climatechangedispatch--2020-06-22--Greens Promote Child Slave Labor And Eco-Destruction

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The US Supreme Court recently ruled 7-2 to reverse a lower court ruling that had invalidated a permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline , which will bring West Virginia natural gas to Virginia and North Carolina , for home heating , factory power , electricity generation , and manufacturing petrochemical feedstocks .
Environmentalists had claimed the US Forest Service had no authority to issue the permit because a 0.1-mile ( 530-foot ) segment would cross 600 feet below the 2,200-mile-long Appalachian Trail , which is administered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s majority opinion scuttled that assertion .
Pipeline project developers Dominion Resources and Duke Energy should receive the USFS and other permits relatively soon – and have the pipeline in operation by early 2022 – unless a Biden administration takes over in 2021 ( with AOC as woke climate and energy advisor to Biden and Democrats ) and imposes Green New Deal bans on drilling , fracking , pipelines , and eventually any use of natural gas , oil , and coal .
Meanwhile , environmentalist groups plan more lawsuits .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streams at risk of increased sedimentation , scar pristine landscapes , and harm sensitive species .
These plans and assertions underscore how inflexible they have become in opposing any US fossil fuel use .
How incapable of recognizing or rationally discussing the far greater human and ecological impacts from energy systems they favor .
How reliant on blatant double standards and mob rule , instead of on rational , cohesive , persuasive discussion .
Barely a few years ago , the Sierra Club and allied groups gladly took $ 187 million and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other financiers to wage their War on Coal .
Having closed down most US coal mines and power plants , they then turned gas from a “ climate-friendly bridge fuel ” to evil incarnate .
Today they to end fossil fuel use nationwide .
Via delusion , incantation , and cancellation of debate , they have convinced themselves that wind , solar , battery , and biofuel “ alternatives ” are somehow “ clean , green , renewable and sustainable.
” Reality says otherwise .
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-of-way .
Any sedimentation will occur during short term construction operations when some wildlife will be scared off or displaced for a spell .
Any threat to sensitive species , even in the event of a leak , will be minimal .
In stark contrast , their preferred energy systems will have massive , permanent impacts – in Virginia and far beyond its borders .
Virginia solar panels will blanket more than eight times the land area of Washington , DC .
Hundreds of 850-foot-tall bird-killing wind turbines will create an enormous obstacle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planes off of the Virginia Beach coast .
Many thousands of 1,200-pound batteries will provide backup power to replace coal and solar for a sunless , windless day or two .
Hundreds of miles of new transmission lines will soar into the sky and snake across the countryside .
Just bringing wind-based electricity from West Virginia to Blacksburg , Roanoke , and Lynchburg , Virginia – and solar energy from all those Virginia panels to Staunton and Harrisonburg – will require several new transmission lines across the Appalachian Trail .
Not 600 feet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But somehow , we and our courts are supposed to believe , all these enormous industrial facilities – and the blasting , tree clearing , machinery , noise and other impacts associated with building and maintaining them – will cause no stream sedimentation , landscape scarring or harm to sensitive species .
In reality , the radical greens , utility companies , and Democrats promoting these projects under the Virginia “ Clean ” Economy Act will simply demand that courts ignore the arguments they raised and environmental laws they cited when they raged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pipelines and transmission lines associated with them .
They ’ ll demand that citizen groups opposed to these monstrous wind , solar and battery complexes are thrown out of court .
They ’ ll want the same double standards applied nationally .
Eliminating fossil fuels would mean America would have to replace 100 % of its gasoline and all its oil and natural gas feedstocks for pharmaceuticals , cosmetics , paints , synthetic fibers , fertilizers – and plastics for cell phones , computers , car bodies , packaging , wind turbine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless other products .
That would require turning some 700 million acres of food crop and habitat land ( four times the land area of Texas ) into biofuel corn , sugarcane , and canola plantations for ethanol and biodiesel .
More extreme versions of the Green New Deal would eliminate coal , gas and nuclear electricity and backup power , gas for home heating , coal and gas for factories , and internal combustion vehicles .
We ’ d replace it all with wind or solar – and use wind or solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity to charge batteries for seven windless , sunless days .
That ’ s 8.5 billion megawatts – twice what we used in 2018 !
We ’ d need some 75 billion solar panels … or 4.2 million 1.8-MW onshore wind turbines … or 320,000 10-MW offshore wind turbines … and some 3.5 billion 100-kWh backup batteries .
The concrete , steel , copper , lithium , rare earth elements , aluminum , cobalt , plastic and other materials to build them would require vastly more mining and manufacturing than the world has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fossil fuels .
Environmentalists oppose almost all mining anywhere in the United States , and even by US companies operating overseas under rigorous Western rules .
That means essential metals and minerals get mined and processed in places like Baotou , Inner Mongolia , Bolivia , and the Democratic Republic of Congo , mostly under Chinese control , under minimal to nonexistent labor , wage , environmental , reclamation , and worker health and safety regulations .
The mining and industrial areas have become vast toxic wastelands .
For cobalt alone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as four years old , slave away alongside their parents in mines , for a dollar a day , risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy , toxic , radioactive mud , dust , water , and air .
That ’ s today – for today ’ s battery , solar panel and wind turbine needs .
Imagine how many would be needed to serve the Green New Deal .
400,000 perhaps ?
4,000,000 ?
China alone will soon have 200 times more coal-fired generation than Virginia will be shutting down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mackenzie , Europe , and the United States will close down 22,000 megawatts of coal-fired power capacity – even as Asia opens 49,000 megawatts of new coal-fired power plants , on top of those it already has and in addition to its growing fleet of gas-fired units .
China is building or financing numerous coal and gas power plants in Africa and Asia .
India already has hundreds of coal-fired units and is building or planning 400 more .
China and India are also building or planning hundreds of new airports , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their roads .
That ( plus the GND mining , processing , and manufacturing ) means , even if Virginia or the entire USA eliminated all fossil fuel use tomorrow – it wouldn ’ t make an iota of difference for global carbon dioxide levels .
These environmental and human rights travesties can happen only under a system of rampant double standards : the same kinds that excoriate and ban religious services and funerals , anti-lockdown protests and Trump rallies – while permitting , excusing and praising Black Lives Matter marches that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , riots , looting , arson , beatings , and murders of people like David Dorn and Patrick Underwood , whose also precious black lives certainly haven ’ t mattered much to this crowd .
They also require that the woke Campus Cancel Culture spread its intolerant , authoritarian rule to our cities , media , social media , and even legislative bodies and courts – to instill constant anger and anarchy , and silence , defame and punish anyone who dares to offer nuanced or contrarian viewpoints .
Every victory brings new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayhem and destruction they inflict .
Why should rural , poor , minority , and working-class families and communities have to accept the ecological , health , and economic damages inflicted in pursuit of this pseudo-renewable energy utopia ?
Why should Africans , Asians , and Latin Americans have to accept slave status to advance this agenda ?
The situation is coming to ahead .
Let ’ s hope the now-silent majority can restore law , order , civil debate , thoughtful reflection on our complex history , and rational resolution of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of Eco-Imperialism : Green power , Black Death , and other books and articles on energy , environment , climate , and human rights issues .

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The US Supreme Court recently ruled 7-2 to reverse a lower court ruling that had invalidated a permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which will bring West Virginia natural gas to Virginia and North Carolina, for home heating, factory power, electricity generation, and manufacturing petrochemical feedstocks.
Environmentalists had claimed the US Forest Service had no authority to issue the permit because a 0.1-mile (530-foot) segment would cross 600 feet below the 2,200-mile-long Appalachian Trail, which is administered by the National Park Service. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion scuttled that assertion.
Pipeline project developers Dominion Resources and Duke Energy should receive the USFS and other permits relatively soon – and have the pipeline in operation by early 2022 – unless a Biden administration takes over in 2021 (with AOC as woke climate and energy advisor to Biden and Democrats) and imposes Green New Deal bans on drilling, fracking, pipelines, and eventually any use of natural gas, oil, and coal.
Meanwhile, environmentalist groups plan more lawsuits. They insist the pipeline would put rivers and streams at risk of increased sedimentation, scar pristine landscapes, and harm sensitive species.
These plans and assertions underscore how inflexible they have become in opposing any US fossil fuel use. How incapable of recognizing or rationally discussing the far greater human and ecological impacts from energy systems they favor. How reliant on blatant double standards and mob rule, instead of on rational, cohesive, persuasive discussion.
