climatechangedispatch--2020-08-18--MELTDOWN: Media Busts A Nut Over Interior Okaying ANWR Oil Drilling

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news U.S .
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is set to approve oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ( ANWR ) .
Liberals and journalists lost their minds .
The Wall Street Journal reported that “ [ t ] he Trump administration approved an oil leasing program for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Monday , opening up the pristine 19-million-acre wilderness to drilling for the first time.
” The Journal said that it would be “ difficult to unwind the decision should Democrats recapture the White House in November.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like NBC News ’ s Mary Murray called President Donald Trump ’ s administration ’ s latest move an “ environmental atrocity ” on Twitter .
According to The Journal ’ s summarization , Bernhardt said that “ [ a ] pproving the program clears the way to auction oil leases ‘ right around the end of the year.
’ ” Also , The Journal noted that “ [ t ] he decision caps more than 30 years of efforts by oil companies and Alaskan leaders to drill in the refuge.
” Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pull on the heartstrings of animal rights supporters by making a veiled reference to the disastrous effects of the notorious 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska ’ s Prince William Sound : Univision Radio Host Fernando Espuelas chimed in : “ We ’ re now at the looting stage of the Trump Administration.
” HuffPost environment reporter Chris D ’ Angelo tried to play gotcha against Trump , grumbling : “ [ R ] emember like 2 weeks ago when Trump was telling us how he ’ s a conservationist in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
good times.
” Leftist Daily Kos Trending News Manager Jennifer Hayden tweeted the news , screeching : “ Meanwhile , they are intentionally looting America ’ s resources before the end of the year.
” She continued her meltdown : “ I repeat : They are robbing the American people because Big Oil knows their only shot to destroy the Arctic is right now before the door closes.
” Italian newspaper La Stampa financial journalist Fabrizio Goria ’ s contribution included a brief quip on Twitter on the news : “ Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( EIA ) , reported in 2018 that “ the total technically recoverable crude oil resource for federal lands , state waters , and native lands in the coastal plain has a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels.
” The price of oil is currently at a relatively low $ 42 a barrel , but that would still mean that ANWR could potentially yield at least roughly $ 436.8 billion worth of oil .
N3L Capital Partners Co-founder Thomas Landstreet wrote in 2018 that “ Drilling in the ANWR poses less risk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be cheaper .
Fracking was invented in response to drilling restrictions , as a way to produce oil from shale formations on private land , where government restrictions don ’ t apply.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
The left has made it clear there is more of a concern for wildlife than the millions of Americans who are suffering from an economy that has been forced into a pandemic-induced coma for months .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Aug 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
U.S. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is set to approve oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Liberals and journalists lost their minds.
The Wall Street Journal reported that “[t]he Trump administration approved an oil leasing program for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Monday, opening up the pristine 19-million-acre wilderness to drilling for the first time.”
The Journal said that it would be “difficult to unwind the decision should Democrats recapture the White House in November.”
Perhaps that’s why Twitter users like NBC News’s Mary Murray called President Donald Trump’s administration’s latest move an “environmental atrocity” on Twitter.
According to The Journal’s summarization, Bernhardt said that “[a]pproving the program clears the way to auction oil leases ‘right around the end of the year.’”
Also, The Journal noted that “[t]he decision caps more than 30 years of efforts by oil companies and Alaskan leaders to drill in the refuge.”
Woke Twitter erupted.
Wall Street Journal platform editor Brian Fitzgerald tried to pull on the heartstrings of animal rights supporters by making a veiled reference to the disastrous effects of the notorious 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound:
Every time this comes up, I vividly remember birds from the Sound getting oil wiped off them.
Univision Radio Host Fernando Espuelas chimed in: “We’re now at the looting stage of the Trump Administration.”
HuffPost environment reporter Chris D’Angelo tried to play gotcha against Trump, grumbling: “[R]emember like 2 weeks ago when Trump was telling us how he’s a conservationist in the mold of late President Theodore Roosevelt? good times.”
Leftist Daily Kos Trending News Manager Jennifer Hayden tweeted the news, screeching: “Meanwhile, they are intentionally looting America’s resources before the end of the year.”
She continued her meltdown: “I repeat: They are robbing the American people because Big Oil knows their only shot to destroy the Arctic is right now before the door closes.”
Italian newspaper La Stampa financial journalist Fabrizio Goria’s contribution included a brief quip on Twitter on the news: “Just insane.”
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), reported in 2018 that “the total technically recoverable crude oil resource for federal lands, state waters, and native lands in the coastal plain has a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels.”
The price of oil is currently at a relatively low $42 a barrel, but that would still mean that ANWR could potentially yield at least roughly $436.8 billion worth of oil.
According to OilPrice.com August 17:
In terms of demand, U.S. demand reached 19.37 million bbl/d [last week], the highest number since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis last March. Our forecast for US crude oil demand stands at 18.79 million bbl/d in Q3 and 19.19 million bbl/d in Q4, supported by encouraging EIA data. [Emphasis added.]
N3L Capital Partners Co-founder Thomas Landstreet wrote in 2018 that “Drilling in the ANWR poses less risk to the environment than fracking. It would also be cheaper.
Fracking was invented in response to drilling restrictions, as a way to produce oil from shale formations on private land, where government restrictions don’t apply.” [Emphasis added.]
The left has made it clear there is more of a concern for wildlife than the millions of Americans who are suffering from an economy that has been forced into a pandemic-induced coma for months.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-18--Joe Biden’s Climate Plan Is An Overheated Green New Disaster

Written by Charles Fain Lehman on .
Posted in Latest news Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden believes that a “ Green New Deal ” is “ a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face , ” and many elements of his $ 2 trillion climate plan mirror the controversial proposal .
Biden , who on Thursday evening will formally accept the Democratic Party ’ s nomination for the presidency , has largely avoided the limelight , campaigning via teleconference from his home in Delaware .
But from that home , he has planned an administration on par with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive investment of taxpayer dollars in a climate plan which , one expert told the Washington Free Beacon , would be “ unachievable , fantastically expensive , and environmentally destructive.
” That plan includes Green New Deal-style proposals such as a “ civilian climate corps ” and the mass retrofitting of America ’ s homes and vehicles .
It also reproduces key features of President Barack Obama ’ s environmental agenda , including a focus on regulating consumer products and the return of the questionably effective “ cash for clunkers ” program .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic Party ’ s activist base , including a separate plan for pursuing “ environmental justice ” by targeting federal subsidies to minority groups .
The proposal is clearly influenced by Biden ’ s more progressive 2020 challengers , particularly Washington governor Jay Inslee ( D. ) , who ran on a climate-focused platform .
It also broadly mirrors the recommendations of the climate section of the Biden-Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) unity task force , co-chaired by former secretary of state John Kerry and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has not publicly endorsed Ocasio-Cortez or others ’ official Green New Deal proposals , the elements of his climate platform indicate this major piece of his presidential agenda is heavily influenced by the Democratic Party ’ s far-left flank , one of the many places he ’ s been pulled left over the course of the year .
They also suggest that a Biden administration would see its ambit to fight climate change—and , as Biden recently put it , to “ rewrite our economy ” —as essentially unlimited .
Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pertaining to the environment , indicating the intensity with which he is focused on the issue .
Biden superseded his original $ 1.7 trillion climate plan with a $ 2 trillion proposal released in July as part of his vision for the post-coronavirus economic recovery .
Both of the plans incorporate elements of his “ environmental justice ” plan , a separate slate of proposals focused on the intersection of climate policy and racism .
The plans all share a common goal : making the U.S. economy carbon neutral by 2050 .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including zero-emission public buses by 2030 and zero-emission power generation by 2035 .
Benjamin Zycher , an energy economist at the American Enterprise Institute , told the Free Beacon that Biden ’ s goals were “ pretty similar to the Green New Deal , ” labeling them “ unachievable , fantastically expensive , and environmentally destructive.
” Zycher noted that a transition away from fossil fuels to renewables would be impossible under current conditions because limited battery capacity and the constant demand for power means that grids would be subject to rolling blackouts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wind is not blowing .
He also said that “ clean ” energy generation is not always environmentally friendly , citing heavy metal pollution and the generation of toxic waste .
Biden ’ s plans float a number of approaches to achieving the 2050 neutral goal .
Highlights include the imposition of new emission standards on vehicles and household appliances—a major focus of Obama ’ s EPA , which President Donald Trump has sought to roll back .
The plan also heavily emphasizes retrofitting American homes and other buildings as a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ green jobs ” mandate—including a “ Civilian Climate Corps ” —which the Biden plan shares with GND proposals .
Even changes at the scale Biden envisions are unlikely to have a major impact on the climate—Zycher has estimated net-zero emissions by 2050 would cut global temperature by 0.2 degrees centigrade by 2100—in large part because the United States accounts for just 15 percent of global emissions , slightly more than half of China ’ s output .
In response to this reality , Biden ’ s plan also calls for added international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agreement , from which Trump previously withdrew and which Zycher has estimated would cut global temperatures by just 0.17 degrees , at a cost of one percent of global GDP .
Smaller features of Biden ’ s plans surprisingly recall failed attempts at environmental interventions staged by the Obama administration .
He floats a “ consumer rebates ” plan to swap less efficient vehicles for more efficient ones , recalling the infamous “ Cash for Clunkers ” program , which analysis from the left-leaning Brookings Institution found had little effect on either emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also features mass weatherization of American homes , which was included in the 2009 stimulus bill , but which led to only a fraction of the homes having been weatherized by 2010 .
In addition to his climate plans , Biden intends to crack down aggressively on polluting and other perceived environmental infractions by the American business community , all in the name of combating “ racial injustice.
” His “ environmental justice ” plan would set up an environmental justice division within the DOJ and substantially expand the ambit of the EPA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The environmental justice proposal also explicitly ties Biden ’ s climate goals to the Democratic party ’ s messaging on race .
Under his proposal , 40 percent of “ investment in a clean energy revolution ” would be earmarked for “ disadvantaged communities.
” This increased regulatory pressure would mean “ more uncertainty for businesses , ” James Broughel , an expert on federal regulation at the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center , told the Free Beacon .
“ I think right now , businesses feel like they have an ally in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence to go forward with their plans and invest , ” Broughel said .
“ If they feel like they are in an antagonistic relationship with the administration in power , then that tees us up for more uncertainty in the economy , that certainly adds costs in terms of the overall regulatory burden and makes businesses less optimistic and less likely to invest and hire people .
”

