallam] said it.”
“But he’s the Extinction Rebellion’s founder!” I protested.
“It doesn’t matter!” she said. “They have as much power as I do. So it’s not fair to say he represents us.”
Lights explained that Extinction Rebellion is not an organization in the normal sense. It is officially leaderless. […]
Lights then said something that caught my attention. “I’m like you,” she said. “I think we need nuclear.”
Lights said she had quit the Green Party 10 years earlier over its opposition to nuclear.
“I was in Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and got sucked into this idea of nuclear not being safe,” she explained.
Lights told me she changed her mind after a scientist told her nuclear energy was, in fact, safer than other energy sources. “I said, ‘That’s not what I’ve been told.’
And he said, ‘Don’t just listen to what people tell you.’ And so I looked it up and he was right. The data shows it is safe. And I realized solar panels and batteries are not going to meet demand. The more I read the more I realized, ‘Oh no! These things I believed aren’t true!’”
Michael Shellenberger was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
Read rest at Quillette
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print