Barely a few years ago, the Sierra Club and allied groups gladly took $187 million and more from Michael Bloomberg, natural gas producers, and other financiers to wage their War on Coal.
Having closed down most US coal mines and power plants, they then turned gas from a “climate-friendly bridge fuel” to evil incarnate.
Today they to end fossil fuel use nationwide. Via delusion, incantation, and cancellation of debate, they have convinced themselves that wind, solar, battery, and biofuel “alternatives” are somehow “clean, green, renewable and sustainable.” Reality says otherwise.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline will be underground, mostly invisible beneath a grassy right-of-way. Any sedimentation will occur during short term construction operations when some wildlife will be scared off or displaced for a spell. Any threat to sensitive species, even in the event of a leak, will be minimal.
In stark contrast, their preferred energy systems will have massive, permanent impacts – in Virginia and far beyond its borders. Virginia solar panels will blanket more than eight times the land area of Washington, DC.
Hundreds of 850-foot-tall bird-killing wind turbines will create an enormous obstacle course for whales, ships, and planes off of the Virginia Beach coast. Many thousands of 1,200-pound batteries will provide backup power to replace coal and solar for a sunless, windless day or two.
Hundreds of miles of new transmission lines will soar into the sky and snake across the countryside. Just bringing wind-based electricity from West Virginia to Blacksburg, Roanoke, and Lynchburg, Virginia – and solar energy from all those Virginia panels to Staunton and Harrisonburg – will require several new transmission lines across the Appalachian Trail.
Not 600 feet below it; right across it.
But somehow, we and our courts are supposed to believe, all these enormous industrial facilities – and the blasting, tree clearing, machinery, noise and other impacts associated with building and maintaining them – will cause no stream sedimentation, landscape scarring or harm to sensitive species.
In reality, the radical greens, utility companies, and Democrats promoting these projects under the Virginia “Clean” Economy Act will simply demand that courts ignore the arguments they raised and environmental laws they cited when they raged against coal and gas power plants and the pipelines and transmission lines associated with them.
They’ll demand that citizen groups opposed to these monstrous wind, solar and battery complexes are thrown out of court. They’ll want the same double standards applied nationally.
Eliminating fossil fuels would mean America would have to replace 100% of its gasoline and all its oil and natural gas feedstocks for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers – and plastics for cell phones, computers, car bodies, packaging, wind turbine blades, solar panel films, and countless other products.
That would require turning some 700 million acres of food crop and habitat land (four times the land area of Texas) into biofuel corn, sugarcane, and canola plantations for ethanol and biodiesel.
More extreme versions of the Green New Deal would eliminate coal, gas and nuclear electricity and backup power, gas for home heating, coal and gas for factories, and internal combustion vehicles.
We’d replace it all with wind or solar – and use wind or solar on good days to generate enough extra electricity to charge batteries for seven windless, sunless days. That’s 8.5 billion megawatts – twice what we used in 2018!
We’d need some 75 billion solar panels … or 4.2 million 1.8-MW onshore wind turbines … or 320,000 10-MW offshore wind turbines … and some 3.5 billion 100-kWh backup batteries.
The concrete, steel, copper, lithium, rare earth elements, aluminum, cobalt, plastic and other materials to build them would require vastly more mining and manufacturing than the world has ever seen – nearly all of it with fossil fuels.
Environmentalists oppose almost all mining anywhere in the United States, and even by US companies operating overseas under rigorous Western rules.
That means essential metals and minerals get mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, Bolivia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control, under minimal to nonexistent labor, wage, environmental, reclamation, and worker health and safety regulations. The mining and industrial areas have become vast toxic wastelands.
For cobalt alone, over 40,000 Congolese children, as young as four years old, slave away alongside their parents in mines, for a dollar a day, risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water, and air.
That’s today – for today’s battery, solar panel and wind turbine needs. Imagine how many would be needed to serve the Green New Deal. 400,000 perhaps? 4,000,000?
China alone will soon have 200 times more coal-fired generation than Virginia will be shutting down.
In 2020, says consulting company Wood Mackenzie, Europe, and the United States will close down 22,000 megawatts of coal-fired power capacity – even as Asia opens 49,000 megawatts of new coal-fired power plants, on top of those it already has and in addition to its growing fleet of gas-fired units.
China is building or financing numerous coal and gas power plants in Africa and Asia. India already has hundreds of coal-fired units and is building or planning 400 more. China and India are also building or planning hundreds of new airports, and putting millions of new cars and trucks on their roads.
That (plus the GND mining, processing, and manufacturing) means, even if Virginia or the entire USA eliminated all fossil fuel use tomorrow – it wouldn’t make an iota of difference for global carbon dioxide levels.
These environmental and human rights travesties can happen only under a system of rampant double standards: the same kinds that excoriate and ban religious services and funerals, anti-lockdown protests and Trump rallies – while permitting, excusing and praising Black Lives Matter marches that have too often turned into anti-police mobs, riots, looting, arson, beatings, and murders of people like David Dorn and Patrick Underwood, whose also precious black lives certainly haven’t mattered much to this crowd.
They also require that the woke Campus Cancel Culture spread its intolerant, authoritarian rule to our cities, media, social media, and even legislative bodies and courts – to instill constant anger and anarchy, and silence, defame and punish anyone who dares to offer nuanced or contrarian viewpoints.
Every victory brings new demands, with no accountability for the mayhem and destruction they inflict.
Why should rural, poor, minority, and working-class families and communities have to accept the ecological, health, and economic damages inflicted in pursuit of this pseudo-renewable energy utopia?
Why should Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans have to accept slave status to advance this agenda?
The situation is coming to ahead. Let’s hope the now-silent majority can restore law, order, civil debate, thoughtful reflection on our complex history, and rational resolution of these thorny problems.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black Death, and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-22--Pope Sees Upside To Crushing Lockdowns: Less Pollution, Traffic

Written by Thomas D. Williams , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Pope Francis pointed to the silver linings of the coronavirus lockdowns Sunday , noting that forcing people to stay home and not work has diminished traffic , noise levels , and air pollution .
The pandemic has made us reflect on “ the relationship between man and the environment , ” the pontiff told pilgrims and tourists gathered in Saint Peter ’ s Square for his weekly Angelus message .
“ The lockdown has reduced pollution and revealed once more the beauty of so many places free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s words may ring as somewhat tone-deaf to the many Italians whose lives have been destroyed by the lockdowns .
In Italy , hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and livelihoods due to the lockdowns and analysts estimate that about a third of all businesses shuttered during the pandemic will never reopen .
Officials expect the unemployment rate in Italy to reach 11.1 percent in 2020 , due to the continuing impact of the lockdowns , and the rate is expected to increase still further , to 11.3 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which accounts for some 13 percent of the country ’ s GDP , lost all revenue during the three months of lockdown and is expected to recover very slowly .
Italy reopened to European travel on June 15 , but for many , strict regulations on hotels and restaurants will keep numbers below the required profit margin to stay open .
The pope said Sunday that as some people return to work , it is necessary to adopt a more ecologically friendly attitude .
“ Now , with the resumption of activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for looking after the common home , ” Francis said .
“ I appreciate the many ‘ grassroots ’ initiatives that are emerging in this regard all over the world , ” he continued .
“ For example , in Rome today there is an initiative dedicated to the river Tiber .
But there are many others in other places !
May they foster citizenship that is increasingly aware of this essential common good.
” Earlier this month , Pope Francis employed some of his strongest environmental rhetoric to date , insisting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wounded , ” and “ bleeding .
”

Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Pope Francis pointed to the silver linings of the coronavirus lockdowns Sunday, noting that forcing people to stay home and not work has diminished traffic, noise levels, and air pollution.
The pandemic has made us reflect on “the relationship between man and the environment,” the pontiff told pilgrims and tourists gathered in Saint Peter’s Square for his weekly Angelus message.
“The lockdown has reduced pollution and revealed once more the beauty of so many places free from traffic and noise.”
The pontiff’s words may ring as somewhat tone-deaf to the many Italians whose lives have been destroyed by the lockdowns.
In Italy, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and livelihoods due to the lockdowns and analysts estimate that about a third of all businesses shuttered during the pandemic will never reopen.
