climatechangedispatch--2020-04-17--Buttigieg: Trump Denying Climate Dogma Made Virus More Deadly

Written by Penny Starr on .
Posted in Latest news Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor and failed presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said in an interview on Wednesday that President Donald Trump ’ s mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak has resulted in “ seeing the life-and-death consequences of not listening to science.
” Buttigieg made the remarks in an interview with National Public Radio ( NPR ) in a story billed to highlight his endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden as the Democrat 2020 presidential nominee .
NPR host Steve Inskeep pressed Mayor Pete on his campaign pledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a younger generation given that he is endorsing Biden , who at 77 is four years older than 73-year-old Trump .
“ Can younger people expect a better shake from a president who would be about 40 years older than you are ?
” Inskeep asked .
“ Absolutely , ” Buttigieg said .
“ Look — obviously , I ’ m a fan of generational change.
” “ It was one of the ideas of my campaign , ” Buttigieg said .
“ It ’ s also an important idea for Win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort that I ’ ve launched to help candidates from a new generation step forward.
” “ But when it comes to the issues impacting a younger generation , those are very much on the ballot , and Joe Biden has the right answers , ” Buttigieg said .
Those answers include accepting that climate change is a bigger threat than any other .
“ You know , the biggest glaring issue of intergenerational justice is climate change , ” Buttigieg said .
“ And while we may have some differences of opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how best to tackle it , the question in November is going to be over whether to tackle it.
” “ Remember — we ’ ve got , in Joe Biden , a candidate with an ambitious plan to move our country to where it needs to be and the world to where it needs to be in order to deal with climate change , ” Buttigieg said .
“ And we ’ ve got a president who maintains that it ’ s a hoax.
” “ And if there ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , it is the life-and-death consequences of refusing to listen to science and refusing to cooperate , coordinate — domestically and internationally — to deal with a massive challenge , ” Buttigieg said .
“ That is true of public health and global health security.
” Buttigieg did not comment on the fact the Trump has a huge network of scientists , including those with the National Health Institute ( NHI ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , who advise him and participate in presenting scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House .

Written by Penny Starr on Apr 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor and failed presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said in an interview on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak has resulted in “seeing the life-and-death consequences of not listening to science.”
Buttigieg made the remarks in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR) in a story billed to highlight his endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden as the Democrat 2020 presidential nominee.
NPR host Steve Inskeep pressed Mayor Pete on his campaign pledge to make the Democrat Party attractive to a younger generation given that he is endorsing Biden, who at 77 is four years older than 73-year-old Trump.
“Can younger people expect a better shake from a president who would be about 40 years older than you are?” Inskeep asked.
“Absolutely,” Buttigieg said. “Look — obviously, I’m a fan of generational change.”
“It was one of the ideas of my campaign,” Buttigieg said. “It’s also an important idea for Win the Era, which is a political effort that I’ve launched to help candidates from a new generation step forward.”
“But when it comes to the issues impacting a younger generation, those are very much on the ballot, and Joe Biden has the right answers,” Buttigieg said.
Those answers include accepting that climate change is a bigger threat than any other.
“You know, the biggest glaring issue of intergenerational justice is climate change,” Buttigieg said. “And while we may have some differences of opinion on our side of the aisle on how best to tackle it, the question in November is going to be over whether to tackle it.”
“Remember — we’ve got, in Joe Biden, a candidate with an ambitious plan to move our country to where it needs to be and the world to where it needs to be in order to deal with climate change,” Buttigieg said. “And we’ve got a president who maintains that it’s a hoax.”
“And if there’s one thing we’re seeing in the pandemic, it is the life-and-death consequences of refusing to listen to science and refusing to cooperate, coordinate — domestically and internationally — to deal with a massive challenge,” Buttigieg said. “That is true of public health and global health security.”
“It’s true of climate security,” Buttigieg said.
Buttigieg did not comment on the fact the Trump has a huge network of scientists, including those with the National Health Institute (NHI) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who advise him and participate in presenting scientific data at the daily coronavirus press briefing at the White House.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-17--Dem Rips Pelosi For Hijacking Relief Bill With Green New Deal Pork

Written by Cortney O'Brien on .
Posted in Latest news Rep. Max Rose ( D-NY ) seems to be one of those lawmakers who rolls with the tide of political expediency .
With that said , he did hit the nail on the head by criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her stonewalling of Congress ’ s coronavirus relief efforts in order to get her liberal agenda enacted .
The Payment Protection Program , set up to relieve small businesses that have suffered during the coronavirus pandemic and economic shutdown , ran out of money on Thursday .
Congress could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the program last week but Democrats blocked the vote .
Rep. Rose , who represents Staten Island , shared the following message with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders .
“ If you think for a second you think this is an opportunity to insert some random tenets of the Green New Deal , some random things that support the Kennedy center or anything else that the far left calls for , that is not the time , I ’ ll be the first to come back on and say no this is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
Sounds like he was stealing lines from Republicans like Sen. John Thune ( R-SD ) or GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy .
On Friday Thune accused Democrats of trying to “ hijack the process ” to enact some “ unrelated agenda items.
” And for days , McCarthy has been trying to fathom why Pelosi can ’ t see eye-to-eye with them on this emergency issue .
I hesitate to give Rep. Rose a pat on the back .
After all , he was following the lead of Sens .
Kyrsten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-MN ) , two of the first Democrats to break ranks with party leadership .
I also temper my praise for Rep. Rose because this is the guy who flip-flops like it ’ s his vocation .
He was against impeaching President Trump—until he wasn ’ t .

Written by Cortney O'Brien on Apr 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Rep. Max Rose (D-NY) seems to be one of those lawmakers who rolls with the tide of political expediency.
With that said, he did hit the nail on the head by criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her stonewalling of Congress’s coronavirus relief efforts in order to get her liberal agenda enacted.
The Payment Protection Program, set up to relieve small businesses that have suffered during the coronavirus pandemic and economic shutdown, ran out of money on Thursday.
Congress could have added another $250 billion to the program last week but Democrats blocked the vote.
Rep. Rose, who represents Staten Island, shared the following message with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.
The Paycheck Protection Program needs to be replenished, and done so quickly. Let’s protect our small businesses, hospitals and make sure local governments don’t have to lay-off first responders. Only in DC would be this be difficult. Let’s get this done.https://t.co/xeg6HjMqJ8 — Rep. Max Rose (@RepMaxRose) April 16, 2020
“If you think for a second you think this is an opportunity to insert some random tenets of the Green New Deal, some random things that support the Kennedy center or anything else that the far left calls for, that is not the time, I’ll be the first to come back on and say no this is not the time to do this,” he said.
Sounds like he was stealing lines from Republicans like Sen. John Thune (R-SD) or GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.
On Friday Thune accused Democrats of trying to “hijack the process” to enact some “unrelated agenda items.”
And for days, McCarthy has been trying to fathom why Pelosi can’t see eye-to-eye with them on this emergency issue.
I hesitate to give Rep. Rose a pat on the back. After all, he was following the lead of Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-NY) and Tina Smith (D-MN), two of the first Democrats to break ranks with party leadership.
I also temper my praise for Rep. Rose because this is the guy who flip-flops like it’s his vocation. He was against impeaching President Trump—until he wasn’t.
Read rest at Townhall
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-17--Green Snouts Sniff Around For A Pandemic Windfall

