climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--Cancel Culture Dominates Climate Research, Canceling The Scientific Method

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Contrary to popular perception , “ cancel culture , ” in which people or their opinions are shamed and shut out of the discussion when they don ’ t conform to whatever those shouting the loudest or rioting in the streets believe , is not a new phenomenon .
For more than two decades , politically connected climate scientists have been leading the cancel culture movement .
These researchers abandoned the pursuit of knowledge and human progress for the pursuit of political power to impose their vision of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking an understanding of the world through the use of the scientific method and its reliance upon data and empirical falsification , they ’ ve promoted the political notion of consensus as to how knowledge is obtained , and comity , rather than experimentation , as to how progress is made .
They “ cancel ” through personal attacks , denial of funding , removing “ opponents ” from positions , and suppressing the research of any researcher or analyst who dares to disagree with the so-called consensus position humans are causing catastrophic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the quaint notion that climate change theory should be tested against data are deemed retrograde or climate deniers , whose views are not worthy of being considered in these days of post-modern climate science .
Indeed , many cancelers advocate for imprisoning climate skeptics .
Let ’ s look at just a couple of examples of where academic conferences and media headlines have given consensus , cancel culture science pride of place over the facts when it comes to alarming climate claims .
Based solely on the unsupported assertions of consensus climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with stories claiming human-caused climate change is causing famine and starvation .
In late June 2020 , Cornell Alliance for Science claimed farmers in sub-Saharan Africa were desperate for new farm technologies and crops to fight a climate change-induced decline in crop production that the Alliance claimed was “ driving millions [ of Africans ] into hunger.
” Yet data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization shows cereal ( staple ) food crop production across southern Africa has grown substantially , and fairly steadily , since at least the 1960s .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 10 highest crop yields in sub-Saharan African history .
Dozens of similarly false claims linking supposed anthropogenic climate change to an agricultural apocalypse were covered by outlets such as Google News , GQ , the New Republic , and Roll Call , over the past couple of months .
Yet , had the journalists writing the stories showed a little bit of investigative initiative they could have easily discovered hundreds of field experiments and studies collected on CO2 Science , much of which was distilled or summarized in the exhaustive report by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Climate Change Reconsidered II : Biological Impacts .
These reports show crop yields have been booming and hunger and malnutrition declining as , and in large part because , carbon dioxide concentrations have been rising .
Following the Democratic playbook per Rahm Emmanuel of “ never letting a crisis go to waste , ” radical climate alarmists have also manipulated science to assert climate change is making pandemics more frequent and deadlier .
Dozens of media outlets , including Jurist Legal , the Los Angeles Times , MSNBC , and Time magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic claiming human-caused climate change , if not already making the incidences of pandemics more likely , would make them more frequent and more deadly in the future .
For instance , an article in Pro-Publica blatantly lied when it stated , “ vector-borne diseases—those carried by insects like mosquitoes and ticks and transferred in the blood of infected people—are also on the rise as warming weather and erratic precipitation vastly expand the geographic regions vulnerable to contagion.
” The body of scientific literature , as detailed in Chapter Four of Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no factual basis for this claim .
Studies from Africa , to England and Wales , to North and South America , to Thailand and beyond find any link between human climate change and the spread of malaria , Dengue fever , West Nile virus , and other vector-borne diseases , either grossly overstated or outright false .
Indeed , historically , colder periods are linked to famine , as crops fail , and the rapid spread of pandemics , like the bubonic plague that ran rampant during the little ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wane , though not disappear , and hunger and malnutrition decline sharply during relatively warm periods .
In one study published in The Lancet in 2015 , researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries , accounting for more than 74 million deaths—a huge sample size from which to draw sound conclusions—found cold weather , directly or indirectly , killed 1,700 percent more people than hot weather .
Commenting on The Lancet study in a 2017 New York Times article , author Jane Brody wrote , “ [ o ] ver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ milder winter temperatures are likely to result in fewer cold-related deaths , a benefit that could outweigh a smaller rise in heat-caused mortality.
” Albert Einstein once said , “ No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right ; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
” Sadly , climate researchers would be canceling Einstein for saying that today .
There is an old adage in legal circles , “ When the law is on your side , pound the law ; when the facts are on your side , pound the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side , pound the table.
” For three decades , climate alarmists have been pounding the table .
They hold rallies carrying placards and wearing t-shirts that say “ Believe Science , ” even as their actions betray science .
Too many climate scientists have become sideshow hucksters hoping to sell the general public the dangerous notion that giving government experts greater control over our lives will allow us to control the weather , and make the world a utopia .
Ask the people in Cuba , Hong Kong , North Korea , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for them .
Read more at The Epoch Times