Officials expect the unemployment rate in Italy to reach 11.1 percent in 2020, due to the continuing impact of the lockdowns, and the rate is expected to increase still further, to 11.3 percent, in 2021.
The tourist industry, which accounts for some 13 percent of the country’s GDP, lost all revenue during the three months of lockdown and is expected to recover very slowly.
Italy reopened to European travel on June 15, but for many, strict regulations on hotels and restaurants will keep numbers below the required profit margin to stay open.
The pope said Sunday that as some people return to work, it is necessary to adopt a more ecologically friendly attitude.
“Now, with the resumption of activities, we should all be more responsible for looking after the common home,” Francis said.
“I appreciate the many ‘grassroots’ initiatives that are emerging in this regard all over the world,” he continued. “For example, in Rome today there is an initiative dedicated to the river Tiber. But there are many others in other places! May they foster citizenship that is increasingly aware of this essential common good.”
Earlier this month, Pope Francis employed some of his strongest environmental rhetoric to date, insisting that planet Earth is “sick,” “wounded,” and “bleeding.”
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-22--New German Study: E-Cars ‘Actually Exacerbate Global Warming’

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news The German online Business Insider here reports on just how climate ( un ) friendly electric cars really are .
It concludes that e-cars in Germany are “ far from being climate-friendly.
” As much of the public already suspects , the electricity coming out of German outlets is still largely produced by fossil fuel plants .
And so e-cars indeed leave a large carbon footprint .
Moreover , all the mining of raw materials and the massive amounts of energy needed to produce the batteries in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the electric car ends up with a better carbon budget than a comparably sized internal combustion engine .
And never mind other disadvantages such as long charging times , high vehicle purchase price , and low range .
A new study by Ulrich Schmidt , a researcher at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy , concluded that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection , and in fact “ actually exacerbate global warming if the current electricity mix is taken as a basis.
” The study found the point when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still “ far off.
” Climate activists like insisting that the future of mobility belongs to electric cars , but the Kiel Institute for the World Economy researcher says that this is not so given Germany ’ s current power supply mix , which still relies heavily on coal .
Claims that electric cars are clean are based on false assumptions , says Schmidt .
As Schmidt points out in his study , a complete switch to e-mobility would increase electricity demand by almost 20 percent in the German automotive sector alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require more electricity generation from fossil fuels .
Provided that availability is the same in both cases .
This would considerably worsen the climate balance of e-cars.
” Schmidt adds : “ Regardless of what you fill up your electric car with ; from a macroeconomic perspective , it runs de facto on 100 percent electricity from fossil fuels , nowadays even 100 percent from coal .
This means that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection , but actually make global warming worse.
” This , Schmidt says , will remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuels in the electricity mix remains above 20 percent .
Business Insider points out that even the “ EU Commission estimates that the share of fossil fuels will still be around 40 percent in 2050.
” Read more at No Tricks zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The German online Business Insider here reports on just how climate (un)friendly electric cars really are. It concludes that e-cars in Germany are “far from being climate-friendly.”
As much of the public already suspects, the electricity coming out of German outlets is still largely produced by fossil fuel plants. And so e-cars indeed leave a large carbon footprint.
Moreover, all the mining of raw materials and the massive amounts of energy needed to produce the batteries in the first place means it takes a very long time before the electric car ends up with a better carbon budget than a comparably sized internal combustion engine.
And never mind other disadvantages such as long charging times, high vehicle purchase price, and low range.
“Actually exacerbate global warming”
A new study by Ulrich Schmidt, a researcher at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, concluded that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection, and in fact “actually exacerbate global warming if the current electricity mix is taken as a basis.”
The study found the point when electric mobility can contribute to climate protection is still “far off.”
“Based on false assumptions”
Climate activists like insisting that the future of mobility belongs to electric cars, but the Kiel Institute for the World Economy researcher says that this is not so given Germany’s current power supply mix, which still relies heavily on coal. Claims that electric cars are clean are based on false assumptions, says Schmidt.
Business Insider writes:
As Schmidt points out in his study, a complete switch to e-mobility would increase electricity demand by almost 20 percent in the German automotive sector alone. This, in turn, would require more electricity generation from fossil fuels. Provided that availability is the same in both cases. This would considerably worsen the climate balance of e-cars.”
Schmidt adds: “Regardless of what you fill up your electric car with; from a macroeconomic perspective, it runs de facto on 100 percent electricity from fossil fuels, nowadays even 100 percent from coal. This means that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection, but actually make global warming worse.”
“40% of fossil fuels in 2020”
This, Schmidt says, will remain true as long as the share of fossil fuels in the electricity mix remains above 20 percent. Business Insider points out that even the “EU Commission estimates that the share of fossil fuels will still be around 40 percent in 2050.”
Read more at No Tricks zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-22--Empress Greta Thunberg Is Disappointed In Her Subjects

Written by Michael Walsh on .
Posted in Latest news The world ’ s most obnoxious teen girl is at it again .
With the grownups having abdicated all responsibility across the western world , and the barbarians at the gates , think of Greta Thunberg as , well… Romulus Augustulus , empress of all she surveys .
For now ( via the BBC ) : Greta Thunberg says the world needs to learn the lessons of coronavirus and treat climate change with similar urgency .
That means the world acting “ with necessary force “ , the Swedish climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC News .
She doesn ’ t think any “ green recovery plan ” will solve the crisis alone .
And she says the world is now passing a “ social tipping point ” on climate and issues such as Black Lives Matter .
“ People are starting to realise that we can not keep looking away from these things ” , says Ms Thunberg , “ we can not keep sweeping these injustices under the carpet ” .
She says lockdown has given her time to relax and reflect away from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Augustulus , you ask ?
Ms Thunberg has shared with the BBC the text of a deeply personal programme she has made for Swedish Radio .
In the radio programme , which goes online this morning , Greta looks back on the year in which she became one of the world ’ s most high-profile celebrities .
The then 16-year-old took a sabbatical from school to spend a tumultuous year campaigning on the climate .
She sailed across the Atlantic on a racing yacht to address a special UN Climate Action summit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world leaders queuing to get pictures with her , with Angela Merkel asking whether it was okay to post her photo on social media .
The climate campaigner is sceptical of their motives .
“ Perhaps it makes them forget the shame of their generation letting all future generations down ” , she says .
“ I guess maybe it helps them to sleep at night.
” Her Majesty is upset .
She came into this world expecting perfection , and the adults have let her down .
In fact , they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by their willful inaction on the “ climate emergency ” that ’ s visible all around us .
Why , just look out the window !
It was in the UN that she delivered her famous “ how dare you ” speech .
“ You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words ” , she told the world leaders gathered in the UN Assembly .
She appeared on the verge of tears as she continued .
“ People are dying , ” she said , “ and all you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tales of eternal economic growth .
How dare you ?
” She knew it was a “ lifetime moment ” and decided not to hold anything back , she says now .
“ I am going to let my emotions take control and to really make something big out of this because I won ’ t be able to do this again ” .
Still , the Empress is disappointed in her subjects , who have not lived up to her ideals , and that the glory that was once Rome — er @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the UN to her hotel on the subway and seeing people watching the speech on their phones , but says she felt no urge to celebrate .
“ All that is left are empty words ” , she says .
The phrase reflects her deep cynicism about the motives of most world leaders .
“ The level of knowledge and understanding even among people in power is very , very low , much lower than you would think , ” she told the BBC .
She says the only way to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to make fundamental changes to our lifestyles , starting in developing countries .
But she doesn ’ t believe any leaders have the nerve to do that .
Instead , she says , they “ simply refrain from reporting the emissions , or move them somewhere else ” .
The teenager believes the only way to avoid a climate crisis is to tear up contracts and abandon existing deals and agreements that companies and countries have signed up to .
“ The climate and ecological crisis can not be solved within today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Swedish climate activist argues .
“ That isn ’ t an opinion .
That ’ s a fact.
” Indeed , Her Serene Highness has much , much more to say to her subjects — but hold !
There ’ s someone knocking at the gates .
A fellow by the name of Odoacer .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Michael Walsh on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The world’s most obnoxious teen girl is at it again.
With the grownups having abdicated all responsibility across the western world, and the barbarians at the gates, think of Greta Thunberg as, well… Romulus Augustulus, empress of all she surveys.