Written by Alan Moran on .
Posted in Latest news The Pope , deprived of the counsel of Cardinal Pell , the Church ’ s most astute voice , foolishly called coronavirus “ nature ’ s response ” for failures to act on climate change .
It was , therefore , hardly surprising that coronavirus would be recruited to push for additional renewable energy subsidies to reinforce those that have already created today ’ s high cost , low quality electricity .
Coal Wire , an anti-fossil fuel publication , was quick to swoop on a Harvard study that said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal power stations were an important source of the pollutant .
Actually less than 5 percent of PM2.5 particulate emissions come from energy production .
Also , fast out of the blocks was the anti-fossil fuel head of the Paris based International Energy Agency ( IEA ) , Fatih Birol .
In the ‘ never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste ’ style , Birol argued that boosting “ clean energy technologies , such as solar , wind , hydrogen , batteries and carbon capture should be a central part of governments ’ ( stimulus ) plans ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 180 EU politicians and activists .
The IEA expects new renewable energy installations to fall this year , largely because of supply disruptions .
The Australian branch of global network Climateworks followed this with a revised Decarbonisation Futures Report and its head , Anna Skarbek , explained to The Guardian ’ s Adam Morton how the virus could be used to accelerate the subsidized renewables push .
Given the high cost and low reliability of wind/solar , that would be a huge call even if enforced demand reductions had not brought a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 per MWh spot price .
Sure enough , the market response differs from that hoped for by the subsidy-seekers and alarmists .
Coal use remains on an upward trajectory .
According to GlobalData , “ Over the next four years , the production of thermal coal is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 1.9 percent to reach 7.6 billion tonnes by 2023 , due to increasing demand from India and China.
” Goldman Sachs has halved its EU carbon price forecast , and Bloomberg notes a collapse of demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former lobbyist for the renewable industry , now calls for a managed “ deceleration ” in its support by governments .
But , taking its cue from the IEA , Australia continues to pursue the mirage of renewable energy cost innovations .
Captured by his bureaucrats , Energy Minister Angus Taylor is not only allocating $ 70 million in search of a fanciful breakthrough in converting hydrogen to energy but he is insisting – wait for it !
– on grant applicants using renewable energy to power the trials .
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster wrought by governments bending to green alarmism and subsidy-seekers .
Subsidies and regulations requiring the use of wind/solar for electricity generation currently cost Australian households and businesses over $ 4 billion a year .
Moreover , this has caused the closure of low-cost reliable coal plants and , as a result , brought a $ 55 per MWh increase in the wholesale electricity price between 2015 and 2019 .
With a market of 230,000 GWh , the 2015-19 price increase has brought a cost of almost $ 13 billion per year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion a year to harm ourselves !
Abandoning the electricity subsidies and regulations offers us a benefit of $ 170 billion – that alone would recoup over half the $ 320 billion spent on coronavirus-driven stimuli/consumption support .
Regulations like those on energy have for decades led Australia to forfeit what should have been the world ’ s highest living standards .
Unraveling them offers an opportunity to minimize the impact of the coronavirus measures .
But have we got the caliber of politician that understands this and can push through the necessary @ @

Written by Alan Moran on Apr 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Pope, deprived of the counsel of Cardinal Pell, the Church’s most astute voice, foolishly called coronavirus “nature’s response” for failures to act on climate change.
It was, therefore, hardly surprising that coronavirus would be recruited to push for additional renewable energy subsidies to reinforce those that have already created today’s high cost, low quality electricity.
Coal Wire, an anti-fossil fuel publication, was quick to swoop on a Harvard study that said the pollutant PM2.5 exacerbated coronavirus and that coal power stations were an important source of the pollutant.
Actually less than 5 percent of PM2.5 particulate emissions come from energy production.
Also, fast out of the blocks was the anti-fossil fuel head of the Paris based International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol.
In the ‘never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste’ style, Birol argued that boosting “clean energy technologies, such as solar, wind, hydrogen, batteries and carbon capture should be a central part of governments’ (stimulus) plans”.
This is echoed by a petition signed by 180 EU politicians and activists. The IEA expects new renewable energy installations to fall this year, largely because of supply disruptions.
The Australian branch of global network Climateworks followed this with a revised Decarbonisation Futures Report and its head, Anna Skarbek, explained to The Guardian’s Adam Morton how the virus could be used to accelerate the subsidized renewables push.
Given the high cost and low reliability of wind/solar, that would be a huge call even if enforced demand reductions had not brought a halving of last year’s $90 per MWh spot price.
Sure enough, the market response differs from that hoped for by the subsidy-seekers and alarmists. Coal use remains on an upward trajectory.
According to GlobalData, “Over the next four years, the production of thermal coal is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 1.9 percent to reach 7.6 billion tonnes by 2023, due to increasing demand from India and China.”
Goldman Sachs has halved its EU carbon price forecast, and Bloomberg notes a collapse of demand for rooftop installations.
Matthew Warren, a former lobbyist for the renewable industry, now calls for a managed “deceleration” in its support by governments.
But, taking its cue from the IEA, Australia continues to pursue the mirage of renewable energy cost innovations.
Captured by his bureaucrats, Energy Minister Angus Taylor is not only allocating $70 million in search of a fanciful breakthrough in converting hydrogen to energy but he is insisting – wait for it! – on grant applicants using renewable energy to power the trials.
I have a piece in the Spectator reviewing the disaster wrought by governments bending to green alarmism and subsidy-seekers.
Subsidies and regulations requiring the use of wind/solar for electricity generation currently cost Australian households and businesses over $4 billion a year.
Moreover, this has caused the closure of low-cost reliable coal plants and, as a result, brought a $55 per MWh increase in the wholesale electricity price between 2015 and 2019.
With a market of 230,000 GWh, the 2015-19 price increase has brought a cost of almost $13 billion per year.
Hence, we are paying $17 billion a year to harm ourselves! Abandoning the electricity subsidies and regulations offers us a benefit of $170 billion – that alone would recoup over half the $320 billion spent on coronavirus-driven stimuli/consumption support.
Regulations like those on energy have for decades led Australia to forfeit what should have been the world’s highest living standards.
Unraveling them offers an opportunity to minimize the impact of the coronavirus measures. But have we got the caliber of politician that understands this and can push through the necessary reforms?
Read more at Quadrant Online
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-17--COVID-19 Model Failures Show Climate Model Shortcomings

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Climate and energy writer Norman Rogers has published an excellent article on the American Thinker website addressing the shortcomings of coronavirus models and climate models .
Rogers points out that coronavirus models began predicting up to 2 million American deaths , only to be adjusted down to its current prediction of 60,000 deaths .
The difference between 2 million deaths and 60,000 deaths is incredibly large , yet that is how much the coronavirus models have failed .
The political Left attempts to smear anybody who questions coronavirus models as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , scrutinizing models that are being employed as justifications to restrict Americans ’ freedoms is not attacking scientists .
It is , instead , performing science .
And scrutinizing a scientist ’ s model is not the same as attacking the scientist .
Most or all modelers are presumably creating their models in order to help policymakers make wise decisions .
But noble motives do not convey scientific infallibility , especially on topics where we are making so many speculative assumptions .
As Dr. Anthony Fauci says , “ Models are only as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the models .
And those assumptions that start off when you don ’ t have very much data at all or the data you have is uncertain , then you put these assumptions in and you get these wide ranges of calculations of what might happen.
” Climate models are no different than coronavirus models in that they will only be as accurate as their underlying assumptions .
As wildly off-base as the coronavirus models have been , climate models have even more uncertain underlying assumptions than the coronavirus models .
Accordingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to continue being – at least as off-base as the coronavirus models have been .
Urging caution before blindly accepting poorly performing climate models is not a conspiracy theory or an attack on scientists .
True scientists , and true patriots , will always seek more information rather than less before restricting Americans ’ freedoms .
You can read Norman Rogers ’ full article here .

Written by James Taylor on Apr 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate and energy writer Norman Rogers has published an excellent article on the American Thinker website addressing the shortcomings of coronavirus models and climate models.
Rogers points out that coronavirus models began predicting up to 2 million American deaths, only to be adjusted down to its current prediction of 60,000 deaths.
The difference between 2 million deaths and 60,000 deaths is incredibly large, yet that is how much the coronavirus models have failed.
The political Left attempts to smear anybody who questions coronavirus models as attacking scientists and attacking science.
However, scrutinizing models that are being employed as justifications to restrict Americans’ freedoms is not attacking scientists.
It is, instead, performing science. And scrutinizing a scientist’s model is not the same as attacking the scientist.
Most or all modelers are presumably creating their models in order to help policymakers make wise decisions.
But noble motives do not convey scientific infallibility, especially on topics where we are making so many speculative assumptions.
As Dr. Anthony Fauci says, “Models are only as good as the assumptions that you put into the models. And those assumptions that start off when you don’t have very much data at all or the data you have is uncertain, then you put these assumptions in and you get these wide ranges of calculations of what might happen.”
Climate models are no different than coronavirus models in that they will only be as accurate as their underlying assumptions.
As wildly off-base as the coronavirus models have been, climate models have even more uncertain underlying assumptions than the coronavirus models.
Accordingly, climate models have been – and are likely to continue being – at least as off-base as the coronavirus models have been.
Urging caution before blindly accepting poorly performing climate models is not a conspiracy theory or an attack on scientists.
True scientists, and true patriots, will always seek more information rather than less before restricting Americans’ freedoms.
You can read Norman Rogers’ full article here.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-17--400+ News Orgs Join Project To Push Climate Propaganda Amid Pandemic