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Contrary to popular perception, “cancel culture,” in which people or their opinions are shamed and shut out of the discussion when they don’t conform to whatever those shouting the loudest or rioting in the streets believe, is not a new phenomenon.
For more than two decades, politically connected climate scientists have been leading the cancel culture movement.
These researchers abandoned the pursuit of knowledge and human progress for the pursuit of political power to impose their vision of how society should be shaped.
Rather than seeking an understanding of the world through the use of the scientific method and its reliance upon data and empirical falsification, they’ve promoted the political notion of consensus as to how knowledge is obtained, and comity, rather than experimentation, as to how progress is made.
They “cancel” through personal attacks, denial of funding, removing “opponents” from positions, and suppressing the research of any researcher or analyst who dares to disagree with the so-called consensus position humans are causing catastrophic climate change.
Honest scientists who cling to the quaint notion that climate change theory should be tested against data are deemed retrograde or climate deniers, whose views are not worthy of being considered in these days of post-modern climate science. Indeed, many cancelers advocate for imprisoning climate skeptics.
Let’s look at just a couple of examples of where academic conferences and media headlines have given consensus, cancel culture science pride of place over the facts when it comes to alarming climate claims.
Based solely on the unsupported assertions of consensus climate researchers, the media has been flooded with stories claiming human-caused climate change is causing famine and starvation.
In late June 2020, Cornell Alliance for Science claimed farmers in sub-Saharan Africa were desperate for new farm technologies and crops to fight a climate change-induced decline in crop production that the Alliance claimed was “driving millions [of Africans] into hunger.”
Yet data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization shows cereal (staple) food crop production across southern Africa has grown substantially, and fairly steadily, since at least the 1960s.
Moreover, the past 10 years have provided the 10 highest crop yields in sub-Saharan African history.
Dozens of similarly false claims linking supposed anthropogenic climate change to an agricultural apocalypse were covered by outlets such as Google News, GQ, the New Republic, and Roll Call, over the past couple of months.
Yet, had the journalists writing the stories showed a little bit of investigative initiative they could have easily discovered hundreds of field experiments and studies collected on CO2 Science, much of which was distilled or summarized in the exhaustive report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.
These reports show crop yields have been booming and hunger and malnutrition declining as, and in large part because, carbon dioxide concentrations have been rising.
Following the Democratic playbook per Rahm Emmanuel of “never letting a crisis go to waste,” radical climate alarmists have also manipulated science to assert climate change is making pandemics more frequent and deadlier.
Dozens of media outlets, including Jurist Legal, the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and Time magazine published articles during the midst of the coronavirus pandemic claiming human-caused climate change, if not already making the incidences of pandemics more likely, would make them more frequent and more deadly in the future.
For instance, an article in Pro-Publica blatantly lied when it stated, “vector-borne diseases—those carried by insects like mosquitoes and ticks and transferred in the blood of infected people—are also on the rise as warming weather and erratic precipitation vastly expand the geographic regions vulnerable to contagion.”
The body of scientific literature, as detailed in Chapter Four of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels shows there is no factual basis for this claim.
Studies from Africa, to England and Wales, to North and South America, to Thailand and beyond find any link between human climate change and the spread of malaria, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, and other vector-borne diseases, either grossly overstated or outright false.
Indeed, historically, colder periods are linked to famine, as crops fail, and the rapid spread of pandemics, like the bubonic plague that ran rampant during the little ice age.
By contrast, pandemics typically wane, though not disappear, and hunger and malnutrition decline sharply during relatively warm periods.
In one study published in The Lancet in 2015, researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths—a huge sample size from which to draw sound conclusions—found cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700 percent more people than hot weather.
Commenting on The Lancet study in a 2017 New York Times article, author Jane Brody wrote, “[o]ver time, as global temperatures rise, milder winter temperatures are likely to result in fewer cold-related deaths, a benefit that could outweigh a smaller rise in heat-caused mortality.”
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Sadly, climate researchers would be canceling Einstein for saying that today.
There is an old adage in legal circles, “When the law is on your side, pound the law; when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when neither is on your side, pound the table.”
For three decades, climate alarmists have been pounding the table. They hold rallies carrying placards and wearing t-shirts that say “Believe Science,” even as their actions betray science.
Too many climate scientists have become sideshow hucksters hoping to sell the general public the dangerous notion that giving government experts greater control over our lives will allow us to control the weather, and make the world a utopia.
Ask the people in Cuba, Hong Kong, North Korea, of Venezuela how that is working out for them.
Read more at The Epoch Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-16--She’s Back! Greta Thunberg Demands Response To Climate ‘Crisis‘ NOW

Written by Simon Kent on .
Posted in Latest news Teenage climate worrier Greta Thunberg issued a string of fresh demands Thursday for world leaders to take emergency action on climate change , lamenting some had “ given up ” on the possibility of preparing a decent future for coming generations .
Key to her list of executive actions was an immediate end to all investments in fossil fuel in parallel with a shutting down of fossil fuel subsidies as well as making “ ecocide an international crime at the International Criminal Court.
” In an interview with Reuters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to transform the global economic system as a basic step in avoiding “ a climate catastrophe.
” “ We need to see it as , above all , an existential crisis .
And as long as it ’ s not being treated as a crisis , we can have as many of these climate change negotiations and talks , conferences as possible .
It won ’ t change a thing , ” Thunberg said , speaking via video from her home in Stockholm .
Her call to action marks a return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people were simply trying to bathe in her reflected achievements rather than working to the common environmental goals she keeps setting : “ Above all , we are demanding that we need to treat this crisis as a crisis , because if we don ’ t do that , then we won ’ t be able to do anything , ” Thunberg said .
Thunberg joined several thousand people , including climate scientists , economists , actors , and activists in signing an open letter urging European leaders to start treating climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reuters reports .
The letter was made public hours before a European Council summit where countries in the 27-member E.U .
will try to reach a deal on the bloc ’ s next budget and outline a path to economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic .
Demands in the letter included an immediate halt to all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction , in parallel with a rapid ending of fossil fuel subsidies .
It also called for binding annual “ carbon budgets ” to limit how much greenhouse gas countries can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rise in average global temperatures at 1.5C , a goal enshrined in the 2015 Paris climate accord .
“ We understand and know very well that the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy .
The changes necessary to safeguard humanity may seem very unrealistic , ” the letter said .
“ But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our society would be able to survive the global heating we ’ re heading for , as well as other disastrous ecological consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

Written by Simon Kent on Jul 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Teenage climate worrier Greta Thunberg issued a string of fresh demands Thursday for world leaders to take emergency action on climate change, lamenting some had “given up” on the possibility of preparing a decent future for coming generations.
Key to her list of executive actions was an immediate end to all investments in fossil fuel in parallel with a shutting down of fossil fuel subsidies as well as making “ecocide an international crime at the International Criminal Court.”
In an interview with Reuters, the 17-year-old said governments must accept the need to transform the global economic system as a basic step in avoiding “a climate catastrophe.”
“We need to see it as, above all, an existential crisis. And as long as it’s not being treated as a crisis, we can have as many of these climate change negotiations and talks, conferences as possible. It won’t change a thing,” Thunberg said, speaking via video from her home in Stockholm.
Her call to action marks a return to the global stage after she complained too many people were simply trying to bathe in her reflected achievements rather than working to the common environmental goals she keeps setting:
“Above all, we are demanding that we need to treat this crisis as a crisis, because if we don’t do that, then we won’t be able to do anything,” Thunberg said.
Thunberg joined several thousand people, including climate scientists, economists, actors, and activists in signing an open letter urging European leaders to start treating climate change like an “emergency,” Reuters reports.
The letter was made public hours before a European Council summit where countries in the 27-member E.U. will try to reach a deal on the bloc’s next budget and outline a path to economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic.
Demands in the letter included an immediate halt to all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, in parallel with a rapid ending of fossil fuel subsidies.
It also called for binding annual “carbon budgets” to limit how much greenhouse gas countries can emit to maximize the chances of capping the rise in average global temperatures at 1.5C, a goal enshrined in the 2015 Paris climate accord.
“We understand and know very well that the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy. The changes necessary to safeguard humanity may seem very unrealistic,” the letter said.
“But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our society would be able to survive the global heating we’re heading for, as well as other disastrous ecological consequences of today’s business as usual.”
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-16--Nets Hide Skyrocketing Costs Of Biden’s ‘Clean Energy’ Plan