For now (via the BBC):
Greta Thunberg says the world needs to learn the lessons of coronavirus and treat climate change with similar urgency. That means the world acting “with necessary force“, the Swedish climate activist says in an exclusive interview with BBC News. She doesn’t think any “green recovery plan” will solve the crisis alone. And she says the world is now passing a “social tipping point” on climate and issues such as Black Lives Matter. “People are starting to realise that we cannot keep looking away from these things”, says Ms Thunberg, “we cannot keep sweeping these injustices under the carpet”. She says lockdown has given her time to relax and reflect away from the public gaze.
So who is Romulus Augustulus, you ask?
Ms Thunberg has shared with the BBC the text of a deeply personal programme she has made for Swedish Radio. In the radio programme, which goes online this morning, Greta looks back on the year in which she became one of the world’s most high-profile celebrities. The then 16-year-old took a sabbatical from school to spend a tumultuous year campaigning on the climate. She sailed across the Atlantic on a racing yacht to address a special UN Climate Action summit in New York in September. She describes world leaders queuing to get pictures with her, with Angela Merkel asking whether it was okay to post her photo on social media. The climate campaigner is sceptical of their motives. “Perhaps it makes them forget the shame of their generation letting all future generations down”, she says. “I guess maybe it helps them to sleep at night.”
Her Majesty is upset. She came into this world expecting perfection, and the adults have let her down. In fact, they have deliberately destroyed her slim chance of happiness by their willful inaction on the “climate emergency” that’s visible all around us. Why, just look out the window!
It was in the UN that she delivered her famous “how dare you” speech. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words”, she told the world leaders gathered in the UN Assembly. She appeared on the verge of tears as she continued. “People are dying,” she said, “and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?” She knew it was a “lifetime moment” and decided not to hold anything back, she says now. “I am going to let my emotions take control and to really make something big out of this because I won’t be able to do this again”.
Still, the Empress is disappointed in her subjects, who have not lived up to her ideals, and that the glory that was once Rome — er, Sweden.
She describes travelling back from the UN to her hotel on the subway and seeing people watching the speech on their phones, but says she felt no urge to celebrate. “All that is left are empty words”, she says. The phrase reflects her deep cynicism about the motives of most world leaders. “The level of knowledge and understanding even among people in power is very, very low, much lower than you would think,” she told the BBC. She says the only way to reduce emissions on the scale that is necessary is to make fundamental changes to our lifestyles, starting in developing countries. But she doesn’t believe any leaders have the nerve to do that. Instead, she says, they “simply refrain from reporting the emissions, or move them somewhere else”. The teenager believes the only way to avoid a climate crisis is to tear up contracts and abandon existing deals and agreements that companies and countries have signed up to. “The climate and ecological crisis cannot be solved within today’s political and economic systems”, the Swedish climate activist argues. “That isn’t an opinion. That’s a fact.”
Indeed, Her Serene Highness has much, much more to say to her subjects — but hold! There’s someone knocking at the gates. A fellow by the name of Odoacer.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-22--How Science Gets Bent To Fit Left-Wing Politics

Written by Michael Bastasch on .
Posted in Latest news I don ’ t know if you heard , but according to the head of the International Energy Agency ( IEA ) , we only have six months left to prevent total climate change disaster .
“ This year is the last time we have , if we are not to see a carbon rebound , ” IEA executive director Fatih Birol told the Guardian on Thursday in an article with the headline : “ World has six months to avert a climate crisis , says energy expert.
” Birol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is very difficult to see how they will be brought down in future .
This is why we are urging governments to have sustainable recovery packages.
” I ’ m old enough to remember when we still had 12 years left to save the planet just two years ago .
That dire prediction was just as laughable as what Birol is saying today .
The scientific “ consensus ” we used to hear so much about doesn ’ t support this alarmist claim at all .
What ’ s really going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a prominent “ expert ” to push bogus claims to further his political agenda .
Those goals also rather conveniently align with the wishes of Democrats and the liberal media .
We ’ ve recently seen a lot of this type of weaponizing of science for political purposes .
A couple of weeks ago , we learned of one of the most egregious examples of this to date .
Late last month , one of the world ’ s most prestigious medical journals , the Lancet , published a huge study purporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID patients .
To sum it all up , this observational study of 96,000 patients around the world found that treating COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine increased their risk of death by 34 percent , and there was a 137 percent increased risk for heart arrhythmias .
Since President Trump came out as supportive of using hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus , the liberal media quickly pounced .
The study ’ s release also conveniently came after the Lancet put out a shockingly unusual editorial statement opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must put a president in the White House come January 2021 , who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics , ” the journal editorial board wrote .
All the pieces were in place for the media and medical establishment to set a new narrative — hydroxychloroquine kills !
And President Trump is responsible for those deaths .
Amid all the alarm , the World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health temporarily halted clinical trials into hydroxychloroquine .
The hype also made it harder for doctors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given the real-world consequences , we have to ask , did anyone in the media or medical community really take the time to read the Lancet ’ s new bombshell study ?
Thankfully , curious reporters at the Guardian ( yes , the same Guardian that published the climate drivel I mentioned earlier ) did take the time to read it and found what they called “ glaring errors ” in the study ’ s data on Australia .
But that wasn ’ t all — the Guardian found more problems with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious questions about the U.S.-based company that provided it .
The Guardian reported : “ [ T ] he US-based company Surgisphere , whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model … has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.
” After Surgisphere ’ s CEO refused to hand over his data to independent investigators , the Lancet , to its credit , withdrew the study .
Lancet editor Richard Horton called these revelations “ a shocking example of research misconduct in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ … ] Unfortunately , scientific misconduct didn ’ t end there .
After months of telling us that the science demanded strict lockdown policies , which meant no large gatherings of any kind were safe , the scientific consensus all of the sudden shifted from pro-social distancing to pro-social justice .
“ White supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19 , ” over 1,200 experts wrote in an open letter released in the wake of the protesting , rioting , and looting sparked by the tragic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American man , while in the custody of the police .
“ Protests against systemic racism , which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence , must be supported , ” the letter continued .
Apparently , racism is the real public health crisis and the “ science ” demands that people march ( or loot or riot ) in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and its radical leftist political goals , which include defunding the police .
Somehow those types of protests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same scientists , protesting the crushing lockdown policies of blue-state governors is not just dangerous , but evil !
“ Those actions not only oppose public health interventions but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives , ” they wrote .
All this was interesting given the heavy focus in the media on the coronaviruses ’ disproportionate impact on minorities , particularly African Americans .
Of course , this too was chalked up to racism .
Most notably , the media and the medical class completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesting in the streets — with many people crowded together and many not wearing masks — will cause a spike in COVID cases .
Meanwhile , these same experts have no problem helping the media hype the rise in coronavirus cases in Trump country .
It was also quite amusing to watch the liberal media trip over itself condemning planned Trump campaign rallies as dangerous .
Is it any wonder why American ’ s trust in the media has plummeted over the last few years ?
And the scientists , doctors and health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they continue skewing the science for partisan and ideological reasons .
Doctor Anthony Fauci , who ’ s on the White House COVID task force , lamented the lost faith in science , but he doesn ’ t blame the scientists , he blames the American people .
“ One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately , there is a combination of an anti-science bias … they just don ’ t believe science and they don ’ t believe authority , ” Fauci said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ When they see someone up in the White House , which has an air of authority to it , who ’ s talking about science , that there are some people who just don ’ t believe that — and that ’ s unfortunate because , you know , science is truth , ” Fauci added .
Is it the “ truth ” that white supremacy is a public health crisis ?
Well , scientists said it , so according to Fauci , it must be .
And going back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be worried that we only have six months left to prevent catastrophic global warming ?
We ’ re told that ’ s what the “ science ” says , and as we know , science is the truth .
People understand that science is a process and as we learn more it can change , but that ’ s not what we ’ ve seen play out over the past few weeks .
Instead , we ’ ve seen the experts and media figures we ’ re supposed to trust invoke the word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends — actual facts and evidence be damned .

Written by Michael Bastasch on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
I don’t know if you heard, but according to the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), we only have six months left to prevent total climate change disaster.
“This year is the last time we have, if we are not to see a carbon rebound,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol told the Guardian on Thursday in an article with the headline: “World has six months to avert a climate crisis, says energy expert.”