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Hundreds of media outlets , including Reuters , are partnering with a project seeking to devote a week of coverage to climate change amid a pandemic that has killed more than 140,00 people worldwide .
The founders behind Covering Climate Now are asking their network of more than 400 media outlets to blanket the airwaves with stories about climate change during the week of Earth Day .
Reuters , Bloomberg News , and The Daily Beast are among the biggest names listed as partners of the project .
Covering Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event on Feb. 5 , before local and state governments began mitigation efforts to halt the spread of the pandemic .
One of the project ’ s founding groups , the Columbia Journalism Review , represents professional journalists and focuses primarily on journalism ethics .
Covering Climate Now ’ s partners published a deluge of climate-related news in September 2019 ahead of the U.N .
Climate Action Summit , held Sept. 15-23 .
It is now asking its media partners to renew their efforts , moving from discussing climate change to tackling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slated to happen April 19-26 and is soliciting coverage addressing solutions such as putting “ a price on carbon ” and halting “ fossil fuel subsidies , as well as political actions to advance such policies , ” Covering Climate Now notes on its event page .
The project ’ s co-founder , Mark Hertsgaard , has said news outlets should be devoting the same amount of time to climate change as they do COVID-19 .
The disease , which is caused by the novel coronavirus , originated in China before landing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it has killed more than 25,000 people .
“ Stories on other subjects have all but disappeared , and some newsrooms have halted production on non-coronavirus stories altogether , ” Hertsgaard wrote in a March 25 blog post contrasting how the news outlets cover climate change with how they treat a pandemic .
Hertsgaard goes on to lament the gap he sees between coverage of coronavirus and climate change .
“ While this is understandable given the scope of the COVID-19 threat , ” Hertsgaard notes , “ It is bizarre that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparable importance , even though it too stands to upend , impoverish , and even end the lives of countless people the world over.
” Hertsgaard has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s repeated requests for comment about the Covering Climate Now project .
He told CJR editor and publisher , Kyle Pope , in September 2019 that the project “ has an aroma ” of “ activism ” in the minds of many journalists .
The Washington Post , The New York Times , and The Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s request for comment explaining why they are not taking part in Covering Climate Now .
Hertsgaard told Pope that he ’ s trying to change that perception .
There were roughly 200 outlets involved in the partnership last September when Covering Climate Now was requesting reporters blanket news coverage with climate stories .
The project has since approximately doubled .
“ Partnering with Covering Climate Now to provide access to a selection of Reuters new and existing climate coverage free of charge allows other members to make the issue more accessible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Reuters spokeswoman Deepal Patadia told TheDCNF .
Patadia did not address to what degree Reuters would be shifting their focus away from the pandemic .
Reuters joined the project in December 2019 , less than three months after Covering Climate Now ’ s initial climate coverage kicked off in September of that year .
Bloomberg News , The Daily Beast , and CJR have not responded to requests for comment .
Neither Bloomberg nor The Daily Beast has confirmed whether they will participate in the upcoming effort .
BuzzFeed participated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but chose not to be involved in next week ’ s climate coverage initiative , spokesman Matt Mittenthal told the DCNF without providing an explanation .
BuzzFeed is still listed among Covering Climate Now ’ s partners .
Energy analysts and other critics , meanwhile , believe Hertsgaard , Covering Climate Now , and others involved in the project , are disconnected from reality .
“ It ’ s a disconnect with what ’ s happening in the real world .
People are doing the best to flatten the curve , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , ” American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle told the DCNF .
“ There is no satisfying these people .
It ’ s an obsession.
” “ They want to cover climate change when people are trying to stay alive during a pandemic and keep their jobs or find a new one to provide for their families , ” he added .

Written by Chris White on Apr 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Hundreds of media outlets, including Reuters, are partnering with a project seeking to devote a week of coverage to climate change amid a pandemic that has killed more than 140,00 people worldwide.
The founders behind Covering Climate Now are asking their network of more than 400 media outlets to blanket the airwaves with stories about climate change during the week of Earth Day.
Reuters, Bloomberg News, and The Daily Beast are among the biggest names listed as partners of the project.
Covering Climate Now, founded in 2019, announced the event on Feb. 5, before local and state governments began mitigation efforts to halt the spread of the pandemic.
One of the project’s founding groups, the Columbia Journalism Review, represents professional journalists and focuses primarily on journalism ethics.
Covering Climate Now’s partners published a deluge of climate-related news in September 2019 ahead of the U.N. Climate Action Summit, held Sept. 15-23.
It is now asking its media partners to renew their efforts, moving from discussing climate change to tackling potential solutions.
The latest effort is slated to happen April 19-26 and is soliciting coverage addressing solutions such as putting “a price on carbon” and halting “fossil fuel subsidies, as well as political actions to advance such policies,” Covering Climate Now notes on its event page.
The project’s co-founder, Mark Hertsgaard, has said news outlets should be devoting the same amount of time to climate change as they do COVID-19.
The disease, which is caused by the novel coronavirus, originated in China before landing on the shores of the United States, where it has killed more than 25,000 people.
“Stories on other subjects have all but disappeared, and some newsrooms have halted production on non-coronavirus stories altogether,” Hertsgaard wrote in a March 25 blog post contrasting how the news outlets cover climate change with how they treat a pandemic.
Hertsgaard goes on to lament the gap he sees between coverage of coronavirus and climate change.
“While this is understandable given the scope of the COVID-19 threat,” Hertsgaard notes, “It is bizarre that the climate crisis has never been accorded comparable importance, even though it too stands to upend, impoverish, and even end the lives of countless people the world over.”
Hertsgaard has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s repeated requests for comment about the Covering Climate Now project.
He told CJR editor and publisher, Kyle Pope, in September 2019 that the project “has an aroma” of “activism” in the minds of many journalists.
The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal have not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment explaining why they are not taking part in Covering Climate Now.
Hertsgaard told Pope that he’s trying to change that perception. There were roughly 200 outlets involved in the partnership last September when Covering Climate Now was requesting reporters blanket news coverage with climate stories. The project has since approximately doubled.
“Partnering with Covering Climate Now to provide access to a selection of Reuters new and existing climate coverage free of charge allows other members to make the issue more accessible to their audiences, should they choose,” Reuters spokeswoman Deepal Patadia told TheDCNF.
Patadia did not address to what degree Reuters would be shifting their focus away from the pandemic.
Reuters joined the project in December 2019, less than three months after Covering Climate Now’s initial climate coverage kicked off in September of that year.
Bloomberg News, The Daily Beast, and CJR have not responded to requests for comment. Neither Bloomberg nor The Daily Beast has confirmed whether they will participate in the upcoming effort.
BuzzFeed participated in the project’s effort in September but chose not to be involved in next week’s climate coverage initiative, spokesman Matt Mittenthal told the DCNF without providing an explanation. BuzzFeed is still listed among Covering Climate Now’s partners.
Energy analysts and other critics, meanwhile, believe Hertsgaard, Covering Climate Now, and others involved in the project, are disconnected from reality.
“It’s a disconnect with what’s happening in the real world. People are doing the best to flatten the curve, and they’re wringing their hands over climate change,” American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle told the DCNF. “There is no satisfying these people. It’s an obsession.”
“They want to cover climate change when people are trying to stay alive during a pandemic and keep their jobs or find a new one to provide for their families,” he added.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-20--Activists Pressure Biden To Move Further Left On Climate Plan