Written by Scott Whitlock on .
Posted in Latest news The networks are trying to keep something from you .
They don ’ t want you to know about Joe Biden ’ s outrageously expensive “ clean energy ” program and his plan to make America carbon-free in 15 years .
On Wednesday , only CBS This Morning mentioned the goals and the $ 2 trillion cost .
And that was only for a scant 25 seconds .
ABC ’ s Good Morning America and NBC ’ s Today skipped the skyrocketing cost over just four years .
( The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined four hours of air time . )
“ Biden is now also pushing a $ 2 trillion clean energy and infrastructure plan that he says would help reboot the economy after the pandemic .
“ Biden said his plans would help create millions of new jobs in the auto industry and through government-backed construction projects .
“ In a nod to liberal Democrats pushing for more aggressive climate change proposals , Biden , for the first time , is calling for a carbon-free power sector in the next 15 years.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one way to put it .
Before going further , let me state the obvious : $ 2 trillion is a lot of money and Biden plans to spend that sum in just four years .
For reference , annual domestic electricity sales total about $ 400 billion per year .
Thus , Biden ’ s plan calls for expenditures equal to five times the amount that consumers and industry are now spending annually on electricity .
Overhauling the electric grid , which has been called the world ’ s largest machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewables , is no simple task .
That can be seen by looking at California , which has some of the country ’ s most aggressive decarbonization goals .
Over the past decade or so , the state has steadily increased its renewable-electricity mandates .
By 2030 , the state ’ s electric utilities must be getting at least 60 % of their electricity from renewables and they must be producing 100 % “ zero-carbon ” electricity by 2045 .
But according to CBS , that ’ s simply an uncomplicated “ nod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kristen Welker gave it a vague sentence : “ The Rose Garden event was announced just before Biden took the stage in Delaware , unveiling a clean energy plan and slamming the President ’ s handling of the pandemic.
” On Tuesday , CBS Evening News Anchor Norah O ’ Donnell glided right past the cost , mentioning it but with no explanation of the magnitude : “ Today , Joe Biden unveiled a $ 2 trillion plan to fight climate change and create jobs in the post-COVID economy.
” Fox News provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attack on Biden ’ s behemoth government plan : FOX NEWS ANCHOR SANDRA SMITH : Biden is taking on this carbon-free power plan that he says he could deliver on by 2030 — the plan could deliver by on 2035. and as you said the price tag , $ 2 trillion .
The President in the past has said that a Joe Biden would destroy the economy .
Now he is saying that it would demolish it .
CBS ’ s 25 seconds of journalistic malpractice was sponsored by Jeep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let them know what you think .

Written by Scott Whitlock on Jul 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The networks are trying to keep something from you. They don’t want you to know about Joe Biden’s outrageously expensive “clean energy” program and his plan to make America carbon-free in 15 years.
On Wednesday, only CBS This Morning mentioned the goals and the $2 trillion cost. And that was only for a scant 25 seconds.
ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today skipped the skyrocketing cost over just four years. (The ABC and NBC morning shows have a combined four hours of air time.)
On This Morning, Ed O’Keefe briefly explained,
“Biden is now also pushing a $2 trillion clean energy and infrastructure plan that he says would help reboot the economy after the pandemic.
“Biden said his plans would help create millions of new jobs in the auto industry and through government-backed construction projects.
“In a nod to liberal Democrats pushing for more aggressive climate change proposals, Biden, for the first time, is calling for a carbon-free power sector in the next 15 years.”
A nod to liberal Democrats? That’s one way to put it.
Here’s how Forbes magazine reviewed the plan:
Before going further, let me state the obvious: $2 trillion is a lot of money and Biden plans to spend that sum in just four years. For reference, annual domestic electricity sales total about $400 billion per year.
Thus, Biden’s plan calls for expenditures equal to five times the amount that consumers and industry are now spending annually on electricity.
Overhauling the electric grid, which has been called the world’s largest machine, and converting much of it to renewables, is no simple task. That can be seen by looking at California, which has some of the country’s most aggressive decarbonization goals.
Over the past decade or so, the state has steadily increased its renewable-electricity mandates. By 2030, the state’s electric utilities must be getting at least 60% of their electricity from renewables and they must be producing 100% “zero-carbon” electricity by 2045.
But according to CBS, that’s simply an uncomplicated “nod” to the left.
Today avoided explaining the plan altogether.
Instead, Kristen Welker gave it a vague sentence: “The Rose Garden event was announced just before Biden took the stage in Delaware, unveiling a clean energy plan and slamming the President’s handling of the pandemic.”
ABC’s Good Morning America had nothing.
On Tuesday, CBS Evening News Anchor Norah O’Donnell glided right past the cost, mentioning it but with no explanation of the magnitude:
“Today, Joe Biden unveiled a $2 trillion plan to fight climate change and create jobs in the post-COVID economy.”
Fox News provided more context on Wednesday, citing Trump’s attack on Biden’s behemoth government plan:
FOX NEWS ANCHOR SANDRA SMITH: Biden is taking on this carbon-free power plan that he says he could deliver on by 2030 — the plan could deliver by on 2035. and as you said the price tag, $2 trillion. The President in the past has said that a Joe Biden would destroy the economy. Now he is saying that it would demolish it.
CBS’s 25 seconds of journalistic malpractice was sponsored by Jeep and Amazon. Click on the links to let them know what you think.
Read rest at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-16--New Paper Shows Hidden Cost Of Net-Zero Decarbonization

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The UK faces a £200 billion bill to rewire the country if the government follows through on plans to electrify the country ’ s homes and transport systems .
That ’ s because the installation of electric car chargers and heat pumps will push up demand for power beyond the capacity of the existing wiring .
The findings are set out in a new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation , which is published today .
According to author Mike Travers , this will mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be dug up ( with diesel-driven machinery ) : “ At present , new home car chargers and heat pumps are using up all the spare capacity .
But we will soon reach the point where the network will not be able to handle the extra demand .
So in towns and cities , the underground cables which carry the power will be inadequate .
That means that we are going to have to dig up almost every urban street and many rural ones too .
The whole distribution grid is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the cables that carry power into the homes will need to be dug up too .
“ The power cables taking electricity into your home probably run underneath your front drive .
So if you want a car charger and a heat pump you are going to have to pay to dig it up .
If you have an expensive monoblock drive , that will not be cheap .
Distribution boards , main fuses , and smart meters in homes are going to have to be upgraded too.
” Travers has estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around £200 billion , even before considering the cost caused by the disruption .
“ Many homeowners will be paying thousands ” , he says .
Plans to decarbonize the economy will probably require homeowners to install : The extra demand for electricity will overwhelm most domestic fuses , thus requiring homeowners to install new ones , as well as circuit-breakers and new distribution boards .
Most will also have to rewire between their main fuse and the distribution network .
In urban areas , where most electrical cabling is underground , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dug between the home and the feeder circuits in the street .
In addition , increased demand along a street will mean that the distribution network will need to be upgraded too .
This will involve installing larger cables and replacing distribution transformers with larger ones .
Most urban streets will need to be dug up .
In rural areas , where electricity is normally carried on overhead cables , it may be possible to just replace the wires , but it is more likely that cabling will have to be buried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rewiring alone will probably exceed £200 billion , or over £7,000 per household .
This figure excludes the cost of new equipment , such as EV chargers , heat pumps , and electric showers .
Mike Travers , CEng , MIMechE , FIET is an electrical engineer , whose career spanned periods in the Royal Engineers , in the hydroelectric sector , and industry .
His paper is entitled The Hidden Cost of Net Zero : Rewiring the UK and can be downloaded here ( pdf )