Birol continued: “If emissions rebound, it is very difficult to see how they will be brought down in future. This is why we are urging governments to have sustainable recovery packages.”
I’m old enough to remember when we still had 12 years left to save the planet just two years ago.
That dire prediction was just as laughable as what Birol is saying today. The scientific “consensus” we used to hear so much about doesn’t support this alarmist claim at all.
What’s really going on is that Birol is using his cachet as a prominent “expert” to push bogus claims to further his political agenda. Those goals also rather conveniently align with the wishes of Democrats and the liberal media.
We’ve recently seen a lot of this type of weaponizing of science for political purposes. A couple of weeks ago, we learned of one of the most egregious examples of this to date.
Late last month, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, published a huge study purporting to find that the decades-old anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID patients.
To sum it all up, this observational study of 96,000 patients around the world found that treating COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine increased their risk of death by 34 percent, and there was a 137 percent increased risk for heart arrhythmias.
Since President Trump came out as supportive of using hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus, the liberal media quickly pounced.
The study’s release also conveniently came after the Lancet put out a shockingly unusual editorial statement opposing Trump’s reelection.
“Americans must put a president in the White House come January 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics,” the journal editorial board wrote.
All the pieces were in place for the media and medical establishment to set a new narrative — hydroxychloroquine kills! And President Trump is responsible for those deaths.
Amid all the alarm, the World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health temporarily halted clinical trials into hydroxychloroquine. The hype also made it harder for doctors and researchers to recruit volunteers for hydroxy studies.
Given the real-world consequences, we have to ask, did anyone in the media or medical community really take the time to read the Lancet’s new bombshell study?
Thankfully, curious reporters at the Guardian (yes, the same Guardian that published the climate drivel I mentioned earlier) did take the time to read it and found what they called“glaring errors” in the study’s data on Australia.
But that wasn’t all — the Guardian found more problems with the data, and then they raised serious questions about the U.S.-based company that provided it.
The Guardian reported: “[T]he US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model … has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.”
After Surgisphere’s CEO refused to hand over his data to independent investigators, the Lancet, to its credit, withdrew the study. Lancet editor Richard Horton called these revelations “a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.” […]
Unfortunately, scientific misconduct didn’t end there. After months of telling us that the science demanded strict lockdown policies, which meant no large gatherings of any kind were safe, the scientific consensus all of the sudden shifted from pro-social distancing to pro-social justice.
“White supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19,” over 1,200 experts wrote in an open letter released in the wake of the protesting, rioting, and looting sparked by the tragic death of George Floyd, an African American man, while in the custody of the police.
“Protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported,” the letter continued.
Apparently, racism is the real public health crisis and the “science” demands that people march (or loot or riot) in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and its radical leftist political goals, which include defunding the police.
Somehow those types of protests are scientifically sound, but according to those same scientists, protesting the crushing lockdown policies of blue-state governors is not just dangerous, but evil!
“Those actions not only oppose public health interventions but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives,” they wrote.
All this was interesting given the heavy focus in the media on the coronaviruses’ disproportionate impact on minorities, particularly African Americans. Of course, this too was chalked up to racism.
Most notably, the media and the medical class completely dismiss any concerns that weeks of mass protesting in the streets — with many people crowded together and many not wearing masks — will cause a spike in COVID cases.
Meanwhile, these same experts have no problem helping the media hype the rise in coronavirus cases in Trump country. It was also quite amusing to watch the liberal media trip over itself condemning planned Trump campaign rallies as dangerous.
Is it any wonder why American’s trust in the media has plummeted over the last few years? And the scientists, doctors and health experts will soon suffer the same fate if they continue skewing the science for partisan and ideological reasons.
Doctor Anthony Fauci, who’s on the White House COVID task force, lamented the lost faith in science, but he doesn’t blame the scientists, he blames the American people.
“One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias … they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority,” Fauci said in a Department of Health and Human Services podcast.
“When they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who’s talking about science, that there are some people who just don’t believe that — and that’s unfortunate because, you know, science is truth,” Fauci added.
Is it the “truth” that white supremacy is a public health crisis? Well, scientists said it, so according to Fauci, it must be.
And going back to my first point, should we really be worried that we only have six months left to prevent catastrophic global warming? We’re told that’s what the “science” says, and as we know, science is the truth.
People understand that science is a process and as we learn more it can change, but that’s not what we’ve seen play out over the past few weeks.
Instead, we’ve seen the experts and media figures we’re supposed to trust invoke the word “science” to further their political ends — actual facts and evidence be damned.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-23--Bad Energy Policies Get Enacted When Science Is Ignored

Written by Todd Royal on .
Posted in Latest news Most of the world ’ s leading economic powers – excluding China Russia and Iran – are legitimizing misguided energy and electricity policies based on global warming/climate change ( GWCC ) ; the World Health Organization says “ climate change is the number one health threat.
” This led to the 97 % consensus of scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming “ Cook et al .
( 2013 paper ) , ” which has been “ thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals ” and over ninety-seven different articles here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guided by environmentalists rejecting any science showing the reduction of most pollution .
Laws , regulations , environmental awareness , and increased technological gains lowering emissions have done their job .
But climate change enthusiasts persist when China , India , and Africa are dirtier , and ignore “ U.S .
energy-related carbon dioxide fell by 2.8 % in 2019 , slightly below 2017 levels , ” according to the U.S. Department of Energy ’ s Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) .
Using critical reasoning the catch-all question to ask is whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is killing the planet ?
A report from WiseEnergy.org titled , The Defense of CO2 says no .
A second report from Wise Energy objectively analyzes and refutes The Four Pillars Supporting Climate Change Claims from the United Nation ’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , the 97 % consensus ( already debunked in the first paragraph ) , climate-based computer models ( debunked here and here ) ; and extreme weather events .
What if GWCC was viewed as a hypothesis instead of a consensus-generating controversy based on faulty modeling ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make for poor energy policies .
Particularly , when there are multiple variables affecting : “ Differential rotation between the earth ’ s surface and earth ’ s core , and the entire solar system ’ s magnetic field and gravitation interaction .
There are ( then ) thousands of ( changing variables ) that affect future temperatures and climate.
” Then soberly examine decades of government monies corrupting universities , scientists/climatologists , and corporations .
No wonder skeptics abound in the GWCC debate .
A group of mostly retired engineers and scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff issued a report questioning the legitimacy of anthropogenic global warming .
Without serious debate “ science ( is ) misused in environmental policy.
” It ’ s why climatologists like Dr. Judith Curry are maligned and driven from academia over basing climate and energy policies on science instead of non-normative outcomes .
College professors become GWCC-whistleblowers opposite the global debate , and peer-reviewed studies showing a majority of scientists skeptical of GWCC crisis foment hateful mobs .
Meaning , science is ignored , our leading institutions become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotional affair .
Leading environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have argued the GWCC movement has nothing to do with the climate .
Greenpeace co-founder , Patrick Moore , echoes these same sentiments .
Sensible environmentalists are left behind replaced by neo-Malthusian , anti-human doctrines who take the GWCC consensus , as an environmental-shibboleth .
When once and for all , there is not a 97 % consensus about GWCC ( this 4:00 video explains it succinctly ) .
Energy and electricity policy proposals that deem anthropogenic global warming/climate change an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the fear that carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) emissions from fossil fuels cause irreversible destruction .
This existential threat is “ highly questionable according to 31,487 American scientists ( 9,029 have Ph.D.s ) ” who have signed the Global Warming Petition Project .
Then add from 2019 The Climate Intelligence Foundation ( CLINTEL ) , a group of 750 scientists and professionals who sponsored the World Climate Declaration to the United Nations and EU stating : “ Climate science should be less political , while climate policies ( energy policies ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also said : “ Natural , as well as anthropogenic factors , cause warming.
” On top of the 750 scientists , another group of 500 prominent scientists led by CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout , from an organization called Friends of Science , a Canadian-based “ non-profit organization comprised of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists , engineers , and other professionals , ” sent a registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating “ there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue from over 32,000 scientists harmful policy proposals such as the American and European Green New Deal that will cause unimaginable harm to “ the environment , humans , and wildlife ” become the norm .
No advocate for green new deals has ever explained how to rid the world of fossil fuels or decarbonize when over 6,000 products originate from a barrel of crude oil .
Then why push GWCC ?