Written by Josh Siegel on .
Posted in Latest news On paper , Joe Biden has the most aggressive plan to address climate change ever proposed by a Democratic nominee .
But liberal climate activists , many of them young supporters of rival Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dejected by his loss , see Biden ’ s pitch as too generic and vague , and his delivery uninspiring .
These activists aim to exert pressure on Biden during his campaign for the general election , pushing him to add detail to his headline target of the United States using 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bolder near-term targets to make progress on weaning off fossil fuels .
“ The Biden plan is the most ambitious climate plan any nominee has ever put forward , including Bernie in 2016 , ” said Bracken Hendricks , a former senior climate policy adviser in the presidential campaign of Jay Inslee , the governor of Washington .
“ With that said , the climate crisis is worse and moving more rapidly , so the urgency of the moment is changing the debate.
” While Biden assembled a broad primary coalition of older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African Americans , climate activists say he ’ ll need turnout and enthusiasm from young voters to beat President Trump .
“ There is a generational divide in this country that ’ s very real , ” said Brandon Hurlbut , a former campaign adviser for Obama ’ s 2008 campaign and the chief of staff at the Energy Department .
Hurlbut volunteered in 2020 for the presidential campaign of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren but is backing Biden now .
“ The Democratic Party must be responsive to young voters ’ desire for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
Biden is aware of his enthusiasm problem with young climate voters who supported Sanders .
He appealed to their concerns after notching primary wins in Florida , Illinois , and Arizona on March 17 , telling them , “ Especially to the young voters who have been inspired by Senator Sanders : I hear you .
I know what is at stake .
And I know what we have to do.
” After Sanders endorsed Biden last week , the two announced they are creating a task force on climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the influential group that helped bring attention to the Green New Deal , has not endorsed Biden .
“ Hopefully [ Biden ] will continue working prominently with [ Sanders ] throughout the campaign , and these tasks forces will produce real progressive policies & personnel commitments , not just empty gestures , ” tweeted Evan Weber , the Sunrise political director .
Progressive star New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who is aligned with Sunrise , has also not endorsed Biden and cited climate change as an area she would like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s staff is talking with liberal groups and activists , Hurlbut and others in touch with his campaign say .
There ’ s an expectation Biden will be releasing additional climate plans with more detail in the coming months .
Hendricks and others say Biden has an opportunity to lay out a more proactive vision for responding to climate change as the nation recovers from the coronavirus pandemic .
Eight youth-backed liberal groups , including Sunrise , NextGen America , and Justice Democrats , wrote a letter to Biden this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 10 trillion in green stimulus and infrastructure investments over 10 years that will create tens of millions of good jobs of the future.
” Hendricks says that money should be focused on water systems , assistance for low-income utility rate-payers , power grid modernization , expanded public transit , and more .
“ In this moment of economic recovery , there is a lot more for Biden to say , ” Hendricks said .
“ There is a hunger to see how the economic vision builds on his climate plan.
” Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He called for a “ green deal ” stimulus last month .
As vice president , Biden helped implement President Barack Obama ’ s Recovery Act of 2009 , dedicating $ 90 billion to clean energy programs that lowered the cost of wind and solar .
But if Biden wants to catch Sanders , he ’ d have to spend a lot more money : Sanders ’ s climate plan envisioned spending $ 16 trillion , the most of any candidate , while Biden has proposed $ 1.7 trillion over a decade .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger investment from Biden , ” said Leah Stokes , an assistant professor of environmental politics at the University of California at Santa Barbara , whose research has informed the campaigns of various candidates .
“ The recent coronavirus stimulus packages that have gone through show that spending a trillion dollars over 10 years is not that much money.
” It ’ s not that “ the Biden plan has to become the Bernie plan , ” Hendricks said .
Hendricks and other liberal activists aren ’ t necessarily demanding Biden adopt some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could damage him in swing states , such as immediately banning fracking , a drilling technique for extracting oil and gas deep underground .
“ Honestly , even talking about fracking vs. not fracking is sort of missing the point .
Who cares how you get the oil and gas , ” said Rep. Jared Huffman , a California Democrat and a member of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis .
“ The point is you need to make a dramatic break from fossil fuel altogether .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see more from Biden.
” Sanders ’ s plan , in contrast to Biden ’ s , sought to have the nation ’ s power and transportation run entirely on renewables by 2030 , while ending the use of fossil fuels in the economy by 2050 .
Biden leaves the door open for fossil fuel use , even out to 2050 , if the emissions from a gas plant , for example , can be negated with carbon capture technology .
“ Biden ’ s plan talks only of a 100 % clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be 107 years old and most likely dead , ” said R.L .
Miller , founder of the liberal voter mobilization group Climate Hawks Vote .
“ When his plan includes a road map of how to get to that goal , with 2030 as a way station along the route , I ’ ll take it seriously.
” Activists are urging Biden to detail how he ’ d make progress toward reducing fossil fuel use over the coming decade .
They want him to specify how he would reach his goal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set near-term targets for decarbonizing the economy ’ s various sectors , including electricity , transportation , and buildings .
“ If you punt everything to 2050 as your only goal , it ’ s punting the issue to the next generation , ” said Brett Hartl , chief political strategist of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund .
Biden faces risks if he wades deeper into climate policy and illuminates a dire future for fossil fuels .
His blue-collar background and relatively centrist views have managed to not offend unions whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs .
As liberals look to move Biden left , Trump is attacking from the right , eager to portray Democrats as out-of-touch when the country is battling the coronavirus pandemic .

Written by Josh Siegel on Apr 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On paper, Joe Biden has the most aggressive plan to address climate change ever proposed by a Democratic nominee.
But liberal climate activists, many of them young supporters of rival Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dejected by his loss, see Biden’s pitch as too generic and vague, and his delivery uninspiring.
These activists aim to exert pressure on Biden during his campaign for the general election, pushing him to add detail to his headline target of the United States using 100% carbon-free energy by 2050 and to set bolder near-term targets to make progress on weaning off fossil fuels.
“The Biden plan is the most ambitious climate plan any nominee has ever put forward, including Bernie in 2016,” said Bracken Hendricks, a former senior climate policy adviser in the presidential campaign of Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington.
“With that said, the climate crisis is worse and moving more rapidly, so the urgency of the moment is changing the debate.”
While Biden assembled a broad primary coalition of older suburban and blue-collar voters, along with African Americans, climate activists say he’ll need turnout and enthusiasm from young voters to beat President Trump.
“There is a generational divide in this country that’s very real,” said Brandon Hurlbut, a former campaign adviser for Obama’s 2008 campaign and the chief of staff at the Energy Department.
Hurlbut volunteered in 2020 for the presidential campaign of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren but is backing Biden now. “The Democratic Party must be responsive to young voters’ desire for aggressive action on climate now,” he said.
Biden is aware of his enthusiasm problem with young climate voters who supported Sanders.
He appealed to their concerns after notching primary wins in Florida, Illinois, and Arizona on March 17, telling them, “Especially to the young voters who have been inspired by Senator Sanders: I hear you. I know what is at stake. And I know what we have to do.”
After Sanders endorsed Biden last week, the two announced they are creating a task force on climate change.
But the youth-driven Sunrise Movement, the influential group that helped bring attention to the Green New Deal, has not endorsed Biden.
“Hopefully [Biden] will continue working prominently with [Sanders] throughout the campaign, and these tasks forces will produce real progressive policies & personnel commitments, not just empty gestures,” tweeted Evan Weber, the Sunrise political director.
Progressive star New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is aligned with Sunrise, has also not endorsed Biden and cited climate change as an area she would like to see him improve.
Nonetheless, Biden’s staff is talking with liberal groups and activists, Hurlbut and others in touch with his campaign say.
There’s an expectation Biden will be releasing additional climate plans with more detail in the coming months.
Hendricks and others say Biden has an opportunity to lay out a more proactive vision for responding to climate change as the nation recovers from the coronavirus pandemic.
Eight youth-backed liberal groups, including Sunrise, NextGen America, and Justice Democrats, wrote a letter to Biden this month imploring him to commit to “mobilizing $10 trillion in green stimulus and infrastructure investments over 10 years that will create tens of millions of good jobs of the future.”
Hendricks says that money should be focused on water systems, assistance for low-income utility rate-payers, power grid modernization, expanded public transit, and more.
“In this moment of economic recovery, there is a lot more for Biden to say,” Hendricks said. “There is a hunger to see how the economic vision builds on his climate plan.”
Biden seems to be hearing that message.
He called for a “green deal” stimulus last month. As vice president, Biden helped implement President Barack Obama’s Recovery Act of 2009, dedicating $90 billion to clean energy programs that lowered the cost of wind and solar.
But if Biden wants to catch Sanders, he’d have to spend a lot more money: Sanders’s climate plan envisioned spending $16 trillion, the most of any candidate, while Biden has proposed $1.7 trillion over a decade.
“People would like to see a bigger investment from Biden,” said Leah Stokes, an assistant professor of environmental politics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, whose research has informed the campaigns of various candidates.
“The recent coronavirus stimulus packages that have gone through show that spending a trillion dollars over 10 years is not that much money.”
It’s not that “the Biden plan has to become the Bernie plan,” Hendricks said.
Hendricks and other liberal activists aren’t necessarily demanding Biden adopt some of Sanders’s more controversial proposals that could damage him in swing states, such as immediately banning fracking, a drilling technique for extracting oil and gas deep underground.
“Honestly, even talking about fracking vs. not fracking is sort of missing the point. Who cares how you get the oil and gas,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat and a member of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
“The point is you need to make a dramatic break from fossil fuel altogether. That’s where forward-leaning climate advocates would like to see more from Biden.”
Sanders’s plan, in contrast to Biden’s, sought to have the nation’s power and transportation run entirely on renewables by 2030, while ending the use of fossil fuels in the economy by 2050.
Biden leaves the door open for fossil fuel use, even out to 2050, if the emissions from a gas plant, for example, can be negated with carbon capture technology.
“Biden’s plan talks only of a 100% clean energy economy by 2050 when he will be 107 years old and most likely dead,” said R.L. Miller, founder of the liberal voter mobilization group Climate Hawks Vote. “When his plan includes a road map of how to get to that goal, with 2030 as a way station along the route, I’ll take it seriously.”
Activists are urging Biden to detail how he’d make progress toward reducing fossil fuel use over the coming decade.
They want him to specify how he would reach his goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, and to set near-term targets for decarbonizing the economy’s various sectors, including electricity, transportation, and buildings.
“If you punt everything to 2050 as your only goal, it’s punting the issue to the next generation,” said Brett Hartl, chief political strategist of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund.
Biden faces risks if he wades deeper into climate policy and illuminates a dire future for fossil fuels. His blue-collar background and relatively centrist views have managed to not offend unions whose workers would suffer from eliminating fossil fuel jobs.
As liberals look to move Biden left, Trump is attacking from the right, eager to portray Democrats as out-of-touch when the country is battling the coronavirus pandemic.
Read rest at Washington Examiner
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-20--Climate Change Not Behind So-Called Southwest Megadrought