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, guest post on Jul 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The UK faces a £200 billion bill to rewire the country if the government follows through on plans to electrify the country’s homes and transport systems.
That’s because the installation of electric car chargers and heat pumps will push up demand for power beyond the capacity of the existing wiring.
The findings are set out in a new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is published today.
According to author Mike Travers, this will mean that most streets in the UK will need to be dug up (with diesel-driven machinery):
“At present, new home car chargers and heat pumps are using up all the spare capacity. But we will soon reach the point where the network will not be able to handle the extra demand. So in towns and cities, the underground cables which carry the power will be inadequate. That means that we are going to have to dig up almost every urban street and many rural ones too. The whole distribution grid is going to need to be replaced.”
And the cables that carry power into the homes will need to be dug up too.
According to Travers:
“The power cables taking electricity into your home probably run underneath your front drive. So if you want a car charger and a heat pump you are going to have to pay to dig it up. If you have an expensive monoblock drive, that will not be cheap. Distribution boards, main fuses, and smart meters in homes are going to have to be upgraded too.”
Travers has estimated the cost of all this work at around £200 billion, even before considering the cost caused by the disruption. “Many homeowners will be paying thousands”, he says.
Summary
Plans to decarbonize the economy will probably require homeowners to install:
• heat pumps
• electric vehicle charging points
• electric showers
• other electric devices.
The extra demand for electricity will overwhelm most domestic fuses, thus requiring homeowners to install new ones, as well as circuit-breakers and new distribution boards.
Most will also have to rewire between their main fuse and the distribution network.
In urban areas, where most electrical cabling is underground, this will involve paying for a trench to be dug between the home and the feeder circuits in the street.
In addition, increased demand along a street will mean that the distribution network will need to be upgraded too. This will involve installing larger cables and replacing distribution transformers with larger ones.
Most urban streets will need to be dug up. In rural areas, where electricity is normally carried on overhead cables, it may be possible to just replace the wires, but it is more likely that cabling will have to be buried instead.
The cost to the country of rewiring alone will probably exceed £200 billion, or over £7,000 per household. This figure excludes the cost of new equipment, such as EV chargers, heat pumps, and electric showers.
Mike Travers, CEng, MIMechE, FIET is an electrical engineer, whose career spanned periods in the Royal Engineers, in the hydroelectric sector, and industry.
His paper is entitled The Hidden Cost of Net Zero: Rewiring the UK and can be downloaded here (pdf)
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-16--Biden’s Energy Plan Would Send U.S. Into The Dark Ages

Written by Jack Hellner on .
Posted in Latest news On July 14 , Joe Biden gave a summary of one of his proposals to destroy the U.S. economy .
This one would eliminate the use of oil .
He said science says that we only have nine years left to address the problem .
“ If I have the honor of being elected president , we ’ re not just going to tinker around the edges .
We ’ re going to make historic investments that will seize the opportunity , meet this moment in history , ” Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It appears that Biden determined his policy after reading an almost 100-year-old newspaper in his basement .
In November 1922 , the Washington Post had a front-page story saying temperatures were rising , oceans were dying , ice caps were melting , and coastal cities would soon be gone .
We have heard these same dire predictions for almost 100 years but no matter how wrong they have been , we are told that the science is settled .
No debate is allowed .
We also were told in 1970 that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global cooling .
It is the same with COVID-19 .
No matter how far off the predictions have been and how wrong the pronouncements have been from the “ experts , ” we are told the science is settled .
Most of the media along with other Americans are rightfully excited that the U.S will again send American astronauts into space from U.S. soil instead of forced to hitch rides with the Russians as they have for nine years .
So , what happens to the space program if we elect Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop using oil ?
What happens to the Hawaiian economy and travel and leisure industries if Democrats get their way ?
What do we do for farmers and others when their equipment becomes worthless without oil ?
What will we do for financial institutions when their collateral of cars , trucks , planes , farm , and construction becomes worthless ?
Where are the junkyards to handle the hundreds of millions of cars , trucks , trains , planes , motorcycles , and other equipment powered by oil ?
How do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels and wind turbines without machines powered by fossil fuels ?
How would we have mobilized for the pandemic without oil ?
How do we defend ourselves against Russia , China , and Iran without oil ?
Hasn ’ t the length and quality of life increased substantially since the advent of fossil fuels ?
Why would we want to go backward ?
Why would we call policies that move us backward progressive ?
Why are we having a heatwave this summer when oil use is so far down ?
I would think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then all the cars , trucks , planes , and ships not being used , along with offices and malls not using AC and electricity , would have caused a temperature drop if there was a correlation .
Wouldn ’ t it also help that the glorious masks were trapping all that heat causing CO2 ?
The truth is there is no scientific data that shows a direct correlation between temperature and oil use or population .
The temperature has always fluctuated .
The Little Ice Age ended around 1850 and a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ multi-centennial cold period ] ended .
The truth is that the Democrats ’ energy policies and other policies have never been about science .
They are all about the government controlling the people .
The founders envisioned that the government should work for the people but the Democrats believe that the people should obey the government no matter what they do .
I saw this morning that Lee Greenwood ’ s decades-old song “ God Bless the USA ” hit number one for the first time .
Hopefully , we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remake and destroy the greatest and most generous country that ever existed .
Why do most journalists reflexively support Democrat policies without asking questions ?
They essentially have become campaign workers for Democrats instead of being watchdogs for the people .