Because of taxpayer monies , feed-in tariffs , and subsidies governments in the U.S. and elsewhere provide unstable , chaotically intermittent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar panels and wind turbines ) .
Michael Moore ’ s anti-renewables documentary , Planet of the Humans tells the “ dismal , ” factual story about renewables .
Additionally , the linchpin of renewables are electrical-grid scale battery energy storage systems ( BESS ) , which are not sustainable or technologically advanced to store enough energy to electricity for hours , days , weeks , or months ahead of time when the wind isn ’ t blowing , or the sun isn ’ t shining .
The only source of carbon-free energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affordable , scalable , safe , clean , and abundant are nuclear power plants .
Our world is still “ 85 % dependent on oil , natural gas , and coal.
” But GWCC-advocates push for billions every year from taxpayers for wind turbines , solar panels , biofuels , and BESS ’ .
Men like Arnold Schwarzenegger see a “ gold mine ” in the ( California ) Mojave Desert , Al Gore envisions profits , Koch Industries rake earnings from solar and biofuels , groups like the Sierra Club and Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewables for million-dollar donations , and 350.org found Bill McKibben made untold monies from left-leaning political-environmental foundations pushing the GWCC narrative .
Billions of people globally are still in squalor , disease , poverty , malnutrition , and unreliable electricity without examining all the facts in the GWCC narrative .
Their lives resembling the dark ages over climate policies without the other side being heard , debated , and included in making energy policies .
Instead – examine the power and trillions – behind GWCC and renewables ; billions of lives are counting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast into the dustbin of history .

Written by Todd Royal on Jun 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Most of the world’s leading economic powers – excluding China Russia and Iran – are legitimizing misguided energy and electricity policies based on global warming/climate change (GWCC); the World Health Organization says “climate change is the number one health threat.”
This led to the 97% consensus of scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming “Cook et al. (2013 paper),” which has been “thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals” and over ninety-seven different articles here.
GWCC is now a political movement guided by environmentalists rejecting any science showing the reduction of most pollution.
Laws, regulations, environmental awareness, and increased technological gains lowering emissions have done their job.
But climate change enthusiasts persist when China, India, and Africa are dirtier, and ignore “U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide fell by 2.8% in 2019, slightly below 2017 levels,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Using critical reasoning the catch-all question to ask is whether or not carbon dioxide (CO2) is killing the planet? A report from WiseEnergy.org titled, The Defense of CO2 says no.
A second report from Wise Energy objectively analyzes and refutes The Four Pillars Supporting Climate Change Claims from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 97% consensus (already debunked in the first paragraph), climate-based computer models (debunked here and here); and extreme weather events.
What if GWCC was viewed as a hypothesis instead of a consensus-generating controversy based on faulty modeling?
Overhyped consensus and models without empirical evidence make for poor energy policies. Particularly, when there are multiple variables affecting:
“Differential rotation between the earth’s surface and earth’s core, and the entire solar system’s magnetic field and gravitation interaction. There are (then) thousands of (changing variables) that affect future temperatures and climate.”
Then soberly examine decades of government monies corrupting universities, scientists/climatologists, and corporations. No wonder skeptics abound in the GWCC debate.
A group of mostly retired engineers and scientists from NASA’s Johnson Space Center calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff issued a report questioning the legitimacy of anthropogenic global warming.
Without serious debate “science (is) misused in environmental policy.” It’s why climatologists like Dr. Judith Curry are maligned and driven from academia over basing climate and energy policies on science instead of non-normative outcomes.
College professors become GWCC-whistleblowers opposite the global debate, and peer-reviewed studies showing a majority of scientists skeptical of GWCC crisis foment hateful mobs.
Meaning, science is ignored, our leading institutions become corrupted, and energy policy becomes an emotional affair.
Leading environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have argued the GWCC movement has nothing to do with the climate. Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, echoes these same sentiments.
Sensible environmentalists are left behind replaced by neo-Malthusian, anti-human doctrines who take the GWCC consensus, as an environmental-shibboleth.
When once and for all, there is not a 97% consensus about GWCC (this 4:00 video explains it succinctly).
Energy and electricity policy proposals that deem anthropogenic global warming/climate change an “existential threat” to mankind is based on the fear that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels cause irreversible destruction.
This existential threat is “highly questionable according to 31,487 American scientists (9,029 have Ph.D.s)” who have signed the Global Warming Petition Project.
Then add from 2019 The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL), a group of 750 scientists and professionals who sponsored the World Climate Declaration to the United Nations and EU stating: “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies (energy policies) should be more scientific.”
Their declaration also said: “Natural, as well as anthropogenic factors, cause warming.”
On top of the 750 scientists, another group of 500 prominent scientists led by CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, from an organization called Friends of Science, a Canadian-based “non-profit organization comprised of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals,” sent a registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating “there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people.”
Without proper vetting of the GWCC issue from over 32,000 scientists harmful policy proposals such as the American and European Green New Deal that will cause unimaginable harm to “the environment, humans, and wildlife” become the norm.
No advocate for green new deals has ever explained how to rid the world of fossil fuels or decarbonize when over 6,000 products originate from a barrel of crude oil.
Then why push GWCC? Because of taxpayer monies, feed-in tariffs, and subsidies governments in the U.S. and elsewhere provide unstable, chaotically intermittent, environmentally toxic, grid-destroying renewables (solar panels and wind turbines).
Michael Moore’s anti-renewables documentary, Planet of the Humans tells the “dismal,” factual story about renewables.
Additionally, the linchpin of renewables are electrical-grid scale battery energy storage systems (BESS), which are not sustainable or technologically advanced to store enough energy to electricity for hours, days, weeks, or months ahead of time when the wind isn’t blowing, or the sun isn’t shining.
The only source of carbon-free energy to electricity that is reliable, somewhat affordable, scalable, safe, clean, and abundant are nuclear power plants.
Our world is still “85% dependent on oil, natural gas, and coal.” But GWCC-advocates push for billions every year from taxpayers for wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels, and BESS’.
Men like Arnold Schwarzenegger see a “gold mine” in the (California) Mojave Desert, Al Gore envisions profits, Koch Industries rake earnings from solar and biofuels, groups like the Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists extoll climate doom and renewables for million-dollar donations, and 350.org found Bill McKibben made untold monies from left-leaning political-environmental foundations pushing the GWCC narrative.
Billions of people globally are still in squalor, disease, poverty, malnutrition, and unreliable electricity without examining all the facts in the GWCC narrative.
Their lives resembling the dark ages over climate policies without the other side being heard, debated, and included in making energy policies.
Instead – examine the power and trillions – behind GWCC and renewables; billions of lives are counting on this false, church-like muck being cast into the dustbin of history.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-23--Alarmists Falsely Blame Climate Change For Warming In Detroit

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news At the top of Google News search results today for “ climate change , ” a climate-activist meteorologist wrote an article attributing 3.3 degrees Fahrenheit of warming in Detroit over the past 50 years to global warming .
A quick look at relevant evidence shows the claim is more alarmist hype than scientific fact .
Meteorologist Paul Gross , citing a graph produced by the climate activist group Climate Central , reports a summer warming trend in Detroit since 1970 of approximately 3.3 degrees , with most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this data may or may not be accurate , attributing it to “ climate warming ” is likely wrong .
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) records show Michigan as a whole has warmed an average approximately 2 degrees – not 3.3 degrees – since the beginning of the 20th century .
Also , the largest spike in warming occurred from the 1930s through the 1950s , with the vast majority of warming occurring during the spring and winter , when such warming is welcomed , as opposed to the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend “ of hot days ( maximum temperature above 90°F ) and no overall trend in warm nights ( minimum temperature above 70°F ) ” for Michigan .
As Climate at a Glance : U.S .
Temperatures reports , NOAA ’ s 30-year U.S. temperature trend for the upper Mid-West – including Michigan – is undergoing a modest cooling trend .
Also , NOAA ’ s Climate Reference Network , its high-quality network of temperature stations throughout the United States , shows no warming trend across the United States since the network became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct that Detroit has experienced more warming than other places—indeed a non-typical temperature trend since 1970—one should look at factors other than anthropogenic global warming as the cause of the anomalous temperature trend .
The most likely cause is the urban heat island effect , caused by Detroit ’ s substantial industrialization and development , rather than global warming .