Written by Charles Fain Lehman on Aug 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden believes that a “Green New Deal” is “a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face,” and many elements of his $2 trillion climate plan mirror the controversial proposal.
Biden, who on Thursday evening will formally accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency, has largely avoided the limelight, campaigning via teleconference from his home in Delaware.
But from that home, he has planned an administration on par with Franklin Roosevelt’s, including a massive investment of taxpayer dollars in a climate plan which, one expert told the Washington Free Beacon, would be “unachievable, fantastically expensive, and environmentally destructive.”
That plan includes Green New Deal-style proposals such as a “civilian climate corps” and the mass retrofitting of America’s homes and vehicles.
It also reproduces key features of President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda, including a focus on regulating consumer products and the return of the questionably effective “cash for clunkers” program.
And it incorporates many of the concerns of the Democratic Party’s activist base, including a separate plan for pursuing “environmental justice” by targeting federal subsidies to minority groups.
The proposal is clearly influenced by Biden’s more progressive 2020 challengers, particularly Washington governor Jay Inslee (D.), who ran on a climate-focused platform.
It also broadly mirrors the recommendations of the climate section of the Biden-Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) unity task force, co-chaired by former secretary of state John Kerry and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.).
Although Biden has not publicly endorsed Ocasio-Cortez or others’ official Green New Deal proposals, the elements of his climate platform indicate this major piece of his presidential agenda is heavily influenced by the Democratic Party’s far-left flank, one of the many places he’s been pulled left over the course of the year.
They also suggest that a Biden administration would see its ambit to fight climate change—and, as Biden recently put it, to “rewrite our economy”—as essentially unlimited.
Biden’s campaign has released three separate proposals pertaining to the environment, indicating the intensity with which he is focused on the issue. Biden superseded his original $1.7 trillion climate plan with a $2 trillion proposal released in July as part of his vision for the post-coronavirus economic recovery.
Both of the plans incorporate elements of his “environmental justice” plan, a separate slate of proposals focused on the intersection of climate policy and racism.
The plans all share a common goal: making the U.S. economy carbon neutral by 2050. They include several milestones along the way, including zero-emission public buses by 2030 and zero-emission power generation by 2035.
(None of the targets come before the end of Biden’s would-be term in 2025, although he does indicate he will “establish … an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025.”)
Benjamin Zycher, an energy economist at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Free Beacon that Biden’s goals were “pretty similar to the Green New Deal,” labeling them “unachievable, fantastically expensive, and environmentally destructive.”
Zycher noted that a transition away from fossil fuels to renewables would be impossible under current conditions because limited battery capacity and the constant demand for power means that grids would be subject to rolling blackouts when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.
(Biden’s plan does include the use of nuclear power to mitigate this problem, for which activists have criticized him.)
He also said that “clean” energy generation is not always environmentally friendly, citing heavy metal pollution and the generation of toxic waste.
Biden’s plans float a number of approaches to achieving the 2050 neutral goal. Highlights include the imposition of new emission standards on vehicles and household appliances—a major focus of Obama’s EPA, which President Donald Trump has sought to roll back.
The plan also heavily emphasizes retrofitting American homes and other buildings as a major priority, a part of the broader “green jobs” mandate—including a “Civilian Climate Corps”—which the Biden plan shares with GND proposals.
Even changes at the scale Biden envisions are unlikely to have a major impact on the climate—Zycher has estimated net-zero emissions by 2050 would cut global temperature by 0.2 degrees centigrade by 2100—in large part because the United States accounts for just 15 percent of global emissions, slightly more than half of China’s output.
In response to this reality, Biden’s plan also calls for added international cooperation, including rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, from which Trump previously withdrew and which Zycher has estimated would cut global temperatures by just 0.17 degrees, at a cost of one percent of global GDP.
Smaller features of Biden’s plans surprisingly recall failed attempts at environmental interventions staged by the Obama administration.
He floats a “consumer rebates” plan to swap less efficient vehicles for more efficient ones, recalling the infamous “Cash for Clunkers” program, which analysis from the left-leaning Brookings Institution found had little effect on either emissions or jobs.
Biden’s plan also features mass weatherization of American homes, which was included in the 2009 stimulus bill, but which led to only a fraction of the homes having been weatherized by 2010.
In addition to his climate plans, Biden intends to crack down aggressively on polluting and other perceived environmental infractions by the American business community, all in the name of combating “racial injustice.”
His “environmental justice” plan would set up an environmental justice division within the DOJ and substantially expand the ambit of the EPA’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office.
The environmental justice proposal also explicitly ties Biden’s climate goals to the Democratic party’s messaging on race.
Under his proposal, 40 percent of “investment in a clean energy revolution” would be earmarked for “disadvantaged communities.”
This increased regulatory pressure would mean “more uncertainty for businesses,” James Broughel, an expert on federal regulation at the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center, told the Free Beacon.
“I think right now, businesses feel like they have an ally in the White House, and that gives them confidence to go forward with their plans and invest,” Broughel said.
“If they feel like they are in an antagonistic relationship with the administration in power, then that tees us up for more uncertainty in the economy, that certainly adds costs in terms of the overall regulatory burden and makes businesses less optimistic and less likely to invest and hire people.”
Read more at Free Beacon
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-18--No, Climate Change Won’t Expose You To New Epidemics