Written by Jack Hellner on Jul 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On July 14, Joe Biden gave a summary of one of his proposals to destroy the U.S. economy. This one would eliminate the use of oil.
He said science says that we only have nine years left to address the problem.
“If I have the honor of being elected president, we’re not just going to tinker around the edges. We’re going to make historic investments that will seize the opportunity, meet this moment in history,” Biden said in a speech unveiling the plan.
It appears that Biden determined his policy after reading an almost 100-year-old newspaper in his basement.
In November 1922, the Washington Post had a front-page story saying temperatures were rising, oceans were dying, ice caps were melting, and coastal cities would soon be gone.
We have heard these same dire predictions for almost 100 years but no matter how wrong they have been, we are told that the science is settled.
No debate is allowed. We also were told in 1970 that we only had a few years left because of global cooling.
It is the same with COVID-19. No matter how far off the predictions have been and how wrong the pronouncements have been from the “experts,” we are told the science is settled.
Most of the media along with other Americans are rightfully excited that the U.S will again send American astronauts into space from U.S. soil instead of forced to hitch rides with the Russians as they have for nine years.
So, what happens to the space program if we elect Biden and enact the Democrats’ proposed policies to stop using oil?
What happens to the Hawaiian economy and travel and leisure industries if Democrats get their way?
What do we do for farmers and others when their equipment becomes worthless without oil?
What will we do for financial institutions when their collateral of cars, trucks, planes, farm, and construction becomes worthless?
Where are the junkyards to handle the hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, trains, planes, motorcycles, and other equipment powered by oil?
How do we produce, transport, and install solar panels and wind turbines without machines powered by fossil fuels?
How would we have mobilized for the pandemic without oil?
How do we defend ourselves against Russia, China, and Iran without oil?
Hasn’t the length and quality of life increased substantially since the advent of fossil fuels? Why would we want to go backward? Why would we call policies that move us backward progressive?
Why are we having a heatwave this summer when oil use is so far down?
I would think that if oil consumption was the problem then all the cars, trucks, planes, and ships not being used, along with offices and malls not using AC and electricity, would have caused a temperature drop if there was a correlation.
Wouldn’t it also help that the glorious masks were trapping all that heat causing CO2?
The truth is there is no scientific data that shows a direct correlation between temperature and oil use or population.
The temperature has always fluctuated. The Little Ice Age ended around 1850 and a little warming would always be normal after that [multi-centennial cold period] ended.
The truth is that the Democrats’ energy policies and other policies have never been about science. They are all about the government controlling the people.
The founders envisioned that the government should work for the people but the Democrats believe that the people should obey the government no matter what they do.
I saw this morning that Lee Greenwood’s decades-old song “God Bless the USA” hit number one for the first time.
Hopefully, we don’t elect someone whose intent is to remake and destroy the greatest and most generous country that ever existed.
Why do most journalists reflexively support Democrat policies without asking questions? They essentially have become campaign workers for Democrats instead of being watchdogs for the people.
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--2020-07-16--Antarctic ‘Doomsday Glacier’ Is Really Doomsday For Climate Alarmism

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news A fake climate scare making headlines comes from researchers who say West Antarctica ’ s Thwaites glacier may soon collapse , raising sea levels by 6 feet or more over the next century .
Alarmists are dubbing this the “ Doomsday Glacier.
” This is ironically true , as the fake climate scare of the Doomsday Glacier is really a doomsday for climate alarmism .
The Financial Times ( FT ) in an article titled , “ Climate change : what Antarctica ’ s ‘ doomsday glacier ’ means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ if Thwaites goes , the knock-on effect across the western half of Antarctica would lead to between 2m and 3m of sea-level rise… a rise that would be catastrophic for most coastal cities.
” The FT article implies climate change is behind the Thwaites glacier ’ s rate of asserted melting and instability , ignoring evidence to the contrary .
I debunked that claim in a July 3 Climate Realism post in which I pointed out global satellite data showed no warming or cooling trend at the South Pole since measurements began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1998 , ground-based temperature measurements across Antarctica show the continent has cooled for 20 of the last 30 years .
So how can global warming cause the alleged instability of the Thwaites glacier ?
It simply can not .
Throughout geologic history , West Antarctica is also referred to as Lesser Antarctica , being the smaller half of the continent .
The ice there has been unstable , with many regions , including regions in an around the Thwaites glacier , underpinned by subsurface volcanic activity .
Moreover , “ During past interglacials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been completely removed , ” states AntarcticGlaciers.org .
Even with any decline of the Thwaites glacier and other areas of West Antarctica , it is not even clear if Antarctica is adding to recent modest sea-level rise .
In 2015 , NASA reported Antarctica as a whole was adding tens of thousands of tons of snow and ice each year in its interior .
NASA wrote , “ the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 .
That net gain slowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year between 2003 and 2008.
” As such , at least through 2008 , Antarctica ice change was , on the net , reducing the rate of global sea-level rise .
Alarmists , ironically , point to other studies that they claim place NASA ’ s findings in doubt .
Regardless , Antarctica ’ s average temperatures range from -60 degrees C ( -76 F ) during winter to -20 C ( -4 F ) in summer .
Accordingly , no meltdown of the Antarctic continent is in the offing .
The so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – other than a Doomsday Illustration of the flawed Climate Delusion .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A fake climate scare making headlines comes from researchers who say West Antarctica’s Thwaites glacier may soon collapse, raising sea levels by 6 feet or more over the next century.
Alarmists are dubbing this the “Doomsday Glacier.” This is ironically true, as the fake climate scare of the Doomsday Glacier is really a doomsday for climate alarmism.
The Financial Times (FT) in an article titled, “Climate change: what Antarctica’s ‘doomsday glacier’ means for the planet,” writes, “if Thwaites goes, the knock-on effect across the western half of Antarctica would lead to between 2m and 3m of sea-level rise… a rise that would be catastrophic for most coastal cities.”
The FT article implies climate change is behind the Thwaites glacier’s rate of asserted melting and instability, ignoring evidence to the contrary.
I debunked that claim in a July 3 Climate Realism post in which I pointed out global satellite data showed no warming or cooling trend at the South Pole since measurements began in 1979.
In addition, since 1998, ground-based temperature measurements across Antarctica show the continent has cooled for 20 of the last 30 years.
So how can global warming cause the alleged instability of the Thwaites glacier? It simply cannot.
Throughout geologic history, West Antarctica is also referred to as Lesser Antarctica, being the smaller half of the continent.
The ice there has been unstable, with many regions, including regions in an around the Thwaites glacier, underpinned by subsurface volcanic activity.
Moreover, “During past interglacials, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been completely removed,” states AntarcticGlaciers.org.
Even with any decline of the Thwaites glacier and other areas of West Antarctica, it is not even clear if Antarctica is adding to recent modest sea-level rise.
In 2015, NASA reported Antarctica as a whole was adding tens of thousands of tons of snow and ice each year in its interior.
NASA wrote, “the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”
As such, at least through 2008, Antarctica ice change was, on the net, reducing the rate of global sea-level rise.
Alarmists, ironically, point to other studies that they claim place NASA’s findings in doubt.
Regardless, Antarctica’s average temperatures range from -60 degrees C (-76 F) during winter to -20 C (-4 F) in summer. Accordingly, no meltdown of the Antarctic continent is in the offing.
The so-called Doomsday Glacier is really a Doomsday Nothing – other than a Doomsday Illustration of the flawed Climate Delusion.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-16--The Pandemic Panic Shows Us Why Science Needs Skeptics