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news The establishment media is hyping a new paper claiming climate change is contributing to a megadrought throughout the western United States .
Federal government data compiled by the National Integrated Drought Information System ( NIDIS ) , however , show the claim is false .
Reporting on the study , published in the journal Science , Doyle Rice writes in USA Today , “ [ f ] ueled in part by human-caused climate change , a ‘ megadrought ’ appears to be emerging in the western U.S. , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the nearly-20-year drought is almost as bad or worse than any in the past 1,200 years , scientists say.
” Rice admits megadroughts – intense droughts lasting decades or longer – have been common throughout history .
Nevertheless , he quotes A .
Park Williams , the Columbia University researcher listed as the lead author of the story , stating , “ We now have enough observations of current drought and tree-ring records of past drought to say that we ’ re on the same trajectory as the worst prehistoric droughts.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger than what modern society has seen , ” Williams added .
There are a couple of problems with Williams ’ assertions .
First , as noted by Rice , “ Naturally occurring western megadroughts have taken place many times before .
In fact , most of the USA ’ s droughts of the past century , even the 1930 ’ s Dust Bowl that forced migrations of Oklahomans and others from the Plains , ‘ were exceeded in severity and duration multiple times by droughts during the preceding 2,000 years , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is no evidence any current drought conditions are at all unusual or caused by anything other than nature .
Second , the 20-year drought Williams and company are warning of doesn ’ t actually appear to be occurring .
Indeed , NIDIS records show 78 percent of the country is not experiencing drought or even below-average rainfall at present .
In the West , less than half of the region is experiencing below-average rainfall , and of regions in the West experiencing drought conditions , the Palmer Drought Index shows , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is experiencing extreme or exceptional drought , concentrated in a small part of South Texas .
NIDIS records also show that much of the area experiencing below-average rainfall or modest drought have been experiencing these conditions for 6 months or less , and that moisture conditions have improved over the past week , month , and year for most of the areas currently rated as experiencing drought or “ abnormally dry ” conditions .
So , the data hardly indicate a megadrought is occurring .
As Climate at a Glance : Drought reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions , with peaks in drought around 1978 , 1954 , 1930 , and 1900 being much larger than what the U.S. experienced in the 21st century and the late 20th century .
Indeed , in 2017 and 2019 , the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
And the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) reports with “ high confidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) has increased during the past 70 years , while IPCC has “ low confidence ” about any negative trends globally .
The actual data show the Western United States is not in the midst of a long-term , particularly severe megadrought .
This is exactly the opposite of what the researchers who wrote the Science paper concluded .
Accordingly , one wonders how this paper got through Science ’ s “ peer review ” process .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Apr 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The establishment media is hyping a new paper claiming climate change is contributing to a megadrought throughout the western United States.
Federal government data compiled by the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), however, show the claim is false.
Reporting on the study, published in the journal Science, Doyle Rice writes in USA Today, “[f]ueled in part by human-caused climate change, a ‘megadrought’ appears to be emerging in the western U.S., a study published Thursday suggests. In fact, the nearly-20-year drought is almost as bad or worse than any in the past 1,200 years, scientists say.”
Rice admits megadroughts – intense droughts lasting decades or longer – have been common throughout history.
Nevertheless, he quotes A. Park Williams, the Columbia University researcher listed as the lead author of the story, stating, “We now have enough observations of current drought and tree-ring records of past drought to say that we’re on the same trajectory as the worst prehistoric droughts.”
The current drought is “a drought bigger than what modern society has seen,” Williams added.
There are a couple of problems with Williams’ assertions.
First, as noted by Rice, “Naturally occurring western megadroughts have taken place many times before. In fact, most of the USA’s droughts of the past century, even the 1930’s Dust Bowl that forced migrations of Oklahomans and others from the Plains, ‘were exceeded in severity and duration multiple times by droughts during the preceding 2,000 years,’ the National Climate Assessment said.”
Therefore, there is no evidence any current drought conditions are at all unusual or caused by anything other than nature.
Second, the 20-year drought Williams and company are warning of doesn’t actually appear to be occurring.
Indeed, NIDIS records show 78 percent of the country is not experiencing drought or even below-average rainfall at present.
In the West, less than half of the region is experiencing below-average rainfall, and of regions in the West experiencing drought conditions, the Palmer Drought Index shows, just 3.76 percent of the entire country is experiencing extreme or exceptional drought, concentrated in a small part of South Texas.
NIDIS records also show that much of the area experiencing below-average rainfall or modest drought have been experiencing these conditions for 6 months or less, and that moisture conditions have improved over the past week, month, and year for most of the areas currently rated as experiencing drought or “abnormally dry” conditions.
So, the data hardly indicate a megadrought is occurring.
As Climate at a Glance: Drought reports, data shows the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions, with peaks in drought around 1978, 1954, 1930, and 1900 being much larger than what the U.S. experienced in the 21st century and the late 20th century.
Indeed, in 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
And the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports with “high confidence” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) has increased during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
The actual data show the Western United States is not in the midst of a long-term, particularly severe megadrought.
This is exactly the opposite of what the researchers who wrote the Science paper concluded. Accordingly, one wonders how this paper got through Science’s “peer review” process.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-20--The Financiers Of Poverty, Malnutrition And Death – Part I