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news My daily Google search for “ Climate Change , ” turned up a whopper of a story published in Phys.org indicating a warmer world due to climate change could lead to a massive loss of lives due to resurgent infectious diseases from the past .
In the story , “ How climate change could expose new epidemics , ” the author writes : Climate change… is … emerging as a driver of infectious disease , whether by expanding the footprint of malaria- and dengue-carrying mosquitos , or defrosting prehistoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warns the frozen tundra could thaw due to climate change unleashing microbes and bacteria of diseases long frozen in the soil , citing , in particular , anthrax , the Spanish flu , or smallpox .
Yet anthrax has never left us .
Anthrax is rare in humans , with only approximately 2,000 cases annually , and extremely difficult to pass from an infected person to an uninfected one .
In instances wherein a person is infected with anthrax if proper protocols are followed , its spread is largely preventable and , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment regimes , chances for survival have improved dramatically in recent decades .
There is no reason for thinking climate change with cause an explosion of anthrax infections .
Concerning dormant strains of the flu or even smallpox , the article itself quotes a researcher in the field , Vladimir Romanovsky , a professor of geophysics at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks , who wrote in an article published earlier in 2020 , such diseases “ have probably been inactivated.
” The article also admits , should smallpox be contained and still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is available to prevent a pandemic from arising if the soil thaws unleashing the virus .
In short , there is little reason to fear if climate change does cause some of the permafrost to melt is will unleash untreatable plagues upon society .
Nor is climate change likely to contribute to an increase in the spread of infectious diseases like Dengue fever , malaria , or the Zika virus .
Voluminous amounts of research indicate if anything , a modestly warmer world would result in fewer deaths from disease rather than more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Southern Medical Journal in 2004 , W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted , “ Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States , Europe , and almost all countries outside the tropics , and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.
” More recently in a study published in the Lancet in 2015 , researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries , accounting for more than 74 million deaths , and found cold weather , directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people than warm or hot weather .
Indeed , history shows pandemics like the bubonic plague and smallpox have thrived and spread during colder geologic periods , like the little ice age , rather than warmer periods .
Concerning vector-borne diseases—diseases spread from insect carriers , like mosquitoes—to humans , the data shows they have decreased during the recent modest warming , and , if proper preventative steps are taken , they should continue to decline precipitously in the future regardless of the climate .
The vast body of scientific literature detailed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Fossil Fuels , including studies from Africa , to England and Wales , to North and South America , to Thailand and beyond find no link between human climate change and the spread of malaria , Dengue fever , West Nile virus , and other vector-borne diseases .
For instance in a 2010 study in Nature , Gething et al .
: …compared historical and contemporary maps of the range and incidence of malaria and found endemic/stable malaria is likely to have covered 58 % of the world ’ s land surface @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2007 .
They report ‘ even more marked has been the decrease in prevalence within this greatly reduced range , with endemicity falling by one or more classes in over two-thirds of the current range of stable transmission.
’ They write , ‘ widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent.
’ And vector-borne disease expert Paul Reiter , a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control , has written extensively on the transmission of vector-borne diseases stating any links between climate change are not supported by evidence .
For instance , in a 2008 article in the Malaria Journal , Reiter wrote : Simplistic reasoning on the future prevalence of malaria is ill-founded ; malaria is not limited by the climate in most temperate regions , nor in the tropics , and in nearly all cases , ‘ new ’ malaria at high altitudes is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission , [ continuing ] future changes in climate may alter the prevalence and incidence of the disease , but an obsessive emphasis on ‘ global warming ’ as a dominant parameter is indefensible ; the principal determinants are linked to ecological and societal change , politics and economics .
The COVID-19 pandemic is scary enough without journals like Phys.org hyping unwarranted fears of a climate change/infection disease link .
Especially when they have no evidence to back up their claims .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
My daily Google search for “Climate Change,” turned up a whopper of a story published in Phys.org indicating a warmer world due to climate change could lead to a massive loss of lives due to resurgent infectious diseases from the past.
In the story, “How climate change could expose new epidemics,” the author writes:
Climate change… is … emerging as a driver of infectious disease, whether by expanding the footprint of malaria- and dengue-carrying mosquitos, or defrosting prehistoric pathogens from the Siberian permafrost.
Phys.org warns the frozen tundra could thaw due to climate change unleashing microbes and bacteria of diseases long frozen in the soil, citing, in particular, anthrax, the Spanish flu, or smallpox.
Yet anthrax has never left us. Anthrax is rare in humans, with only approximately 2,000 cases annually, and extremely difficult to pass from an infected person to an uninfected one.
In instances wherein a person is infected with anthrax if proper protocols are followed, its spread is largely preventable and, with early treatment with antibiotics and recently developed treatment regimes, chances for survival have improved dramatically in recent decades.
There is no reason for thinking climate change with cause an explosion of anthrax infections.
Concerning dormant strains of the flu or even smallpox, the article itself quotes a researcher in the field, Vladimir Romanovsky, a professor of geophysics at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, who wrote in an article published earlier in 2020, such diseases “have probably been inactivated.”
The article also admits, should smallpox be contained and still active in the permafrost, a vaccine is available to prevent a pandemic from arising if the soil thaws unleashing the virus.
In short, there is little reason to fear if climate change does cause some of the permafrost to melt is will unleash untreatable plagues upon society.
Nor is climate change likely to contribute to an increase in the spread of infectious diseases like Dengue fever, malaria, or the Zika virus.
Voluminous amounts of research indicate if anything, a modestly warmer world would result in fewer deaths from disease rather than more.
In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted, “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
More recently in a study published in the Lancet in 2015, researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths, and found cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700 percent more people than warm or hot weather.
Indeed, history shows pandemics like the bubonic plague and smallpox have thrived and spread during colder geologic periods, like the little ice age, rather than warmer periods.
Concerning vector-borne diseases—diseases spread from insect carriers, like mosquitoes—to humans, the data shows they have decreased during the recent modest warming, and, if proper preventative steps are taken, they should continue to decline precipitously in the future regardless of the climate.
The vast body of scientific literature detailed in Chapter Four of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, including studies from Africa, to England and Wales, to North and South America, to Thailand and beyond find no link between human climate change and the spread of malaria, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, and other vector-borne diseases.
For instance in a 2010 study in Nature, Gething et al.:
…compared historical and contemporary maps of the range and incidence of malaria and found endemic/stable malaria is likely to have covered 58% of the world’s land surface around 1900 but only 30% by 2007.
They report ‘even more marked has been the decrease in prevalence within this greatly reduced range, with endemicity falling by one or more classes in over two-thirds of the current range of stable transmission.’
They write, ‘widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent.’
And vector-borne disease expert Paul Reiter, a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France, and a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control, has written extensively on the transmission of vector-borne diseases stating any links between climate change are not supported by evidence.
For instance, in a 2008 article in the Malaria Journal, Reiter wrote:
Simplistic reasoning on the future prevalence of malaria is ill-founded; malaria is not limited by the climate in most temperate regions, nor in the tropics, and in nearly all cases, ‘new’ malaria at high altitudes is well below the maximum altitudinal limits for transmission, [continuing] future changes in climate may alter the prevalence and incidence of the disease, but an obsessive emphasis on ‘global warming’ as a dominant parameter is indefensible; the principal determinants are linked to ecological and societal change, politics and economics.
The COVID-19 pandemic is scary enough without journals like Phys.org hyping unwarranted fears of a climate change/infection disease link. Especially when they have no evidence to back up their claims.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-18--California’s Climate Agenda Means More Blackouts, Even Higher Prices