Written by Peter St. Onge on .
Posted in Latest news The dumpster fire of COVID predictions has shown exactly why it ’ s important to sustain and nurture skeptics , lest we blunder into scientific monoculture and groupthink .
And yet the explosion of “ cancel culture ” intolerance of any opinion that doesn ’ t fit a shrinking “ 3 x 5 card ” of right-think risks destroying the very tolerance and science that sustains our civilization .
Since World War II , America has suffered two respiratory pandemics comparable to COVID-19 : the 1958 “ Asian flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong flu.
” In neither case did we shut down the economy—people were simply more careful .
Not all that careful , of course—Jimi Hendrix was playing at Woodstock in the middle of the 1969 pandemic , and social distancing wasn ’ t really a thing in the “ Summer of Love.
” And yet COVID-19 was very different thanks to a single “ buggy mess ” of a computer prediction from one Neil Ferguson , a British epidemiologist given to hysterical overestimates of deaths , from mad cow to bird flu to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 million deaths in America unless we basically shut down the economy .
Panicked policymakers took his prediction as gospel , dressed as it was in the cloak of science .
Now , long after governments plunged half the world into a Great Depression , those panicked revisions are being quietly revised down by an order of magnitude , now suggesting a final tally comparable to 1958 and 1969 .
COVID-19 would have been a deadly pandemic with or without Ferguson ’ s fantasies , but had we known the true scale and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chosen better-tailored means to both safeguards the elderly and at-risk while sustaining the wider economy .
After all , economists have long known that mass unemployment and widespread bankruptcies carry enormous health consequences that are very real to the victims suffering drained life savings , ruined businesses , broken families , widespread mental and physical health deterioration , even suicide .
COVID-19 has illustrated the importance of free and robust inquiry .
After all , panicked politicians facing media accusations of “ killing grandma ” aren ’ t in a very good position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need intellectual ammunition .
Not only to show them which path is best , but to bolster them when a left-wing media establishment attacks .
Moreover , voters need this ammunition so they can actually tell the politicians what to do .
This means two things : debate that is transparent , and debate that is tolerant of skeptics .
Transparency means data and computer code open to public scrutiny as the minimum requirement for any study that is used to justify policy , from lockdowns to carbon taxes to whatever comes next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verifiable facts , code that does what it says it does , and the ensuing decision-making process must be transparent and open to the public .
One former Indian bureaucrat put it well : “ Emergency situations like this pandemic should require a far higher—and not lower—level of scrutiny , ” since policy choices have such tremendous impact .
“ This suggests a need for democracies to strengthen their critical thinking capacity by creating an independent ‘ Black Hat ’ institution whose purpose would be to question any technical foundations of government decisions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate must be tolerant of alternative opinions .
This means ideas that are wrong , offensive , even dangerous , have to be tolerated , even celebrated .
By all means , refute them—most alternative hypotheses are completely wrong , so it shouldn ’ t be hard to simply refute them without censorship .
This , after all , is the essence of science—to generate hypotheses testable by anybody , not just licensed “ experts.
” Whether we are faced with a new crisis , a new policy innovation , or simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censorship are recipes for disaster and stagnation , while transparency and tolerance of new ideas are the very essences of progress .
Indeed , it is largely this scientific tolerance that allowed us to rise up from the long , brutal darkness of poverty .
As Francis Bacon observed three hundred years ago , innovation and new knowledge do not come from prestigious “ learned ” insiders , rather progress comes from the questioner , the tinkerer , the skeptic .
The industry of artificers maketh some small improvement of things invented , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stumble upon somewhat which is new , but all the disputation of the learned never brought to light one effect of nature before unknown .
( In Praise of Knowledge , vol .
1 , [ 1740 ] 1850 ) Indeed , every major scientific advance challenged the “ settled science ” of its day and was often denounced as pernicious and false , even dangerous .
The modern blood transfusion , for example , was developed in the late 1600s , then banned for nearly a century by a hostile medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of lives at the altar of groupthink and hostility to skeptics .
It ’ s comforting to know that our problems are old ones , and also encouraging that our solution is both time-tested and simple : transparency and tolerance .
After all , the very reason our culture elevates science is because it is built on a millennia-long evolutionary “ battle of ideas ” in which theories are constantly tested and retested in a delightfully endless search for ever better understanding .
This implies there is no such thing as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrary to the scientific method .
In reality , science is not some billion-dollar gleaming palace in Bethesda , rather it ’ s a gnarled mutant sewer rat that takes all comers because it ’ s been burned , cut , run over , crushed , run through the wood chipper , and survived .
That ugly beast is our salvation , not the gleaming palace where we bow down to whichever random guy has the biggest degree in the room .
Only with the free inquiry for the most unpopular , offensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong ideas imaginable does that power sustain .
And if we break that , we can expect a series of rapid catastrophes that , like failed golden ages of the past , return us to the nasty , brutish , and very short lives that have been humanity ’ s norm .
Whether pandemic , climate change , “ institutional racism , ” or whatever new crisis they conjure next , we have a fundamental right to tenaciously defend the transparency and tolerance that constitutes science itself so that it remains among humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we preserve this golden age that would astound our ancestors .