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

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Apr 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, anti-development banks, the Agency for International Development (USAID), NGO (non-governmental organization) pressure groups, and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money, power, and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African, Asian, and Latin American families from having access to reliable, affordable energy, pesticides, and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease and using modern agricultural technologies.
Those outfits perpetuate poverty, disease, malnutrition, and death. Yet the eco-manslaughter continues.
Too many US, EU, and UN governmental agencies have been captured by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks, and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs.
The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media, human rights, or other “watchdogs.”
But the fact is, few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them.
Indeed, “philanthropic” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best-kept secrets of modern society. It’s time to spotlight some of them and call them to account.
Wealthy foundations – often created with profits and fortunes made in industry and technology – directly and indirectly support some of the most radical anti-energy, anti-technology, and agroecology activism in America, Europe, and the world.
Their wealth, direct and indirect aid mechanisms, and an interlocking global network of funders, managers, and advisors make them a powerful, callous, oppressive force.
They use direct donations and a growing number of clever nontransparent pass-through operations (funds of funds, or foundations of foundations) to consolidate money from multiple donors and direct “charitable giving” to organizations and projects that support their ideologies and causes.
The system also helps insulate the foundations – and their patrons and managers – from direct association with the most questionable, controversial, and often thuggish and lethal organizations and activists.
The funding, in turn, enables the organizations and activists to paint themselves as legitimate, benevolent and popular voices worthy of attention in global and domestic debates over laws, policies, and regulations.
They have become especially effective in blocking the use of modern, innovative farm technologies like improved pesticides, GM crops (genetically modified, engineered through biotechnology) – and even fertilizers, tractors, and hybrid seeds – under the auspices of what they cleverly call “agroecology.”
A big part of the problem is that the World Bank, EU agencies, and Euro foundations demand and support primitive subsistence farming and block food imports from countries that permit biotech farming.
The World Bank’s Global Environment Facility and various European donors support groups like the Route to Food Initiative, Kenya Organic Agriculture Network, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, and Resources Oriented Development Initiatives of Kenya.
In fact, virtually every African country is beset by their “benevolence,” as are India and other countries in Asia and Latin America.
All of them promote the supposed benefits of organic farming that bans the use of “dangerous, poisonous” man-made pesticides – but permits the use in “organic” farming of “natural” pesticides and other chemicals that are also toxic and dangerous to humans, wildlife, fish and beneficial insects.
They stridently oppose all biotech crops – including life-saving Golden Rice – and have been pressuring Kenyan and other African governments to ban more than 200 pesticides that have been approved as safe in many other countries.
Many of the groups even oppose mechanized equipment like tractors.
Among the EU funders are BioVision, the Danish Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.
They even support newspapers like Britain’s Guardian, which is often little more than another NGO that runs and supports anti-technology campaigns and seeks donations from readers and major funding from foundations in exchange for stories.
Self-proclaimed “philanthropic, charitable” US foundations are just as guilty. They probably provide far more funding than EU foundations, but their secretive networks make that hard to ascertain.
Foundation support for the agroecology Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) helps illustrate how all this works.
AFSA is a pan-African alliance of organizations committed to “resisting” the “corporate industrialization” of African agriculture.
It claims the use of modern agricultural technologies like pesticides for crop protection, chemical fertilizers, and genetically modified crops for drought and insect resistance and higher yields will result in “massive land grabs, destruction of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems, displacement of indigenous peoples…and the destruction of their livelihoods and cultures.”
AFSA’s core members include activist pressure groups that espouse an even broader variety of anti-capitalist, anti-technology, radical environmentalist goals and philosophies.
Among the more notable and notorious ones are The African Biodiversity Network, African Center for Biodiversity, GroundSwell International, Friends of the Earth (FOE), and La Via Campesina Africa.
These organizations work together to plan and support pro-organic, anti-biotech campaigns, and provide financial management and expertise in furthering AFSA principles. Letting them retain tax-exempt status is a travesty.
Core member La Via Campesina Africa (The Peasant Way – Africa), for example, is a radical, proponent of anti-technology agroecology.
It rejects modern farming technologies: crop protection pesticides and herbicides, fertilizers for nutrient-depleted soils, and even biotech replacements for bananas, cassava, and other crops that have been all but destroyed by viruses and diseases.
It also advocates an anti-free-market program of peasant-centric subsistence agriculture that largely limits farmers to backbreaking organic agricultural farming methods, and selling to local markets.
Agroecology farmers are largely limited to those local markets, in part because they cannot raise enough crops for export to wider markets like Europe – while other produce is blocked because many EU nations ban the import of crops that are so much as tainted by glyphosate, neonicotinoids or biotech pollen.
The US-based AgroEcology Fund (AEF) helped to launch and continues to support the AFSA. It acts as a pass-through fund of funds to hide sources and helps to coordinate, direct, and manage the giving to outfits like AFSA.
The AEF also partners with AFSA and other organizations such as the Center for Food Safety (CFS), to battle “the industrial model” and promote organic farming.
The AgroEcology Fund directly gave the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa in 2015 $200,000 and has given it some $500,000 overall (and possibly more via clandestine means).
That may not sound like much, but such funds pay for 10-100 times more hourly wages and activism in Africa than they would in the USA.
In 2017, the AEF and AFSA worked together on a campaign to prevent biotech seed patent protection laws from being enforced in Africa.
The AEF was created by three wealthy American foundations, the Christensen Fund, the New Fields Foundation, the Swift Foundation, and a donor who remains unknown.
AEF programs and funding are overseen by New Venture Fund, which was created to help “philanthropists” better direct funds to projects and programs in line with their neocolonialist goals; the NVF is managed by Arabella Advisors.
Ironically and perversely, the foundations that funded AEF’s creation are rooted in money generated in innovation, industry, and technology.
Now AEF and its foundation backers battle agricultural innovation and keep African farmers mired in farming practices that can feed few people or successfully battle the few crop-devouring insect pests, much less protect crops against recurrent locust plagues.
Equally perverse, rich countries have abundant food – traditional, modern, and organic.
Meanwhile, poor countries are saddled with barely enough food, no safety net for all those times when droughts or insects destroy crops, and diktats from ultra-wealthy foundations and pressure groups that tell farmers they should be happy to engage in dawn-to-dusk subsistence farming, ox-drawn plowing, stoop labor, banging on metal pans to drive the locust hordes away, and living on the verge of starvation.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues. Part 2 of this article will address how these funds operate, and how they lock Africa in poverty and malnutrition.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-20--Studies: Cloud Cover Changes Driving Greenland Ice Melt Trends Since ’90s

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news Scientists now acknowledge cloud cover changes “ control the Earth ’ s hydrological cycle , ” “ regulate the Earth ’ s climate , ” and “ dominate the melt signal ” for the Greenland ice sheet via modulation of absorbed shortwave radiation .
CO2 goes unmentioned as a contributing factor .
Climate modeling of factors influencing Greenland warming , surface melt have been 100 % wrong A few years ago scientists acknowledged “ a major disparity in trends between models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 ( CMIP5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ” ( Hanna et al.
, 2018 ) .
All 36 climate models simulating blocking over Greenland were wrong .
None of the models were correct .
The abysmal performance of the modeling relative to observations has been ongoing for the last 20 to 30 years – effectively for the entire time that the CMIP5 models have been in existence .
In all other scientific fields , a one hundred percent failure rate ongoing for decades would have long ago resulted in a reassessment of modeling parameters .
Climate science is apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Within a matter of hours , the radiative forcing effects from clouds can vary by ±40 W/m² in the Arctic .
From one year to the next , cloud radiative effects can vary by 70 W/m² and overall cloud radiative effects can reach 360 W/m² ( Ebell et al.
, 2020 ) .
In contrast , the total accumulated change in net impact from CO2 forcing is only 1.82 W/m² since 1750 ( Feldman et al.
, 2015 ) .
Simply put , cloud forcing radiatively dominates in the Arctic .
CO2 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to a new study ( Lenaerts et al.
, 2020 ) , clouds “ control the Earth ’ s hydrological cycle ” , “ regulate the Earth ’ s climate ” , and drive polar ice melt .
Further , “ the surface melt climate is strongly dependent on the representation of clouds and related radiation fluxes “ .
Models of cloud effects over Greenland are biased – or wrong – by 25-50 W/m² .
Cloud cover decline from 1994-2017 “ dominates ” the warming and ice melt trend Another new study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds reduced cloud cover from 1994-2017 led to enhanced shortwave radiation ( +7.3 W/m² ) and drove the warming from the 1990s to mid-2000s .
This shortwave cloud forcing trend is what “ dominates ” the melt signal for Greenland .
Greenland ’ s warming trend is shown to taper off into a pause or a slight cooling trend since ~2005 .
Likewise , the ice melt trend spiked in 2012 but has been flat ( or declining ) overall since about 2005 too .
There is thus no clear indication in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can even remotely compete with cloud radiative effects as drivers of climate trends over Greenland .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kenneth Richard on Apr 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Scientists now acknowledge cloud cover changes “control the Earth’s hydrological cycle,” “regulate the Earth’s climate,” and “dominate the melt signal” for the Greenland ice sheet via modulation of absorbed shortwave radiation. CO2 goes unmentioned as a contributing factor.
Climate modeling of factors influencing Greenland warming, surface melt have been 100% wrong
A few years ago scientists acknowledged “a major disparity in trends between models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) and observations for the last 20-30 years” (Hanna et al., 2018).
All 36 climate models simulating blocking over Greenland were wrong. None of the models were correct.
The abysmal performance of the modeling relative to observations has been ongoing for the last 20 to 30 years – effectively for the entire time that the CMIP5 models have been in existence.
In all other scientific fields, a one hundred percent failure rate ongoing for decades would have long ago resulted in a reassessment of modeling parameters. Climate science is apparently in a realm of its own.
Cloud forcing dominates in the Arctic
Within a matter of hours, the radiative forcing effects from clouds can vary by ±40 W/m² in the Arctic. From one year to the next, cloud radiative effects can vary by 70 W/m² and overall cloud radiative effects can reach 360 W/m² (Ebell et al., 2020).
In contrast, the total accumulated change in net impact from CO2 forcing is only 1.82 W/m² since 1750 (Feldman et al., 2015).
Simply put, cloud forcing radiatively dominates in the Arctic. CO2 is a bit player, at most.
Clouds regulate Greenland’s climate…and models grossly fail to simulate this
According to a new study (Lenaerts et al., 2020), clouds “control the Earth’s hydrological cycle”, “regulate the Earth’s climate”, and drive polar ice melt.
Further, “the surface melt climate is strongly dependent on the representation of clouds and related radiation fluxes“.
Models of cloud effects over Greenland are biased – or wrong – by 25-50 W/m².
Cloud cover decline from 1994-2017 “dominates” the warming and ice melt trend
Another new study (Hahn et al., 2020) finds reduced cloud cover from 1994-2017 led to enhanced shortwave radiation (+7.3 W/m²) and drove the warming from the 1990s to mid-2000s.
This shortwave cloud forcing trend is what “dominates” the melt signal for Greenland.
Greenland’s warming trend is shown to taper off into a pause or a slight cooling trend since ~2005.
Likewise, the ice melt trend spiked in 2012 but has been flat (or declining) overall since about 2005 too.
There is thus no clear indication in the scientific literature that atmospheric CO2 concentration changes can even remotely compete with cloud radiative effects as drivers of climate trends over Greenland.
h/t Rúnar
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-20--Solar Winds Hitting Earth Are Hotter Than They Should Be–Here’s Why