Written by Christopher Horner on .
Posted in Latest news A famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result .
California energy policymakers have been monomaniacal about imposing the “ climate ” agenda .
California is presently imposing rolling blackouts due to a shortage of supply , for the second time in less than a year .
Energy crises there are not infrequent , and policymakers only press for more in the wake of the havoc this wreaks .
The insult to their own self-inflicted injuries is the demand that the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
Call it the “ Green New Deal ” though , like most flops , it has already been rebranded , as “ Net Zero.
” The climate agenda is not an agenda that claims it will impact the climate , so let ’ s get that out of the way upfront .
“ Climate , ” in policy terms , means imposing energy scarcity .
This is done through price rationing – recall a presidential candidate boasting to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that “ electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
The keyword wasn ’ t “ skyrocket , ” it was “ necessarily.
” It ’ s a feature of climate policy , not a bug .
Call it a way to force seniors and the poor , indeed anyone on a low or fixed income , to choose between heating and eating .
It is also done through rationing the actual physical supply of reliable sources of electricity , known as “ dispatchable ” sources , i.e.
, whose production can be sent where it ’ s needed , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads to “ energy poverty ” for some , and blackouts for all .
California ’ s problem is elementary and one that dogs all “ green ” -obsessed jurisdictions .
In short , each state must have the capacity at all times to produce ( or arrange for the importation of ) enough power to run its needs .
It can dial the dispatchable power down as renewables get into the mood of pitching in , and dial it back up when they stop ( say , when the wind ebbs or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s wasteful and inefficient of course , but the agenda creates perverse incentives – build expensive redundancies to meet mandates and with a guaranteed return of investment , but don ’ t replace or even maintain older , working equipment .
Rent-seeking utilities have supported it because the system encourages them to lobby for more new construction with a guaranteed return on investment .
The more expensive and redundant , the better !
So , California is not building dispatchable capacity and instead is prematurely forcing the closure of both nuclear and gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storage , which at the scale required is not realistic .
In fact , we are seeing again how grossly irresponsible it is .
True , one small power plant failed and another was unavailable because it had been put out of service – coherent systems are designed with the understanding that a certain portion of supply will be off-line at any given time .
That is , one ensures power reserves .
But California has closed its margin for error in response to anti-nuclear and climate change hysterias .
Not long after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report commissioned by the beleaguered utility PG & E , obtained under California ’ s Public Records Act by the Wall Street Journal , predicted that the frequency of these backouts would double over the next 15 years and then double again in the next 15 .
Also in 2019 , California ’ s Public Utilities Commission warned of shortages as early as 2021 on hot summer evenings .
The Journal editorial page gave credit it where it ’ s due .
Michael Shellenberger is a former candidate for governor of California who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s man-made energy policy disaster .
Reminiscent of the old joke , waiter , the food was horrible , and the portions too small , he notes that “ California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019 , due to its huge expansion of renewables.
” This dangerous misery is inarguably the result of misguided policies .
Whether this agenda is cruel by intent or merely some condition like the aforementioned definition of insanity , its practitioners show no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris each have sworn fealty to imposing this on the rest of the country .
They do so in the name of the climate , of avoiding more deaths from the heat by imposing policies no one actually claims will impact the temperature – but which are shown to increase the risk of death not only from heatstroke but massively increase deaths from hypothermia .
These deaths are mostly among seniors , the same demographic ravaged by reckless policy responses to COVID-19 ( which were also grounded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer-modeled projections ) .
It ’ s past time for rational Democrats to stand up to the radical environmentalist wing of their party .
Republicans must free themselves from the rent-seeking lobbies of utilities and renewables “ investors ” ( actual investments require risk , not guaranteed welfare ) .
Those are the two halves of the Bootleggers-and-Baptists coalition enabling the Climate Industrial Complex .
Policymaking is full of the noble lie , the cynical understanding that the public will accept this or that policy so long as it ’ s to avert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Wuhan virus , for example .
But as the social costs of energy rationing increase , including the disgrace of a butcher ’ s bill from energy poverty , it is difficult to argue that the noble lie of climate policy is not the most ignoble of them all .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Christopher Horner on Aug 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. California energy policymakers have been monomaniacal about imposing the “climate” agenda.
California is presently imposing rolling blackouts due to a shortage of supply, for the second time in less than a year. Energy crises there are not infrequent, and policymakers only press for more in the wake of the havoc this wreaks.
The insult to their own self-inflicted injuries is the demand that the rest of the country suffer under it as well. Call it the “Green New Deal” though, like most flops, it has already been rebranded, as “Net Zero.”
The climate agenda is not an agenda that claims it will impact the climate, so let’s get that out of the way upfront. “Climate,” in policy terms, means imposing energy scarcity.
This is done through price rationing – recall a presidential candidate boasting to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket… because I’m capping greenhouse gases”? The keyword wasn’t “skyrocket,” it was “necessarily.”
It’s a feature of climate policy, not a bug. Call it a way to force seniors and the poor, indeed anyone on a low or fixed income, to choose between heating and eating.
It is also done through rationing the actual physical supply of reliable sources of electricity, known as “dispatchable” sources, i.e., whose production can be sent where it’s needed, when it’s needed.
The combination leads to “energy poverty” for some, and blackouts for all.
California’s problem is elementary and one that dogs all “green”-obsessed jurisdictions. In short, each state must have the capacity at all times to produce (or arrange for the importation of) enough power to run its needs.
It can dial the dispatchable power down as renewables get into the mood of pitching in, and dial it back up when they stop (say, when the wind ebbs or sun goes down).
That’s wasteful and inefficient of course, but the agenda creates perverse incentives – build expensive redundancies to meet mandates and with a guaranteed return of investment, but don’t replace or even maintain older, working equipment.
Rent-seeking utilities have supported it because the system encourages them to lobby for more new construction with a guaranteed return on investment. The more expensive and redundant, the better!
So, California is not building dispatchable capacity and instead is prematurely forcing the closure of both nuclear and gas plants while mandating renewables and expensive battery storage, which at the scale required is not realistic. In fact, we are seeing again how grossly irresponsible it is.
True, one small power plant failed and another was unavailable because it had been put out of service – coherent systems are designed with the understanding that a certain portion of supply will be off-line at any given time.
That is, one ensures power reserves. But California has closed its margin for error in response to anti-nuclear and climate change hysterias.
Not long after the October 2019 rolling blackouts, a report commissioned by the beleaguered utility PG&E, obtained under California’s Public Records Act by the Wall Street Journal, predicted that the frequency of these backouts would double over the next 15 years and then double again in the next 15.
Also in 2019, California’s Public Utilities Commission warned of shortages as early as 2021 on hot summer evenings. The Journal editorial page gave credit it where it’s due.
That day has arrived a year early. Congratulations to Democrats for beating their own forecasts.
Michael Shellenberger is a former candidate for governor of California who ran largely on the insanity of the state’s man-made energy policy disaster.
Reminiscent of the old joke, waiter, the food was horrible, and the portions too small, he notes that “California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, due to its huge expansion of renewables.”
This dangerous misery is inarguably the result of misguided policies. Whether this agenda is cruel by intent or merely some condition like the aforementioned definition of insanity, its practitioners show no signs of learning from their own debacles.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris each have sworn fealty to imposing this on the rest of the country.
They do so in the name of the climate, of avoiding more deaths from the heat by imposing policies no one actually claims will impact the temperature – but which are shown to increase the risk of death not only from heatstroke but massively increase deaths from hypothermia.
These deaths are mostly among seniors, the same demographic ravaged by reckless policy responses to COVID-19 (which were also grounded in worst-case – i.e., least likely – computer-modeled projections).
It’s past time for rational Democrats to stand up to the radical environmentalist wing of their party.
Republicans must free themselves from the rent-seeking lobbies of utilities and renewables “investors” (actual investments require risk, not guaranteed welfare).
Those are the two halves of the Bootleggers-and-Baptists coalition enabling the Climate Industrial Complex.
Policymaking is full of the noble lie, the cynical understanding that the public will accept this or that policy so long as it’s to avert catastrophe — take the government-imposed restrictions attending the Wuhan virus, for example.
But as the social costs of energy rationing increase, including the disgrace of a butcher’s bill from energy poverty, it is difficult to argue that the noble lie of climate policy is not the most ignoble of them all.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-18--WaPo Parrots DNC Talking Points: Virus ‘Inextricably Linked’ To Climate Change

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news is pushing leftist talking points on climate change as Democrats prepare to formally nominate former Vice President Joe Biden for president .
Post energy and environmental policy reporter Dino Grandoni wrote a climate change story headlined , “ The Energy 202 : Democrats seek to spotlight climate change at the convention despite coronavirus crisis.
” He continued that “ Democrats will try to bring climate change to the fore during the party ’ s unconventional convention starting this week.
” He whined , however , that “ it remains to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising temperatures will breakthrough when the country is in the throes of the coronavirus pandemic.
” Naturally , he tried to tie the two issues together .
Grandoni noted the percentage drop among registered voters who saw climate change as a “ ‘ very important ’ ” issue .
He pivoted to editorialize the alleged comments of the leftist chair of the Democratic National Committee climate council Michelle Regalado Deatrick to connect the coronavirus to climate change , with no quotation : It was only after this puffy editorializing that Grandoni actually quoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a greater emphasis on climate change and environmental justice.
’ ” One of the sub-headlines in the piece was riddled with climate change fear-mongering : “ Some DNC members are planning events emphasizing what they see as another existential crisis.
” Fox News contributor and founder of JunkScience.com Steve Milloy blasted The Post for pushing this propaganda on Twitter : “ Climate communists say anything .
# FakeNews media parrots it .
Zombie followers eat it up .
”

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Aug 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Washington Post is pushing leftist talking points on climate change as Democrats prepare to formally nominate former Vice President Joe Biden for president.
Post energy and environmental policy reporter Dino Grandoni wrote a climate change story headlined, “The Energy 202: Democrats seek to spotlight climate change at the convention despite coronavirus crisis.”
He continued that “Democrats will try to bring climate change to the fore during the party’s unconventional convention starting this week.”
He whined, however, that “it remains to be seen how much the issue of rising temperatures will breakthrough when the country is in the throes of the coronavirus pandemic.” Naturally, he tried to tie the two issues together.
Grandoni noted the percentage drop among registered voters who saw climate change as a “‘very important’” issue.
He pivoted to editorialize the alleged comments of the leftist chair of the Democratic National Committee climate council Michelle Regalado Deatrick to connect the coronavirus to climate change, with no quotation:
But Michelle Regalado Deatrick, chair of the climate council, said the coronavirus is inextricably linked to environmental degradation, noting that preliminary studies show air pollution is making the respiratory disease caused by the virus more lethal… [emphasis added].
It was only after this puffy editorializing that Grandoni actually quoted Deatrick: “‘The pandemic puts a greater emphasis on climate change and environmental justice.’”
One of the sub-headlines in the piece was riddled with climate change fear-mongering: “Some DNC members are planning events emphasizing what they see as another existential crisis.”
Fox News contributor and founder of JunkScience.com Steve Milloy blasted The Post for pushing this propaganda on Twitter: “Climate communists say anything. #FakeNews media parrots it. Zombie followers eat it up.”
“But Michelle Regalado Deatrick, chair of the climate council, said the coronavirus is inextricably linked to environmental degradation.” – Climate communists say anything.
– #FakeNews media parrots it.
– Zombie followers eat it up.https://t.co/NqRUqPA01s — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) August 17, 2020
Well said.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-18--Media Hype 130°F Death Valley Temp – It’s Still Not A Record-Breaker