The urban heat island effect would explain why Detroit ’ s temperature increase is almost entirely due to an increase in summertime nighttime warming .
As explained in Climate at a Glance : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concrete and other impervious surfaces during the day in urban areas is slowly released into the atmosphere at night , resulting in disproportionate increases in nighttime low temperatures .
Before Gross pointed his finger at climate change as an explanation for Detroit ’ s idiosyncratic temperature trend , he should have considered countervailing national and state temperature trends , as well as other localized factors that would better explain the anomalous temperature increase in Detroit .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jun 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
At the top of Google News search results today for “climate change,” a climate-activist meteorologist wrote an article attributing 3.3 degrees Fahrenheit of warming in Detroit over the past 50 years to global warming.
A quick look at relevant evidence shows the claim is more alarmist hype than scientific fact.
Meteorologist Paul Gross, citing a graph produced by the climate activist group Climate Central, reports a summer warming trend in Detroit since 1970 of approximately 3.3 degrees, with most of the summer warming occurring at night.
While this data may or may not be accurate, attributing it to “climate warming” is likely wrong.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records show Michigan as a whole has warmed an average approximately 2 degrees – not 3.3 degrees – since the beginning of the 20th century.
Also, the largest spike in warming occurred from the 1930s through the 1950s, with the vast majority of warming occurring during the spring and winter, when such warming is welcomed, as opposed to the summer.
Indeed, NOAA reports a declining trend “of hot days (maximum temperature above 90°F) and no overall trend in warm nights (minimum temperature above 70°F)” for Michigan.
As Climate at a Glance: U.S. Temperatures reports, NOAA’s 30-year U.S. temperature trend for the upper Mid-West – including Michigan – is undergoing a modest cooling trend.
Also, NOAA’s Climate Reference Network, its high-quality network of temperature stations throughout the United States, shows no warming trend across the United States since the network became operational in 2005.
Assuming Gross is correct that Detroit has experienced more warming than other places—indeed a non-typical temperature trend since 1970—one should look at factors other than anthropogenic global warming as the cause of the anomalous temperature trend.
The most likely cause is the urban heat island effect, caused by Detroit’s substantial industrialization and development, rather than global warming.
The urban heat island effect would explain why Detroit’s temperature increase is almost entirely due to an increase in summertime nighttime warming.
As explained in Climate at a Glance: Urban Heat Islands, heat absorbed by concrete and other impervious surfaces during the day in urban areas is slowly released into the atmosphere at night, resulting in disproportionate increases in nighttime low temperatures.
Before Gross pointed his finger at climate change as an explanation for Detroit’s idiosyncratic temperature trend, he should have considered countervailing national and state temperature trends, as well as other localized factors that would better explain the anomalous temperature increase in Detroit.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-23--UK Environment Official Claims Britain Isn’t Wet And Rainy

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser on .
Posted in Latest news The head of the government ’ s Environment Agency is claiming that the UK is no longer a wet and rainy country and is urging us to turn off taps and take showers rather than baths to save water .
Sir James Bevan , CEO of the Agency , is backing a report , The Great British Rain Paradox , which warns of potential water shortages in the UK in years to come .
The report claims that the major factor for this is climate change .
In its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate change is causing long spells of dry weather that are putting our water resources under increased pressure .
May 2020 has been the driest on record and exceptionally dry weather across the southeast between 2017 and 2019 led to some of the lowest groundwater levels we have ever seen.
’ These claims have no basis in fact .
Official Met Office data shows that the UK has actually been getting wetter in recent decades .
What is particularly noticeable in England and Wales is the absence of severe drought years in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the driest on record either – in the UK as a whole , it was only the ninth driest since records started in 1862 .
The driest May was in 1896 .
Analysis of regional rainfall data also fails to support Sir James ’ s claims .
Nor does the claim of exceptionally dry weather in the South East of England stand up to scrutiny .
Met Office data proves that rainfall there between 2017 and 2019 was close to average .
There are undoubtedly good reasons why water shortages may occur in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and increased demands .
Spurious claims about climate change will simply serve to draw attention away from these very real issues and the failure to expand storage and deal with water leaks .
This is not the first time Sir James has been caught playing fast and loose with the facts to support a political agenda .
He should apologize and issue a correction .
Read more at The Conservative Woman

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser on Jun 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The head of the government’s Environment Agency is claiming that the UK is no longer a wet and rainy country and is urging us to turn off taps and take showers rather than baths to save water.
Sir James Bevan, CEO of the Agency, is backing a report, The Great British Rain Paradox, which warns of potential water shortages in the UK in years to come. The report claims that the major factor for this is climate change.
In its foreword, Sir James says:
‘Climate change is causing long spells of dry weather that are putting our water resources under increased pressure. May 2020 has been the driest on record and exceptionally dry weather across the southeast between 2017 and 2019 led to some of the lowest groundwater levels we have ever seen.’
These claims have no basis in fact.
Official Met Office data shows that the UK has actually been getting wetter in recent decades.
What is particularly noticeable in England and Wales is the absence of severe drought years in recent decades.
May 2020 certainly was not the driest on record either – in the UK as a whole, it was only the ninth driest since records started in 1862. The driest May was in 1896. Analysis of regional rainfall data also fails to support Sir James’s claims.
Nor does the claim of exceptionally dry weather in the South East of England stand up to scrutiny. Met Office data proves that rainfall there between 2017 and 2019 was close to average.
There are undoubtedly good reasons why water shortages may occur in the future, such as population growth and increased demands.
Spurious claims about climate change will simply serve to draw attention away from these very real issues and the failure to expand storage and deal with water leaks.
This is not the first time Sir James has been caught playing fast and loose with the facts to support a political agenda. He should apologize and issue a correction.
Read more at The Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-23--The IEA’s Sustainability Plan Is Not Sustainable

Written by Tilak Doshi on .
Posted in Latest news Governments of the world , take note .
The International Energy Agency has a plan for you .
If you take the sage advice of the agency ’ s technocrats , you will do your citizens a huge favor as you struggle to recover from the ravages of the global Covid-19 pandemic .
You will not only boost economic growth and increase employment but also push global greenhouse gas emissions into structural decline .
Government planners of the world , unite !
Help your people become richer while saving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free copy of the plan , hot off the press ( published June 18 ) .
Alas , some of the world ’ s more skeptical citizens might be forgiven if they reach for their book of President Ronald Reagan ’ s quotes and come up with this : “ The most terrifying words in the English language are : I ’ m from the government and I ’ m here to help.
” While it is right to be wary of plans that promise a world where ‘ all good things go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IEA – the world ’ s leading source of energy data and analysis — deserve our careful attention .
The plan comes with clear instructions ( even if batteries are not included ) .
Planners should “ integrate ” energy policies into government responses to the economic shock caused by the Covid-19 crisis .
By integrating energy policies into governments ’ recovery plans , they would “ accelerate the deployment of modern , reliable , and clean energy technologies and infrastructure ” .
What exactly are these energy policies that need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plan ” ?
Let ’ s get into the weeds a bit .
Most of the “ millions of new jobs ” created through the plan “ would be in retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency and in the electricity sector , particularly in grids and renewables.
” Other employment generators would lie in promoting energy efficiency in industries and supporting low-carbon vehicles and transport infrastructure .
The IEA notes that “ the costs of leading clean energy technologies such as wind and solar PV are far lower , and some emerging technologies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale up ” .
This is not the place to delve into detailed assessments of these energy policies touted by the IEA .
But an overview serves to put across the point that the “ science ” of energy policy is neither straightforward nor consensual .
Let ’ s start with that hardy perennial “ energy efficiency ” , ceaselessly emphasized in countless “ roadmaps ” published by the many agencies and thinktanks working on energy affairs over the past few decades .
Perhaps the first question that arises to anyone that does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses not be “ efficient ” in energy use or in any other area in which money can be saved ?
Why would businessmen not be aware of “ efficiency ” when their very survival in competitive markets depends on being able to maximize their output at least cost of inputs ?
Is it true that there is under-investment in cost-effective energy-conservation technologies ?
For good reason , economists are skeptical that unexploited profit opportunities can exist for long .
Twenty dollar bills can indeed be found on sidewalks but it is unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature abhorring vacuums , the continued existence of unused but profitable options to save on energy is precluded by competitive markets .
Rational choice suggests that observed behavior could well be optimal despite apparently “ expert ” cost-benefit calculations .