Written by Peter St. Onge on Jul 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The dumpster fire of COVID predictions has shown exactly why it’s important to sustain and nurture skeptics, lest we blunder into scientific monoculture and groupthink.
And yet the explosion of “cancel culture” intolerance of any opinion that doesn’t fit a shrinking “3 x 5 card” of right-think risks destroying the very tolerance and science that sustains our civilization.
Since World War II, America has suffered two respiratory pandemics comparable to COVID-19: the 1958 “Asian flu,” then the 1969 “Hong Kong flu.” In neither case did we shut down the economy—people were simply more careful.
Not all that careful, of course—Jimi Hendrix was playing at Woodstock in the middle of the 1969 pandemic, and social distancing wasn’t really a thing in the “Summer of Love.”
And yet COVID-19 was very different thanks to a single “buggy mess” of a computer prediction from one Neil Ferguson, a British epidemiologist given to hysterical overestimates of deaths, from mad cow to bird flu to H1N1.
For COVID-19, Ferguson predicted 3 million deaths in America unless we basically shut down the economy. Panicked policymakers took his prediction as gospel, dressed as it was in the cloak of science.
Now, long after governments plunged half the world into a Great Depression, those panicked revisions are being quietly revised down by an order of magnitude, now suggesting a final tally comparable to 1958 and 1969.
COVID-19 would have been a deadly pandemic with or without Ferguson’s fantasies, but had we known the true scale and parameters of the threat we might have chosen better-tailored means to both safeguards the elderly and at-risk while sustaining the wider economy.
After all, economists have long known that mass unemployment and widespread bankruptcies carry enormous health consequences that are very real to the victims suffering drained life savings, ruined businesses, broken families, widespread mental and physical health deterioration, even suicide.
Decisions involve tradeoffs.
COVID-19 has illustrated the importance of free and robust inquiry. After all, panicked politicians facing media accusations of “killing grandma” aren’t in a very good position to evaluate these tradeoffs, and they need intellectual ammunition.
Not only to show them which path is best, but to bolster them when a left-wing media establishment attacks.
Moreover, voters need this ammunition so they can actually tell the politicians what to do. This means two things: debate that is transparent, and debate that is tolerant of skeptics.
Transparency means data and computer code open to public scrutiny as the minimum requirement for any study that is used to justify policy, from lockdowns to carbon taxes to whatever comes next.
These studies must be based on verifiable facts, code that does what it says it does, and the ensuing decision-making process must be transparent and open to the public.
One former Indian bureaucrat put it well:
“Emergency situations like this pandemic should require a far higher—and not lower—level of scrutiny,” since policy choices have such tremendous impact.
“This suggests a need for democracies to strengthen their critical thinking capacity by creating an independent ‘Black Hat’ institution whose purpose would be to question any technical foundations of government decisions.”
Even more important than transparency, the debate must be tolerant of alternative opinions. This means ideas that are wrong, offensive, even dangerous, have to be tolerated, even celebrated.
By all means, refute them—most alternative hypotheses are completely wrong, so it shouldn’t be hard to simply refute them without censorship.
This, after all, is the essence of science—to generate hypotheses testable by anybody, not just licensed “experts.”
Whether we are faced with a new crisis, a new policy innovation, or simply designing a better mousetrap, groupthink and censorship are recipes for disaster and stagnation, while transparency and tolerance of new ideas are the very essences of progress.
Indeed, it is largely this scientific tolerance that allowed us to rise up from the long, brutal darkness of poverty.
As Francis Bacon observed three hundred years ago, innovation and new knowledge do not come from prestigious “learned” insiders, rather progress comes from the questioner, the tinkerer, the skeptic.
The industry of artificers maketh some small improvement of things invented, and chance sometimes in experimenting maketh us to stumble upon somewhat which is new, but all the disputation of the learned never brought to light one effect of nature before unknown. (In Praise of Knowledge, vol. 1, [1740] 1850)
Indeed, every major scientific advance challenged the “settled science” of its day and was often denounced as pernicious and false, even dangerous.
The modern blood transfusion, for example, was developed in the late 1600s, then banned for nearly a century by a hostile medical establishment, “canceling” tens of millions of lives at the altar of groupthink and hostility to skeptics.
It’s comforting to know that our problems are old ones, and also encouraging that our solution is both time-tested and simple: transparency and tolerance.
After all, the very reason our culture elevates science is because it is built on a millennia-long evolutionary “battle of ideas” in which theories are constantly tested and retested in a delightfully endless search for ever better understanding.
This implies there is no such thing as “settled science”—the phrase itself is contrary to the scientific method.
In reality, science is not some billion-dollar gleaming palace in Bethesda, rather it’s a gnarled mutant sewer rat that takes all comers because it’s been burned, cut, run over, crushed, run through the wood chipper, and survived.
That ugly beast is our salvation, not the gleaming palace where we bow down to whichever random guy has the biggest degree in the room.
Only with the free inquiry for the most unpopular, offensive, dangerous, and, yes, wrong ideas imaginable does that power sustain.
And if we break that, we can expect a series of rapid catastrophes that, like failed golden ages of the past, return us to the nasty, brutish, and very short lives that have been humanity’s norm.
Whether pandemic, climate change, “institutional racism,” or whatever new crisis they conjure next, we have a fundamental right to tenaciously defend the transparency and tolerance that constitutes science itself so that it remains among humanity’s crowning achievements, and so that we preserve this golden age that would astound our ancestors.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at Mises Institute
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--Fake Fact-Checkers Fall Flat Over Activist’s Climate Scare Apology

Written by Rod Lampard on .
Posted in Latest news The widely shared article , ‘ On Behalf Of Environmentalists , I Apologize For The Climate Scare ’ , first published on Forbes , rejected ‘ climate alarmism ’ , and featured Shellenberger apologizing for how ‘ badly environmentalists have misled the public ’ about the relatively new field of climate science .
Facebook ’ s Climate Science fact-checking “ Climate Feedback ” evaluated Shellenberger ’ s article , arguing that he allegedly ‘ mixed accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Feedback cited ‘ six scientists who “ analyzed ” the article , estimating its overall scientific credibility to be ‘ low ’ .
Stating that [ an ambiguous ] majority of reviewers tagged the article as Cherry-picking , Misleading.
’ The six scientists were Daniel Swain ( UCLA , Climate Scientist ) , Gerardo Ceballos ( Autonomous University of Mexico , Ecologist ) , Jennifer Francis , ( Arctic Researcher , Woods Hole Research Center ) , Ryan Shriver ( UOI , Associate Professor ) , Zeke Hausfather ( Climate Scientist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Energy , Breakthrough Institute ) , and StefanDoerr ( Wildlife Science and Geography researcher , Swansea U ) .
Hausfather and Swain formed the core “ reviewers ” , with Hausfather ’ s being the most outspoken .
Credentials matter , but prima facie , this isn ’ t surprising .
Hausfather appears to benefit more from Apocalyptic Climate Change hysteria and therefore has more to lose from Shellenberger ’ s exposure to any potential climate change fraud than the rest .
The move to quickly slam the credibility door shut on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental activist than scientist are in damage control .
Apparent by the desperate move to counter any loss of ground ( funding ? )
, should backers begin to take Shellenberger ’ s apology for misleading the public on man-made catastrophic Climate Change seriously .
By marking Shellenberger ’ s article as “ partly false ” , surely Climate Feedback ’ s reviewers have inferred that the article is “ partly true.
” Curiously enough , though , Climate Feedback focused on the “ partly false ” , and ignored the “ partly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selective fact checking raises its own questions about bias .
Are fact-checkers sorting truth from falsehood , or buttressing ‘ herd madness ’ and it ’ s shared narrative ?
Or as Ian Plimer has posited , are scientists who are in the employ of politicians , Big Tech and the leftist hegemony , ‘ crushing opposition to ensure that science serves politics ?
’ The so-called “ facts ” simply just follow the money .
Who fact checks the fact-checkers ?
Why are most fact-checkers almost certain to be left-leaning activists ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be trusted as a reliable source ?
Author and investigative journalist , Donna Laframboise doesn ’ t think so .
Commenting on an unrelated fact check , Laframboise noted strategic omissions from Climate Feedback reviewers , stating their absolute reliance on the peer-review mechanic to attack credibility instead of holistically evaluating an idea or argument for accuracy , undermined their own credibility .
As Laframboise states , ‘ peer review is no guarantee .
Not of credibility .
And not of accuracy .
Fact-checkers who say otherwise are [ themselves ] profoundly misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ‘ just because a scientific paper is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct .
The peer-reviewed scientific literature is full of papers that contradict each other so they can ’ t all be right .
Peer-review does not stop bad science being published .
Scientific theories live or die on evidence , not whether or not they were published in the peer-reviewed literature.
’ While Shellenberger ’ s activist “ scientist ” assassins , didn ’ t throw down another “ sit down and shut up – the science-is-settled , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vitriolic , their case against him isn ’ t airtight .
It comes across as a carefully crafted , neatly packaged denouncement of Shellenberger .
One that ’ s too conveniently aligned with largely leftist dominated Big Tech , and big money , to dismiss any suspicions of bias on behalf of said fact check reviewers , some of whom appear to be well-positioned , and well-funded members of the fearmongering Gaian priesthood .
To apply the words of Andreas Vou from Spiked-Online , the contempt towards Shellenberger is an example of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have Big Tech companies act as arbiters of truth.
’ To pad the point , Forbes has since suppressed Shellenberger ’ s article , removing it from his Forbes author page .
Shellenberger isn ’ t backing down .
He ’ s posted a rebuttal to Climate Feedback and has challenged Facebook ’ s censorship .
His original article is available on Environmental Progress and a PDF is accessible here .
The explosive piece also kick-started the launch of his book , ‘ Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been made available by Shellenberger on Quillette .