Written by Anthony Watts on .
Posted in Latest news On Sunday , August 16th the National Weather Service in Las Vegas , Nevada sent out a tweet highlighting a new maximum daily temperature of 130°F in Death Valley : Predictably , the media jumped on this number with the Los Angeles Times saying “ …possibly the highest mercury reading on Earth since 1913.
” Even the Drudge Report got into the act putting the 130°F temperature headline front and center .
While global warming activists are rubbing their hands together in anticipation and glee hoping this will aid their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times aren ’ t telling you is that this is simply “ business as usual ” for Death Valley .
In fact , back in 1913 , over 100 “ global warming ” years ago , Death Valley ’ s official weather station at Greenland Ranch hit an all-time record of 134°F and also hit 130°F or higher three times that July : While climate crusaders would like you to think today ’ s 130°F temperature is more “ proof ” of global warming , aka “ climate change ” induced by fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 ) in the atmosphere , the irrefutable fact is that in 1913 , CO2 in our atmosphere was about 43 % lower than today at 290 parts per million in 1913 compared to the “ climate crisis ” level of 414 PPM today .
You have to wonder , if current CO2 levels are responsible for record heatwaves today , as climate activists like to claim , how did it produce a still unbroken record temperature of 134°F back in July 1913 ?
The answer is it didn ’ t then and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot weather in Death Valley is a combination of a hot regional weather pattern and local factors found nowhere else on Earth , according to the National Park Service : The depth and shape of Death Valley influence its summer temperatures .
The valley is a long , narrow basin 282 feet ( 86 m ) below sea level , yet is walled by high , steep mountain ranges .
The clear , dry air and sparse plant cover allow sunlight to heat the desert surface .
Heat radiates back from the rocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the valley ’ s depths .
Summer nights provide little relief as overnight lows may only dip into the 85°F to 95°F ( 30°C to 35°C ) range .
Heated air rises , yet is trapped by the high valley walls , is cooled and recycled back down to the valley floor .
These pockets of descending air are only slightly cooler than the surrounding hot air .
As they descend , they are compressed and heated even more by the low elevation air pressure .
These moving masses of superheated air blow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , don ’ t fret about climate change because Death Valley got hot again , it ’ s business as usual for the place and not an indicator for global temperatures in any way .

Written by Anthony Watts on Aug 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On Sunday, August 16th the National Weather Service in Las Vegas, Nevada sent out a tweet highlighting a new maximum daily temperature of 130°F in Death Valley:
Predictably, the media jumped on this number with the Los Angeles Times saying “…possibly the highest mercury reading on Earth since 1913.”
Even the Drudge Report got into the act putting the 130°F temperature headline front and center.
While global warming activists are rubbing their hands together in anticipation and glee hoping this will aid their case, what they and the LA Times aren’t telling you is that this is simply “business as usual” for Death Valley.
In fact, back in 1913, over 100 “global warming” years ago, Death Valley’s official weather station at Greenland Ranch hit an all-time record of 134°F and also hit 130°F or higher three times that July:
While climate crusaders would like you to think today’s 130°F temperature is more “proof” of global warming, aka “climate change” induced by fossil fuel use putting more carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the irrefutable fact is that in 1913, CO2 in our atmosphere was about 43% lower than today at 290 parts per million in 1913 compared to the “climate crisis” level of 414 PPM today.
You have to wonder, if current CO2 levels are responsible for record heatwaves today, as climate activists like to claim, how did it produce a still unbroken record temperature of 134°F back in July 1913?
The answer is it didn’t then and didn’t today.
The unbearably hot weather in Death Valley is a combination of a hot regional weather pattern and local factors found nowhere else on Earth, according to the National Park Service:
The depth and shape of Death Valley influence its summer temperatures. The valley is a long, narrow basin 282 feet (86 m) below sea level, yet is walled by high, steep mountain ranges.
The clear, dry air and sparse plant cover allow sunlight to heat the desert surface. Heat radiates back from the rocks and soil, then becomes trapped in the valley’s depths.
Summer nights provide little relief as overnight lows may only dip into the 85°F to 95°F (30°C to 35°C) range. Heated air rises, yet is trapped by the high valley walls, is cooled and recycled back down to the valley floor.
These pockets of descending air are only slightly cooler than the surrounding hot air. As they descend, they are compressed and heated even more by the low elevation air pressure. These moving masses of superheated air blow through the valley creating extremely high temperatures.
So, don’t fret about climate change because Death Valley got hot again, it’s business as usual for the place and not an indicator for global temperatures in any way.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-18--How Will Green New Dealers Explain Away California?

Written by Andrea Widburg on .
Posted in Latest news The Green New Deal , which emanated from the “ brilliant ” minds of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her pals , envisions a new America , one completely free of fossil fuels and nuclear power .
It will run , instead , on solar , wind , and water power .
Democrats don ’ t care that green energy is too unreliable to run America or that these “ natural ” energy alternatives are damaging to the environment ( e.g.
, dead birds , hideous wind and solar farms , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are on board with the Green New Deal .
As the campaign progresses , one has to wonder how they ’ re going to explain away the fact that solar power has been the cause of massive energy failures across large swaths of California .
Although it seems a lifetime away , in September , when the Democrat debates were still going strong , NPR put together an article charting where the candidates stood on implementing the Green New Deal : The Green New Deal was introduced as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth ambitious goals and policy ideas for fighting climate change , by New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey .
The Green New Deal has set the tone for the climate change conversation in the Democratic primary .
Below , we have separated out the candidates who have backed the policy , those whose stance is unclear and those who have voiced opposition .
Being listed as a supporter , however , does not indicate support for any specific policy , as the Green New Deal is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and Harris said “ yes ” to the Green New Deal .
The NPR report continues : It ’ s questionable at this point , whether people in California under the aegis of PG & E ( roughly two-thirds of California ) , still feel as positive as they once did about the Green New Deal .
Yesterday , I wrote about the way in which large parts of California are functioning as a third world country , with continuous power outages .
I also noted that one of the main problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failures .
Even the local media are now realizing that there ’ s a problem and the problem is something humankind has known since they parted ways with the apes .
Putting all one ’ s faith in Mother Nature ’ s whims is not a reliable way to produce energy : Rolling blackouts that cut power to hundreds of thousands of Californians this week during a historic heat wave have shocked and angered residents from the Bay Area to Southern California .
But last fall , top officials at California ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortages were likely as soon as 2020 during a big Western heat wave .
The reason : The state ’ s historic shift away from fossil fuels such as natural gas , which provide consistent power , toward cleaner sources such as solar and wind energy , which rise and fall with the weather and the sun .
With less reliable energy supplies , they say the power grid has become more difficult to operate and more at risk of blackouts , calling it a “ most urgent issue ” that “ really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fix the problem , they and outside energy experts note , and still expand renewable energy to reduce air pollution and address climate change .
But the crisis — the first rolling blackouts on California ’ s power grid since 2001 — has exposed a dangerous vulnerability .
Not only are millions of people who are working from home during the coronavirus pandemic inconvenienced , but power shutoffs endanger public health , particularly elderly residents who can fall ill or die from heat stroke .
While 2020 has been a difficult year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtue : It has revealed to anyone paying attention to what America will look like if we trade Donald Trump in for the Democrat package .
Within a very short time , America will be a violent , racist , broken third world country .
And if you don ’ t believe me , look at every blue city and state in America in 2020 .
That ’ s your future under the Democrats .

Written by Andrea Widburg on Aug 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Green New Deal, which emanated from the “brilliant” minds of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her pals, envisions a new America, one completely free of fossil fuels and nuclear power.
It will run, instead, on solar, wind, and water power.
Democrats don’t care that green energy is too unreliable to run America or that these “natural” energy alternatives are damaging to the environment (e.g., dead birds, hideous wind and solar farms, and dams and water re-routing).
Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are on board with the Green New Deal. As the campaign progresses, one has to wonder how they’re going to explain away the fact that solar power has been the cause of massive energy failures across large swaths of California.
Although it seems a lifetime away, in September, when the Democrat debates were still going strong, NPR put together an article charting where the candidates stood on implementing the Green New Deal:
The Green New Deal was introduced as a nonbinding resolution in Congress, setting forth ambitious goals and policy ideas for fighting climate change, by New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey. The Green New Deal has set the tone for the climate change conversation in the Democratic primary. Below, we have separated out the candidates who have backed the policy, those whose stance is unclear and those who have voiced opposition. Being listed as a supporter, however, does not indicate support for any specific policy, as the Green New Deal is a set of goals and priorities.
Both Biden and Harris said “yes” to the Green New Deal. The NPR report continues:
Joe Biden On his website, Biden calls the Green New Deal “a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” (Source: campaign website) [snip] Kamala Harris Harris co-sponsored the Green New Deal in the Senate. (Source: Congress.gov)
It’s questionable at this point, whether people in California under the aegis of PG&E (roughly two-thirds of California), still feel as positive as they once did about the Green New Deal.
Yesterday, I wrote about the way in which large parts of California are functioning as a third world country, with continuous power outages.
I also noted that one of the main problems with the energy supply was solar power failures.
Even the local media are now realizing that there’s a problem and the problem is something humankind has known since they parted ways with the apes.
Putting all one’s faith in Mother Nature’s whims is not a reliable way to produce energy:
Rolling blackouts that cut power to hundreds of thousands of Californians this week during a historic heat wave have shocked and angered residents from the Bay Area to Southern California. But last fall, top officials at California’s power grid operator ominously warned that electricity shortages were likely as soon as 2020 during a big Western heat wave. The reason: The state’s historic shift away from fossil fuels such as natural gas, which provide consistent power, toward cleaner sources such as solar and wind energy, which rise and fall with the weather and the sun. With less reliable energy supplies, they say the power grid has become more difficult to operate and more at risk of blackouts, calling it a “most urgent issue” that “really needs timely attention.” There are ways to fix the problem, they and outside energy experts note, and still expand renewable energy to reduce air pollution and address climate change. But the crisis — the first rolling blackouts on California’s power grid since 2001 — has exposed a dangerous vulnerability. Not only are millions of people who are working from home during the coronavirus pandemic inconvenienced, but power shutoffs endanger public health, particularly elderly residents who can fall ill or die from heat stroke.
While 2020 has been a difficult year, it’s had one major virtue: It has revealed to anyone paying attention to what America will look like if we trade Donald Trump in for the Democrat package.
Within a very short time, America will be a violent, racist, broken third world country. And if you don’t believe me, look at every blue city and state in America in 2020. That’s your future under the Democrats.
Read more at American Thinker
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-17--Get Serious: More CO2 Isn’t Making Earth ‘Uninhabitable’