Written by Mike McRae on .
Posted in Latest news Our planet is constantly bathed in the winds coming off the blistering sphere at the center of our Solar System .
But even though the Sun itself is so ridiculously hot , once the solar winds reach Earth , they are hotter than they should be – and we might finally know why .
We know that particles making up the plasma of the Sun ’ s heliosphere cool as they spread out .
The problem is that they seem to take their sweet time doing so , dropping in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ People have been studying the solar wind since its discovery in 1959 , but there are many important properties of this plasma which are still not well understood , ” says physicist Stas Boldyrev from the University of Wisconsin–Madison .
“ Initially , researchers thought the solar wind has to cool down very rapidly as it expands from the Sun , but satellite measurements show that as it reaches the Earth , its temperature is 10 times larger than expected.
” The research team used laboratory equipment to study moving plasma , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem lies in a trapped sea of electrons that just can ’ t seem to escape the Sun ’ s grip .
The expansion process itself has long been assumed to be subject to adiabatic laws , a term that simply means heat energy isn ’ t added or removed from a system .
This keeps the numbers nice and simple but assumes there aren ’ t places where energy slips in or out of the flow of particles .
Unfortunately , an electron ’ s journey is anything but simple , shoved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fields like a roller coaster from Hell .
This chaos leaves plenty of opportunities for heat to be passed back and forth .
Just to complicate matters further , thanks to its tiny mass , electrons get a good head start over heavier ions as they shoot forth from the Sun ’ s atmosphere , leaving a largely positive cloud of particles in their wake .
Eventually , the growing attraction between the two opposing charges takes over the inertia of those flying electrons , pulling them back to the starting line where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their paths .
“ Such returning electrons are reflected so that they stream away from the Sun , but again they can not escape because of the attractive electric force of the Sun , ” says Boldyrev .
“ So , their destiny is to bounce back and forth , creating a large population of so-called trapped electrons.
” Boldyrev and his crew recognized a similar game of electron ping-pong playing out in their own laboratory , inside an apparatus commonly used to study plasma called a mirror machine .
Mirror machines don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least , not the familiar shiny kind .
Also known as magnetic mirrors or magnetic traps , these linear fusion devices are little more than long tubes with a bottle-neck at either end .
Their reflective nature is created as streams of plasma passing through the bottle pinch in at either end , altering the surrounding magnetic fields in such a way that particles within the stream reflect back inside again .
“ But some particles can escape , and when they do , they stream along expanding magnetic field lines outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Because the physicists want to keep this plasma very hot , they want to figure out how the temperature of the electrons that escape the bottle declines outside this opening.
” Or if you ’ re Boldyrev and his team , those leaking electrons can be studied to better understand what ’ s happening with our very own solar wind .
He and his colleagues suggest the population of trapped electrons that yo-yo back and forth play a major role in the way electrons distribute their heat energy , changing the typical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictable ways .
“ It turns out that our results agree very well with measurements of the temperature profile of the solar wind and they may explain why the electron temperature declines with the distance so slowly , ” says Boldyrev .
Finding such a good match between the mirror machine ’ s figures and what we see in space suggests there could be other solar phenomena worth studying this way .
This research was published in PNAS .

Written by Mike McRae on Apr 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Our planet is constantly bathed in the winds coming off the blistering sphere at the center of our Solar System.
But even though the Sun itself is so ridiculously hot, once the solar winds reach Earth, they are hotter than they should be – and we might finally know why.
We know that particles making up the plasma of the Sun’s heliosphere cool as they spread out. The problem is that they seem to take their sweet time doing so, dropping in temperature far slower than models predict.
“People have been studying the solar wind since its discovery in 1959, but there are many important properties of this plasma which are still not well understood,” says physicist Stas Boldyrev from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
“Initially, researchers thought the solar wind has to cool down very rapidly as it expands from the Sun, but satellite measurements show that as it reaches the Earth, its temperature is 10 times larger than expected.”
The research team used laboratory equipment to study moving plasma, and now think the answer to the problem lies in a trapped sea of electrons that just can’t seem to escape the Sun’s grip.
The expansion process itself has long been assumed to be subject to adiabatic laws, a term that simply means heat energy isn’t added or removed from a system.
This keeps the numbers nice and simple but assumes there aren’t places where energy slips in or out of the flow of particles.
Unfortunately, an electron’s journey is anything but simple, shoved around at the mercy of vast magnetic fields like a roller coaster from Hell. This chaos leaves plenty of opportunities for heat to be passed back and forth.
Just to complicate matters further, thanks to its tiny mass, electrons get a good head start over heavier ions as they shoot forth from the Sun’s atmosphere, leaving a largely positive cloud of particles in their wake.
Eventually, the growing attraction between the two opposing charges takes over the inertia of those flying electrons, pulling them back to the starting line where magnetic fields once again play havoc with their paths.
“Such returning electrons are reflected so that they stream away from the Sun, but again they cannot escape because of the attractive electric force of the Sun,” says Boldyrev.
“So, their destiny is to bounce back and forth, creating a large population of so-called trapped electrons.”
Boldyrev and his crew recognized a similar game of electron ping-pong playing out in their own laboratory, inside an apparatus commonly used to study plasma called a mirror machine.
Mirror machines don’t actually contain any mirrors. At least, not the familiar shiny kind. Also known as magnetic mirrors or magnetic traps, these linear fusion devices are little more than long tubes with a bottle-neck at either end.
Their reflective nature is created as streams of plasma passing through the bottle pinch in at either end, altering the surrounding magnetic fields in such a way that particles within the stream reflect back inside again.
“But some particles can escape, and when they do, they stream along expanding magnetic field lines outside the bottle,” Boldyrev says.
“Because the physicists want to keep this plasma very hot, they want to figure out how the temperature of the electrons that escape the bottle declines outside this opening.”
Or if you’re Boldyrev and his team, those leaking electrons can be studied to better understand what’s happening with our very own solar wind.
He and his colleagues suggest the population of trapped electrons that yo-yo back and forth play a major role in the way electrons distribute their heat energy, changing the typical distributions of particle velocities and temperatures in predictable ways.
“It turns out that our results agree very well with measurements of the temperature profile of the solar wind and they may explain why the electron temperature declines with the distance so slowly,” says Boldyrev.
Finding such a good match between the mirror machine’s figures and what we see in space suggests there could be other solar phenomena worth studying this way.
This research was published in PNAS.
h/t David M.
Read more at Science Alert
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-21--BBC Falsely Claims ‘Day After Tomorrow’ Science Has Come True