Entrepreneurs betting their own money on energy technologies would , one would presume , be intelligent adopters of technology choice in a competitive world .
It is unlikely that otherwise savvy businessmen are clueless on how to save money on energy choices .
If that were not to be the case , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism not as the achievements of entrepreneurs risking their capital and skin but as plans carried out by the prescient salariat of bureaucratic organizations .
We are told of the “ tremendous energy savings ” that “ leading clean energy technologies such as wind and solar PV ” offer us .
This is in keeping with the endless stream of green success stories pervading the media with assertions that wind and solar power are already competitive with gas and coal-fuelled power plants .
Rigorous economic analyses of the hidden costs of unreliable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such claims .
Energy analysts would be hard put to cite examples of wind and solar energy projects that do not require government subsidies .
Indeed , there would be no need for the IEA ’ s exhortations for governments to support technologies that are allegedly already competitive with fossil fuels .
Warren Buffet explained in refreshingly honest terms that “ on wind energy , we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms .
That ’ s the only reason to build them .
They don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The average consumer also rightly balks when asked to bear heavy financial burdens of retrofitting homes and buying electric vehicles to cut emissions .
It would seem that the IEA ’ s sustainable recovery plan for governments intent on extricating their economies from the world ’ s sharpest downturn since the Great Depression will not have much impact on Asia ’ s planners .
Just last week , the Indian government announced a radical reform initiative aimed at attracting global investments in the long over-regulated coal mining sector .
According to government spokesmen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment will generate jobs , reduce dependence on fuel imports , and stimulate the economy towards a targeted US $ 5 trillion GDP .
In neighboring China , authorities intent on jump-starting an economy stricken by the Covid-19 lockdowns approved nearly 10 gigawatts of new coal-fired power generation projects in the first quarter of 2020 .
This capacity roughly matches the amount approved for all 2019 .
Coal-based power projects will play a similarly important post-Covid-19 economic recovery role in other parts of Asia such as Pakistan , Indonesia , Vietnam , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for cheap coal-based power generation in emerging Asia , as in other developing countries , remains robust .
The call for sustainability , the rallying battle cry in the anti-fossil fuel crusade , permeates the social discourse everywhere .
Private companies signal their commitment to it in advertisements , annual reports , management speeches , and glossy PR brochures .
Thinktanks and “ development experts ” dedicate a voluminous literature to the concept while environmental NGOs and activist shareholders shrilly proclaim its centrality to business investments and government policy .
“ Green ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among government planners in Western Europe , the UK , and in Democrat-held states in the US .
Yet they have no such purchase among their counterparts in developing countries who are well aware that true sustainability means delivering higher standards of living for the striving masses .
Economic growth performance is what retains legitimacy for governments in office , not expensive bets on avoiding complex model-based predictions alarmingly described in the West as “ climate emergencies ” .
For governments in developing countries , the IEA ’ s “ sustainable recovery plan @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Tilak Doshi on Jun 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Governments of the world, take note. The International Energy Agency has a plan for you. If you take the sage advice of the agency’s technocrats, you will do your citizens a huge favor as you struggle to recover from the ravages of the global Covid-19 pandemic.
You will not only boost economic growth and increase employment but also push global greenhouse gas emissions into structural decline. Government planners of the world, unite!
Help your people become richer while saving the world from climate change. Get your free copy of the plan, hot off the press (published June 18).
Alas, some of the world’s more skeptical citizens might be forgiven if they reach for their book of President Ronald Reagan’s quotes and come up with this: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
While it is right to be wary of plans that promise a world where ‘all good things go together’, the considered views of the IEA – the world’s leading source of energy data and analysis — deserve our careful attention.
The plan comes with clear instructions (even if batteries are not included). Planners should “integrate” energy policies into government responses to the economic shock caused by the Covid-19 crisis.
By integrating energy policies into governments’ recovery plans, they would “accelerate the deployment of modern, reliable, and clean energy technologies and infrastructure”.
What exactly are these energy policies that need to be integrated into the “Sustainable Recovery Plan”? Let’s get into the weeds a bit.
Most of the “millions of new jobs” created through the plan “would be in retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency and in the electricity sector, particularly in grids and renewables.”
Other employment generators would lie in promoting energy efficiency in industries and supporting low-carbon vehicles and transport infrastructure.
The IEA notes that “the costs of leading clean energy technologies such as wind and solar PV are far lower, and some emerging technologies like batteries and hydrogen are ready to scale up”.
This is not the place to delve into detailed assessments of these energy policies touted by the IEA. But an overview serves to put across the point that the “science” of energy policy is neither straightforward nor consensual.
Let’s start with that hardy perennial “energy efficiency”, ceaselessly emphasized in countless “roadmaps” published by the many agencies and thinktanks working on energy affairs over the past few decades.
Perhaps the first question that arises to anyone that does business for a living is why would businesses not be “efficient” in energy use or in any other area in which money can be saved?
Why would businessmen not be aware of “efficiency” when their very survival in competitive markets depends on being able to maximize their output at least cost of inputs?
Is it true that there is under-investment in cost-effective energy-conservation technologies? For good reason, economists are skeptical that unexploited profit opportunities can exist for long.
Twenty dollar bills can indeed be found on sidewalks but it is unlikely to be a common occurrence. Like nature abhorring vacuums, the continued existence of unused but profitable options to save on energy is precluded by competitive markets.
Rational choice suggests that observed behavior could well be optimal despite apparently “expert” cost-benefit calculations. Entrepreneurs betting their own money on energy technologies would, one would presume, be intelligent adopters of technology choice in a competitive world.
It is unlikely that otherwise savvy businessmen are clueless on how to save money on energy choices. If that were not to be the case, one would have to re-write the history of capitalism not as the achievements of entrepreneurs risking their capital and skin but as plans carried out by the prescient salariat of bureaucratic organizations.
We are told of the “tremendous energy savings” that “leading clean energy technologies such as wind and solar PV” offer us.
This is in keeping with the endless stream of green success stories pervading the media with assertions that wind and solar power are already competitive with gas and coal-fuelled power plants.
Rigorous economic analyses of the hidden costs of unreliable, weather-dependent solar and wind power have countered such claims.
Energy analysts would be hard put to cite examples of wind and solar energy projects that do not require government subsidies. Indeed, there would be no need for the IEA’s exhortations for governments to support technologies that are allegedly already competitive with fossil fuels.
Warren Buffet explained in refreshingly honest terms that “on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
The average consumer also rightly balks when asked to bear heavy financial burdens of retrofitting homes and buying electric vehicles to cut emissions.
It would seem that the IEA’s sustainable recovery plan for governments intent on extricating their economies from the world’s sharpest downturn since the Great Depression will not have much impact on Asia’s planners.
Just last week, the Indian government announced a radical reform initiative aimed at attracting global investments in the long over-regulated coal mining sector.
According to government spokesmen, opening the coal sector to private investment will generate jobs, reduce dependence on fuel imports, and stimulate the economy towards a targeted US$ 5 trillion GDP.
In neighboring China, authorities intent on jump-starting an economy stricken by the Covid-19 lockdowns approved nearly 10 gigawatts of new coal-fired power generation projects in the first quarter of 2020.
This capacity roughly matches the amount approved for all 2019. Coal-based power projects will play a similarly important post-Covid-19 economic recovery role in other parts of Asia such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, and even in wealthy Japan.
The case for cheap coal-based power generation in emerging Asia, as in other developing countries, remains robust.
The call for sustainability, the rallying battle cry in the anti-fossil fuel crusade, permeates the social discourse everywhere. Private companies signal their commitment to it in advertisements, annual reports, management speeches, and glossy PR brochures.
Thinktanks and “development experts” dedicate a voluminous literature to the concept while environmental NGOs and activist shareholders shrilly proclaim its centrality to business investments and government policy.
“Green” recovery programs may be all the rage among government planners in Western Europe, the UK, and in Democrat-held states in the US.
Yet they have no such purchase among their counterparts in developing countries who are well aware that true sustainability means delivering higher standards of living for the striving masses.
Economic growth performance is what retains legitimacy for governments in office, not expensive bets on avoiding complex model-based predictions alarmingly described in the West as “climate emergencies”.
For governments in developing countries, the IEA’s “sustainable recovery plan” is anything but sustainable.
Read more at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print