Written by David Simon on .
Posted in Latest news Former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman and Princeton University economist Alan Blinder recently wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal : “ cumulative CO2 emissions heat up the atmosphere , causing climate changes of all sorts—most of them bad .
Because this huge negative externality has been allowed to run rampant , we are gradually making the Earth an inhospitable place for humans.
” Increasing CO2 emissions have been “ making the Earth an inhospitable place for humans ?
” Really ?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CO2 emissions and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere indeed have both sharply increased .
And NASA data show that since 1920 , our planet ’ s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius .
But the data also show that the increase in CO2 emissions and the rising temperature have not been “ making the Earth an inhospitable place for humans.
” The University of Oxford ’ s Our World in Data has reported that since 1920 , the world population has quadrupled from less than two billion to over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has reported that the share of people living in extreme poverty fell from 74 percent in 1910 to less than 10 percent by 2015 .
And EM-DAT ( The International Disaster Database ) data show that since 1920 , the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year .
Sustaining a population that has grown by about six billion people , lifting most of those people out of extreme poverty , and reducing the number of natural disaster deaths by over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 emission and atmospheric levels and rising temperatures have , they are not making the planet “ an inhospitable place for humans.
” The data instead suggest that increasing CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels and rising temperatures are making the planet more , not less , hospitable for human life .
The Heartland Institute has extensively documented “ increased plant and forest growth , bigger crop yields and longer growing seasons as benefits derived from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide.
” Better yet , an extensive 2015 study found that cold kills over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twenty-two scientists from around the world analyzed over 74 million deaths in Australia , Brazil , Canada , China , Italy , Japan , South Korea , Spain , Sweden , Taiwan , Thailand , the United Kingdom , and the United States in 1985-2012 .
The cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths , while heat caused only 0.42 percent .
And “ moderately hot and cold temperatures ” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths , while “ extreme ” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent .
But what about the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the coming decades ?
If future global warming has any negative impact on the nation ’ s economy , it is likely to be minimal .
The National Bureau of Economic Research estimated in 2019 that if the planet ’ s temperature rises by 0.01 degrees Celsius per year through 2100 , the total U.S. GDP in 2100 will be 1.88 percent lower in 2100 than it would otherwise be .
Yet based on the Congressional Budget Office ’ s estimate of a 1.4 percent annual real long-term potential labor force productivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per person GDP will be about 204 percent higher by 2100 .
With the reduction that NBER estimates based on global warming , GDP per person would be an almost indistinguishable 200 percent higher .
NBER ’ s extreme case projection that if the planet ’ s temperature rises by 0.04 degrees Celsius per year through 2100 ( five times the actual rate of increase since 1880 ) , total U.S. GDP will be 10.52 percent lower in 2100 than it would otherwise be , similarly would leave GDP per person about 172 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after taking account of the supposedly harmful impact of global warming , U.S. income per person in 2100 will be about triple today ’ s level .
Professor Blinder undoubtedly teaches his students that sound science depends on data .
When it comes to the impact of increasing CO2 emissions , he needs a refresher course .

Written by David Simon on Aug 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman and Princeton University economist Alan Blinder recently wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal: “cumulative CO2 emissions heat up the atmosphere, causing climate changes of all sorts—most of them bad. Because this huge negative externality has been allowed to run rampant, we are gradually making the Earth an inhospitable place for humans.”
Increasing CO2 emissions have been “making the Earth an inhospitable place for humans?” Really?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data show that over the last one hundred years, CO2 emissions and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere indeed have both sharply increased.
And NASA data show that since 1920, our planet’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius.
But the data also show that the increase in CO2 emissions and the rising temperature have not been “making the Earth an inhospitable place for humans.”
The University of Oxford’s Our World in Data has reported that since 1920, the world population has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion.
It also has reported that the share of people living in extreme poverty fell from 74 percent in 1910 to less than 10 percent by 2015.
And EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that since 1920, the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year.
Sustaining a population that has grown by about six billion people, lifting most of those people out of extreme poverty, and reducing the number of natural disaster deaths by over 80 percent show that whatever impacts increasing CO2 emission and atmospheric levels and rising temperatures have, they are not making the planet “an inhospitable place for humans.”
The data instead suggest that increasing CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels and rising temperatures are making the planet more, not less, hospitable for human life.
The Heartland Institute has extensively documented “increased plant and forest growth, bigger crop yields and longer growing seasons as benefits derived from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide.”
Better yet, an extensive 2015 study found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
Twenty-two scientists from around the world analyzed over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012.
The cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. And “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent.
But what about the economic catastrophe that global warming supposedly will cause in the coming decades? If future global warming has any negative impact on the nation’s economy, it is likely to be minimal.
The National Bureau of Economic Research estimated in 2019 that if the planet’s temperature rises by 0.01 degrees Celsius per year through 2100, the total U.S. GDP in 2100 will be 1.88 percent lower in 2100 than it would otherwise be.
Yet based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a 1.4 percent annual real long-term potential labor force productivity growth rate, the nation’s per person GDP will be about 204 percent higher by 2100.
With the reduction that NBER estimates based on global warming, GDP per person would be an almost indistinguishable 200 percent higher.
NBER’s extreme case projection that if the planet’s temperature rises by 0.04 degrees Celsius per year through 2100 (five times the actual rate of increase since 1880), total U.S. GDP will be 10.52 percent lower in 2100 than it would otherwise be, similarly would leave GDP per person about 172 percent higher.
In other words, after taking account of the supposedly harmful impact of global warming, U.S. income per person in 2100 will be about triple today’s level.
Professor Blinder undoubtedly teaches his students that sound science depends on data. When it comes to the impact of increasing CO2 emissions, he needs a refresher course.
Read more at RealClearMarkets
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-19--No, Whales Are Not At Risk Of Extinction