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news BBC has published an article claiming much of the science in the 2004 climate science fiction film The Day After Tomorrow “ hold up remarkably well ” to historical analysis .
Readers who are old enough to remember the movie may recall that the premise of the movie was global warming causing a sudden halt to the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current , resulting in all sorts of sudden and horrifying catastrophes .
Yet , the ocean currents have sped up , not slowed down , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s compare climate science versus the BBC ’ s attempt to gaslight us into believing absurd climate predictions have come true .
As BBC describes it , “ The film starts well , with a climate researcher , Professor Jack Hall ( Dennis Quaid ) , nearly plummeting to his doom in the Antarctic when a mile-long crack splits the ice shelf beneath his feet .
Soon afterward , he explains how the North Atlantic Current works to the US ’ s skeptical vice president ( Kenneth Welsh , a Dick Cheney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains ” to the dolt-like , climate-denier vice president that “ global warming is melting the polar ice caps and disrupting this flow [ the North Atlantic Current ] .
Eventually , it will shut down .
And when that occurs , there goes our warm climate.
” However , climate scientists recently published peer-reviewed data showing the ocean currents are speeding up rather than slowing down .
Now , of course , climate alarmists falsely claim global warming speeds up ocean currents and they predicted this all along .
Like in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the movie showed , “ Hailstones the size of tennis balls batter Tokyo .
Tornadoes rip Los Angeles to pieces .
Helicopters fall from the sky when their fuel lines freeze in Scotland .
A frighteningly convincing tsunami sloshes through Manhattan , submerging its streets and turning its skyscrapers into islands .
New York is then buried under meters of snow and ice.
” Yet , none of these events occurred .
None are going to occur .
The acclaimed “ science ” was ridiculous in 2004 , remains ridiculous today , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who will believe BBC ’ s absurd attempt to try to vindicate climate extremism predictions in The Day After Tomorrow are climate charlatans and people BBC can effectively convince are losing their minds .
James Taylor is Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute .

Written by James Taylor on Apr 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
BBC has published an article claiming much of the science in the 2004 climate science fiction film The Day After Tomorrow “hold up remarkably well” to historical analysis.
Readers who are old enough to remember the movie may recall that the premise of the movie was global warming causing a sudden halt to the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current, resulting in all sorts of sudden and horrifying catastrophes.
Yet, the ocean currents have sped up, not slowed down, and the asserted catastrophes have not occurred.
Let’s compare climate science versus the BBC’s attempt to gaslight us into believing absurd climate predictions have come true.
As BBC describes it, “The film starts well, with a climate researcher, Professor Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), nearly plummeting to his doom in the Antarctic when a mile-long crack splits the ice shelf beneath his feet.
Soon afterward, he explains how the North Atlantic Current works to the US’s skeptical vice president (Kenneth Welsh, a Dick Cheney lookalike).”
Dennis Quaid “explains” to the dolt-like, climate-denier vice president that “global warming is melting the polar ice caps and disrupting this flow [the North Atlantic Current]. Eventually, it will shut down. And when that occurs, there goes our warm climate.”
However, climate scientists recently published peer-reviewed data showing the ocean currents are speeding up rather than slowing down.
Now, of course, climate alarmists falsely claim global warming speeds up ocean currents and they predicted this all along. Like in the movie Gaslight.
Moreover, BBC admits the movie showed, “Hailstones the size of tennis balls batter Tokyo. Tornadoes rip Los Angeles to pieces. Helicopters fall from the sky when their fuel lines freeze in Scotland. A frighteningly convincing tsunami sloshes through Manhattan, submerging its streets and turning its skyscrapers into islands. New York is then buried under meters of snow and ice.”
Yet, none of these events occurred. None are going to occur. The acclaimed “science” was ridiculous in 2004, remains ridiculous today, and will always be ridiculous.
The only people who will believe BBC’s absurd attempt to try to vindicate climate extremism predictions in The Day After Tomorrow are climate charlatans and people BBC can effectively convince are losing their minds.
James Taylor is Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-21--Wired: Climate Change Is ‘Second Great Crisis’ After Wuhan Virus

Written by Thomas D. Williams , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Alarmists at Wired magazine announced Tuesday the “ world is in the grip of two crises , ” the coronavirus pandemic and global warming .
We mustn ’ t let the clear and present danger of coronavirus so occupy our minds that we forget about the climate crisis , Matt Reynolds suggests , because when we finally come out of lockdown it will be there waiting for us .
“ Next to the perilous urgency of coronavirus , the second great crisis , the climate crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other point in the last decade , ” writes Matt Reynolds for Wired , because cities that are usually clogged with air pollution are experiencing remarkable improvement in air quality .
Mr. Reynolds employs the typical alarmist subterfuge of conflating real air pollution with CO2 emissions , despite the fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a colorless , odorless , nontoxic gas that plants depend on to live .
According to Worldometers , so far a total of 171,334 people have died with coronavirus whereas there is no death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because no one has died from it .
Startling numbers of people do , however , die every year from air pollution — concentrations of fine particulate matter such as sulfate , nitrates , and black carbon — but they do not die from carbon dioxide emissions .
For climate alarmists , the real danger is not the air pollution that actually kills millions of people , but the bogeyman of anthropogenic climate change whose awesome and cataclysmic effects lurk ominously on the horizon .
“ Whatever the precise figure , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trigger the largest ever yearly drop in CO2 emissions , ” Reynolds notes .
“ The dips caused by the Second World War , the financial crisis or the Spanish Flu don ’ t even come close.
” And yet , “ this reduction in emissions is still way off what we ’ d need to prevent 1.5 degrees Celsius of global heating , ” he warns .
“ To hit this , as Carbon Brief notes , global emissions would need to fall by 7.6 percent every year this decade.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus lockdown some things never change .
For alarmists , there can never be enough hysteria in the world and if there isn ’ t something real to panic over , apocalyptic forecasts of mass destruction will always suffice .

Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. on Apr 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Alarmists at Wired magazine announced Tuesday the “world is in the grip of two crises,” the coronavirus pandemic and global warming.
We mustn’t let the clear and present danger of coronavirus so occupy our minds that we forget about the climate crisis, Matt Reynolds suggests, because when we finally come out of lockdown it will be there waiting for us.
“Next to the perilous urgency of coronavirus, the second great crisis, the climate crisis, may currently feel more distant than at any other point in the last decade,” writes Matt Reynolds for Wired, because cities that are usually clogged with air pollution are experiencing remarkable improvement in air quality.
Mr. Reynolds employs the typical alarmist subterfuge of conflating real air pollution with CO2 emissions, despite the fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas that plants depend on to live.
According to Worldometers, so far a total of 171,334 people have died with coronavirus whereas there is no death toll recorded for global warming, perhaps because no one has died from it.
Startling numbers of people do, however, die every year from air pollution — concentrations of fine particulate matter such as sulfate, nitrates, and black carbon — but they do not die from carbon dioxide emissions.
For climate alarmists, the real danger is not the air pollution that actually kills millions of people, but the bogeyman of anthropogenic climate change whose awesome and cataclysmic effects lurk ominously on the horizon.
“Whatever the precise figure, it’s likely that the coronavirus pandemic will trigger the largest ever yearly drop in CO2 emissions,” Reynolds notes. “The dips caused by the Second World War, the financial crisis or the Spanish Flu don’t even come close.”
And yet, “this reduction in emissions is still way off what we’d need to prevent 1.5 degrees Celsius of global heating,” he warns. “To hit this, as Carbon Brief notes, global emissions would need to fall by 7.6 percent every year this decade.”
It is reassuring that even in the midst of the coronavirus lockdown some things never change.
For alarmists, there can never be enough hysteria in the world and if there isn’t something real to panic over, apocalyptic forecasts of mass destruction will always suffice.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print