Written by Donna Laframboise on .
Posted in Latest news In his recent book , Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All , Michael Shellenberger declares : “ Not a single whale species is at risk of extinction.
” That was true enough when his book was being written .
But in January 2020 , the International Union of Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) declared one whale subspecies critically endangered .
Which sounds bad until we understand the context .
Technically , there are five kinds of Right Whales .
Two are doing fine – Bowheads are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t concerned about Pygmy Right Whales .
The three remaining Right Whales used to be considered a single species .
Recently some ( but not all ) whale experts have started viewing them as separate species according to geographical location .
If that hadn ’ t happened , we wouldn ’ t be having this conversation .
The IUCN thinks there are more Southern Right Whales currently than there were three generations ago .
Yay !
But it considers those in the North Pacific endangered .
In January , it changed the status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critically endangered .
As few as 200 adult Right Whales are thought to remain in the North Atlantic .
But so what ?
Many other whales remain .
The natural world is always in flux .
Change is constant .
The loss of one subspecies of a whale from one part of the world is no cause for alarm .
Canadian waters are home to 26 whale species .
Of these , eight haven ’ t been assigned status by the IUCN due to a paucity of data .
It thinks one species @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ relatively uncommon , ” but admits five other kinds of beaked whales – Baird ’ s , Blainville ’ s , Sowerby ’ s , Stejneger ’ s , and True ’ s – are “ not believed to be uncommon ” ( see here , here , here , here , and here ) .
Moreover , it acknowledges that Killer Whales are “ numerically abundant ( at least tens of thousands of mature individuals ) ” and that there are at least 40,000 Northern Bottlenose Whales .
A further 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern by the IUCN ( that organization has no unequivocal , thumbs-up ranking ) : • beluga whales ( global population is “ likely more than 200,000 ” ) Which leaves seven Canadian whale species , including the North Atlantic Right Whales and North Pacific Right Whales discussed above .
Despite admitting that there are at least 60,000 False Killer Whales , the IUCN classifies them as near threatened – five full stages from extinction .
Even though Sperm Whales number in the hundreds of thousands , the IUCN says they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already exceed 100,000 , but the IUCN says they , too , are vulnerable .
Blue Whales are likewise increasing , with a current population of between 5,000 and 15,000 .
Nevertheless , the IUCN classifies them as endangered .
It ’ s a similar story with Sei Whales .
Despite a growing population that already tops 50,000 , they ’ re considered endangered .
In conservation circles , words don ’ t mean what a reasonable person thinks they do .
The bottom line is that we currently have millions of whales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exclude non-Canadian whales .
Yet they still add up to 2.5 million .
Whale populations have been rebounding since commercial whaling ended decades ago .
As Shellenberger reminds us , “ Nations harvest fewer than two thousand whales annually , an amount that is 97 percent less than the nearly seventy-five thousand whales killed in 1960.
” Yet the Canadian Wildlife Federation has just mailed out a fundraising appeal that declares : “ Our whales are in trouble !
” ( see the top of this post ) .
By no stretch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Written by Donna Laframboise on Aug 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In his recent book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Michael Shellenberger declares: “Not a single whale species is at risk of extinction.”
That was true enough when his book was being written. But in January 2020, the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) declared one whale subspecies critically endangered. Which sounds bad until we understand the context.
Technically, there are five kinds of Right Whales. Two are doing fine – Bowheads are increasing, and the IUCN isn’t concerned about Pygmy Right Whales.
The three remaining Right Whales used to be considered a single species. Recently some (but not all) whale experts have started viewing them as separate species according to geographical location. If that hadn’t happened, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
The IUCN thinks there are more Southern Right Whales currently than there were three generations ago. Yay! But it considers those in the North Pacific endangered. In January, it changed the status of those in the North Atlantic to critically endangered.
As few as 200 adult Right Whales are thought to remain in the North Atlantic. But so what? Many other whales remain. The natural world is always in flux. Change is constant. The loss of one subspecies of a whale from one part of the world is no cause for alarm.
Canadian waters are home to 26 whale species. Of these, eight haven’t been assigned status by the IUCN due to a paucity of data.
It thinks one species – Hubbs’ Beaked Whale – is “relatively uncommon,” but admits five other kinds of beaked whales – Baird’s, Blainville’s, Sowerby’s, Stejneger’s, and True’s – are “not believed to be uncommon” (see here, here, here, here, and here).
Moreover, it acknowledges that Killer Whales are “numerically abundant (at least tens of thousands of mature individuals)” and that there are at least 40,000 Northern Bottlenose Whales.
A further 11 Canadian whale species are classified as least concern by the IUCN (that organization has no unequivocal, thumbs-up ranking):
Which leaves seven Canadian whale species, including the North Atlantic Right Whales and North Pacific Right Whales discussed above.
Despite admitting that there are at least 60,000 False Killer Whales, the IUCN classifies them as near threatened – five full stages from extinction.
Even though Sperm Whales number in the hundreds of thousands, the IUCN says they’re vulnerable.
Fin Whales are increasing and already exceed 100,000, but the IUCN says they, too, are vulnerable.
Blue Whales are likewise increasing, with a current population of between 5,000 and 15,000. Nevertheless, the IUCN classifies them as endangered.
It’s a similar story with Sei Whales. Despite a growing population that already tops 50,000, they’re considered endangered.
In conservation circles, words don’t mean what a reasonable person thinks they do. The bottom line is that we currently have millions of whales.
The numbers cited here are conservative and exclude non-Canadian whales. Yet they still add up to 2.5 million.
Whale populations have been rebounding since commercial whaling ended decades ago.
As Shellenberger reminds us, “Nations harvest fewer than two thousand whales annually, an amount that is 97 percent less than the nearly seventy-five thousand whales killed in 1960.”
Yet the Canadian Wildlife Federation has just mailed out a fundraising appeal that declares: “Our whales are in trouble!” (see the top of this post).
By no stretch of the imagination is that statement true.
Read more at Big Pic News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-19--Climate-Driven Mandates Pushing California’s Power Grid Toward Collapse

Written by Anthony Watts on .
Posted in Latest news Remember when California imposed rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001 ?
This occurred when California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by electricity market manipulations .
A demand-supply gap was created , mainly by Enron , to create an artificial shortage so speculators could benefit from an 800 percent increase in wholesale electricity prices .
As a result , California suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts .
Now an electricity shortage coupled with rolling blackouts is happening again , but for a different reason .
This time it is due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Note that in 2000 and 2001 , the forced rolling blackouts happened during peak load times ( and peak pricing ) , which was typical in mid-afternoons .
Now , the rolling blackouts hitting the state are happening in the evening .
Why the difference ?
According to the California Independent System Operator : “ A persistent , record-breaking heatwave in California and the western states is causing a strain on supplies , and consumers should be prepared for likely rolling outages during the late afternoons and early evenings through Wednesday … There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet the high amounts of demand during the heatwave.
” The reason ?
Solar power , or more accurately , the lack of it .
Solar power has a thorny problem : It disappears after sunset .
And California ’ s electric grid is highly dependent on it now thanks to the political mandate known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ( AB 32 ) .
AB32 required that 50 percent of California ’ s electricity be powered by “ green energy ” , aka wind and solar , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ending in 100 percent “ carbon-free ” energy by 2045 .
Now , California is paying the price for abandoning reliable energy sources in favor of green energy sources such as wind and solar power , which don ’ t work when the wind doesn ’ t blow and the sun doesn ’ t shine .
During heatwaves like California is experiencing now , there ’ s typically plenty of sunshine , but winds are often stagnant .
An analysis of data ( shown in Figure 1 ) from the California Independent System @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows clearly that solar power died at sunset .
Stagnant wind power didn ’ t help at all and a huge demand-supply gap existed right around sunset , necessitating the forced rolling blackouts to keep the electric grid from collapsing .
It gets worse .
On August 17 , during the CAISO Board of Governors Meeting CAISO President , Steve Berber let loose with this bit of reality .
From the transcript : “ You are trading the loss of 3,000 megawatts for the collapse of the entire system of California and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re at the very edge and you have a contingency and you have no operating reserves , you risk entire system collapse.
” California has traded energy security to kneel before the false prophet of green energy .
Instead of using reliable and affordable nuclear and coal plants , they are using intermittent and unreliable wind and solar power .
And the people of California , and perhaps the West in general , may pay the price for that homage if the power grid collapses during the ongoing heatwave .
If that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened at the hand of market manipulators like Enron in 2000/2001 and will be the most expensive and devastating green-energy lesson ever in history .

Written by Anthony Watts on Aug 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Remember when California imposed rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001? This occurred when California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by electricity market manipulations.
A demand-supply gap was created, mainly by Enron, to create an artificial shortage so speculators could benefit from an 800 percent increase in wholesale electricity prices.
As a result, California suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts. Now an electricity shortage coupled with rolling blackouts is happening again, but for a different reason.
This time it is due to “unreliable” green energy. Note that in 2000 and 2001, the forced rolling blackouts happened during peak load times (and peak pricing), which was typical in mid-afternoons.
Now, the rolling blackouts hitting the state are happening in the evening. Why the difference?
According to the California Independent System Operator:
“A persistent, record-breaking heatwave in California and the western states is causing a strain on supplies, and consumers should be prepared for likely rolling outages during the late afternoons and early evenings through Wednesday … There is not a sufficient amount of energy to meet the high amounts of demand during the heatwave.”
The reason? Solar power, or more accurately, the lack of it. Solar power has a thorny problem: It disappears after sunset.
And California’s electric grid is highly dependent on it now thanks to the political mandate known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
AB32 required that 50 percent of California’s electricity be powered by “green energy”, aka wind and solar, by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030, ending in 100 percent “carbon-free” energy by 2045.
Now, California is paying the price for abandoning reliable energy sources in favor of green energy sources such as wind and solar power, which don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
During heatwaves like California is experiencing now, there’s typically plenty of sunshine, but winds are often stagnant.
An analysis of data (shown in Figure 1) from the California Independent System Operator (CASIO) on August 14 shows clearly that solar power died at sunset.
Stagnant wind power didn’t help at all and a huge demand-supply gap existed right around sunset, necessitating the forced rolling blackouts to keep the electric grid from collapsing.
It gets worse. On August 17, during the CAISO Board of Governors Meeting CAISO President, Steve Berber let loose with this bit of reality. From the transcript:
“You are trading the loss of 3,000 megawatts for the collapse of the entire system of California and perhaps the entire West. … When you’re at the very edge and you have a contingency and you have no operating reserves, you risk entire system collapse.”
What a sobering thought.
California has traded energy security to kneel before the false prophet of green energy. Instead of using reliable and affordable nuclear and coal plants, they are using intermittent and unreliable wind and solar power.
And the people of California, and perhaps the West in general, may pay the price for that homage if the power grid collapses during the ongoing heatwave.
If that happens, such an event will dwarf what happened at the hand of market manipulators like Enron in 2000/2001 and will be the most expensive and devastating green-energy lesson ever in history.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-19--The Left’s Shameful Abuse Of ‘The Science’

Written by Rob Sutton on .
Posted in Latest news Many on the left today peddle the narrative that they are more scientifically minded than those on the right .
They market themselves as the heirs to the ideals of the Enlightenment – reason , progress , and truth – while pillorying the right as a collection of creationists , climate-change deniers , and anti-vaxxers .
This narrative is false , and increasingly so .
It is a useful fiction , however .
It allows the left to dress up its moral and political views as scientific .
To question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authority of “ the science.
” It is tantamount to secular heresy .
When the Democrats in the US present themselves as ‘ the party of science ’ , they are really saying ‘ do not question us ’ .
Left-wingers used to invoke the authority of science mainly to justify their views on how we should respond to climate change .
But the left increasingly uses the same scientific , moral authority to justify its views on an ever-expanding range of issues , from race to gender .
Part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadly we use the term ‘ science ’ .
Traditionally , it referred to the fields of natural science , which rely heavily on quantitative methods and have an exceptionally high threshold for new ideas to enter the consensus .
Yet the authority of ‘ science ’ has now been appropriated by the social sciences – academic fields that are dominated by leftists .
This means that social scientists ’ left-wing views of class , race , and gender are treated much the same as , say , biologists ’ understanding of DNA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective , and truthful .
But this is misleading .
Science is based on the scientific method , which is intentionally very limited in what it can say about the world .
Outside of the logical framework of mathematics , we can not conclusively ‘ prove ’ any natural law ( even within mathematics it gets a bit vague ) .
Hypotheses must be put forward and tested under a range of experimental methods .
If the hypothesis is not disproved under those conditions , we say that the findings were consistent with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeats of an experiment validating an idea , we come to accept a hypothesis as true ( though , importantly , we never prove it to be true ; we only fail to prove that it is false ) .
And if the hypothesis predicts a hitherto unobserved phenomenon which is eventually observed , that ’ s an added bonus .
This high bar means only the strongest hypotheses survive .
This is Darwinism applied to intellectual discourse .
Societal hypotheses about class , race , gender , and hierarchy can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way as hypotheses about , for example , the standard model of particle physics .
We can not force people to partake in experiments as we can quarks .
The social sciences are plagued by these fundamental limitations and methodological weaknesses .
The social sciences have thus taken on the mantle of ‘ science ’ without the seriousness of the method .
Moreover , the lack of political diversity within the overwhelmingly leftish milieu of the social sciences means that dissenting views are resisted while conformist ones are accepted .
Social-science findings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by an ideologically unrepresentative academy , to support the social narratives of their like-minded colleagues .
The search is not for objective truth , but for that which supports preexisting beliefs .
Seek , and ye shall find oppressive capitalist patriarchy .
The number of subjects in which certain lines of academic inquiry are considered unacceptable is increasingly broad .
[ … ] Political biases are driven by perverse incentives in both academia and the media .
So , in fields in which one ’ s colleagues are overwhelmingly a specific political persuasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rock that boat lest it jeopardizes career advancement .
There is also a misconception that research is a dispassionate reporting of factual findings .
But that ’ s not the case .
Social scientists , whose prime ( and often only ) readership is other social scientists , understand that a paper that draws far-reaching conclusions suiting an established narrative is more likely to be supported and cited .
Media outlets might then draw on such research to lend their own political views the aura of scientific and academic legitimacy .
Left-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if policy proposals follow naturally from academic studies , which are themselves beyond reproach .
This means that left-wing media outlets , drawing their authority from left-wing social scientists , act as if their political worldview is coming from a place of truth .
The Guardian describes itself as ‘ free from political and commercial bias ’ and engaged in the ‘ struggle for truth , humanity , and justice ’ , as though the three must invariably align with their left-wing discourse .
The Washington Post adopted the absurdly histrionic slogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , as though the election of Donald Trump signaled a constitutional crisis instead of merely being politically unpalatable .
The implication , of course , is that the right-wing media are little more than scientifically illiterate fake-news machines .
It is the left-wing media who are the keepers of knowledge and the protectors of scientific ( and moral ) truth .
This despite the fact they are no less inclined to exaggerate reporting of scientific literature in the pursuit of clicks .
The left has pushed for decades to expand the permit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the scientific method .
They are now entirely comfortable side-lining inconvenient truths that challenge their a priori beliefs .

Written by Rob Sutton on Aug 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Many on the left today peddle the narrative that they are more scientifically minded than those on the right.
They market themselves as the heirs to the ideals of the Enlightenment – reason, progress, and truth – while pillorying the right as a collection of creationists, climate-change deniers, and anti-vaxxers.
This narrative is false, and increasingly so.
It is a useful fiction, however. It allows the left to dress up its moral and political views as scientific. To question them, therefore, is to question the authority of “the science.”
It is tantamount to secular heresy. When the Democrats in the US present themselves as ‘the party of science’, they are really saying ‘do not question us’.
Left-wingers used to invoke the authority of science mainly to justify their views on how we should respond to climate change.
But the left increasingly uses the same scientific, moral authority to justify its views on an ever-expanding range of issues, from race to gender.
Part of the problem here is due to just how broadly we use the term ‘science’. Traditionally, it referred to the fields of natural science, which rely heavily on quantitative methods and have an exceptionally high threshold for new ideas to enter the consensus.
Yet the authority of ‘science’ has now been appropriated by the social sciences – academic fields that are dominated by leftists.
This means that social scientists’ left-wing views of class, race, and gender are treated much the same as, say, biologists’ understanding of DNA – that is, as authoritative, objective, and truthful.
But this is misleading. Science is based on the scientific method, which is intentionally very limited in what it can say about the world.
Outside of the logical framework of mathematics, we cannot conclusively ‘prove’ any natural law (even within mathematics it gets a bit vague). Hypotheses must be put forward and tested under a range of experimental methods.
If the hypothesis is not disproved under those conditions, we say that the findings were consistent with our hypothesis.
With time and multiple repeats of an experiment validating an idea, we come to accept a hypothesis as true (though, importantly, we never prove it to be true; we only fail to prove that it is false).
And if the hypothesis predicts a hitherto unobserved phenomenon which is eventually observed, that’s an added bonus.
This high bar means only the strongest hypotheses survive. This is Darwinism applied to intellectual discourse.
Societal hypotheses about class, race, gender, and hierarchy cannot be rigorously tested or refuted in the same way as hypotheses about, for example, the standard model of particle physics.
We cannot force people to partake in experiments as we can quarks. The social sciences are plagued by these fundamental limitations and methodological weaknesses.
The social sciences have thus taken on the mantle of ‘science’ without the seriousness of the method.
Moreover, the lack of political diversity within the overwhelmingly leftish milieu of the social sciences means that dissenting views are resisted while conformist ones are accepted.
Social-science findings are based on politically motivated studies, produced by an ideologically unrepresentative academy, to support the social narratives of their like-minded colleagues.
The search is not for objective truth, but for that which supports preexisting beliefs. Seek, and ye shall find oppressive capitalist patriarchy.
The number of subjects in which certain lines of academic inquiry are considered unacceptable is increasingly broad. […]
Political biases are driven by perverse incentives in both academia and the media. So, in fields in which one’s colleagues are overwhelmingly a specific political persuasion, there is a strong incentive not to rock that boat lest it jeopardizes career advancement.
There is also a misconception that research is a dispassionate reporting of factual findings. But that’s not the case.
Social scientists, whose prime (and often only) readership is other social scientists, understand that a paper that draws far-reaching conclusions suiting an established narrative is more likely to be supported and cited.
Media outlets might then draw on such research to lend their own political views the aura of scientific and academic legitimacy.
Left-wing media outlets, in particular, act as if policy proposals follow naturally from academic studies, which are themselves beyond reproach.
This means that left-wing media outlets, drawing their authority from left-wing social scientists, act as if their political worldview is coming from a place of truth.
The Guardian describes itself as ‘free from political and commercial bias’ and engaged in the ‘struggle for truth, humanity, and justice’, as though the three must invariably align with their left-wing discourse.
The Washington Post adopted the absurdly histrionic slogan ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ in 2017, as though the election of Donald Trump signaled a constitutional crisis instead of merely being politically unpalatable.
The implication, of course, is that the right-wing media are little more than scientifically illiterate fake-news machines.
It is the left-wing media who are the keepers of knowledge and the protectors of scientific (and moral) truth. This despite the fact they are no less inclined to exaggerate reporting of scientific literature in the pursuit of clicks.
The left has pushed for decades to expand the permit of scientific knowledge without accepting the limitations of the scientific method. They are now entirely comfortable side-lining inconvenient truths that challenge their a priori beliefs.
Read rest at Spiked Online
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print