Written by Rod Lampard on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Facebook fact-checkers have tagged veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article as “partly false.”
The widely shared article, ‘On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare’, first published on Forbes, rejected ‘climate alarmism’, and featured Shellenberger apologizing for how ‘badly environmentalists have misled the public’ about the relatively new field of climate science.
Facebook’s Climate Science fact-checking “Climate Feedback” evaluated Shellenberger’s article, arguing that he allegedly ‘mixed accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change.’
In the pseudo-peer review, Climate Feedback cited ‘six scientists who “analyzed” the article, estimating its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. Stating that [an ambiguous] majority of reviewers tagged the article as Cherry-picking, Misleading.’
The six scientists were Daniel Swain (UCLA, Climate Scientist), Gerardo Ceballos (Autonomous University of Mexico, Ecologist), Jennifer Francis, (Arctic Researcher, Woods Hole Research Center), Ryan Shriver (UOI, Associate Professor), Zeke Hausfather (Climate Scientist, Berkley U, & Director of Climate & Energy, Breakthrough Institute), and StefanDoerr (Wildlife Science and Geography researcher, Swansea U).
Hausfather and Swain formed the core “reviewers”, with Hausfather’s being the most outspoken. Credentials matter, but prima facie, this isn’t surprising.
Hausfather appears to benefit more from Apocalyptic Climate Change hysteria and therefore has more to lose from Shellenberger’s exposure to any potential climate change fraud than the rest.
The move to quickly slam the credibility door shut on Shellenberger infers that those who are more environmental activist than scientist are in damage control.
Apparent by the desperate move to counter any loss of ground (funding?), should backers begin to take Shellenberger’s apology for misleading the public on man-made catastrophic Climate Change seriously.
By marking Shellenberger’s article as “partly false”, surely Climate Feedback’s reviewers have inferred that the article is “partly true.” Curiously enough, though, Climate Feedback focused on the “partly false”, and ignored the “partly true.”
This kind of one-sided, selective fact checking raises its own questions about bias. Are fact-checkers sorting truth from falsehood, or buttressing ‘herd madness’ and it’s shared narrative?
Or as Ian Plimer has posited, are scientists who are in the employ of politicians, Big Tech and the leftist hegemony, ‘crushing opposition to ensure that science serves politics?’ The so-called “facts” simply just follow the money.
Who fact checks the fact-checkers? Why are most fact-checkers almost certain to be left-leaning activists?
In sum, is Climate Feedback to be trusted as a reliable source?
Author and investigative journalist, Donna Laframboise doesn’t think so. Commenting on an unrelated fact check, Laframboise noted strategic omissions from Climate Feedback reviewers, stating their absolute reliance on the peer-review mechanic to attack credibility instead of holistically evaluating an idea or argument for accuracy, undermined their own credibility.
As Laframboise states, ‘peer review is no guarantee. Not of credibility. And not of accuracy. Fact-checkers who say otherwise are [themselves] profoundly misleading the public.’
Ian Plimer seconds this: ‘just because a scientific paper is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is full of papers that contradict each other so they can’t all be right.
Peer-review does not stop bad science being published. Scientific theories live or die on evidence, not whether or not they were published in the peer-reviewed literature.’
While Shellenberger’s activist “scientist” assassins, didn’t throw down another “sit down and shut up – the science-is-settled, you must “believe” the science” vitriolic, their case against him isn’t airtight.
It comes across as a carefully crafted, neatly packaged denouncement of Shellenberger.
One that’s too conveniently aligned with largely leftist dominated Big Tech, and big money, to dismiss any suspicions of bias on behalf of said fact check reviewers, some of whom appear to be well-positioned, and well-funded members of the fearmongering Gaian priesthood.
To apply the words of Andreas Vou from Spiked-Online, the contempt towards Shellenberger is an example of how ‘terrible of an idea it is to have Big Tech companies act as arbiters of truth.’
To pad the point, Forbes has since suppressed Shellenberger’s article, removing it from his Forbes author page.
Shellenberger isn’t backing down. He’s posted a rebuttal to Climate Feedback and has challenged Facebook’s censorship.
His original article is available on Environmental Progress and a PDF is accessible here.
The explosive piece also kick-started the launch of his book, ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All’, an excerpt of which has been made available by Shellenberger on Quillette.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--Biden Unveils $2 Trillion Scheme To Address ‘Climate Justice’

Written by Haris Alic on .
Posted in Latest news Joe Biden is proposing , if elected in November , to spend upwards of $ 2 trillion to remake America ’ s energy infrastructure so it better addresses “ environmental and climate justice.
” On Tuesday , the former vice president released his long-awaited climate change plan .
Biden ’ s proposal , heavily influenced by the recommendations of a unity task force set up earlier this year by the presumptive nominee and his vanquished primary rival , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , suggests spending $ 2 trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The price tag is substantially higher than the $ 1.7 trillion that Biden proposed to spend over ten years on climate issues during the Democrat primary last year .
Most of the new spending comes from the ambitious goals laid out in the proposal the former vice president unveiled Tuesday .
For instance , Biden is now proposing to adopt a 100 percent clean-electricity standard by 2035 .
A similar idea was initially raised by Gov .
Jay Inslee ( D-WA ) last year during his own ill-fated run for the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that all electricity produced in the United States would be “ carbon-free.
” This would likely have a massive impact on the coal and natural gas industries that , according to the Energy Information Association , produce around 63 percent of all electricity in the country .
Biden ’ s ambitions , though , do not stop there .
The former vice president proposes creating one million jobs in the audit industry by boosting the production of energy-efficient vehicles .
To achieve the goal , Biden is backing legislation , introduced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , to incentivize individuals to trade in their gas-powered vehicles for ones running on either electricity or hydrogen .
Among a bevy of other initiatives , the former vice president ’ s plan provides funding for more than four million homeowners to upgrade their dwellings to meet energy efficacy standards .
It also creates an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice .
The division , modeled off local efforts by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg , would be responsible for cracking down on polluting businesses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda , Biden is proposing the creation of an environmental conservation corps , based on the poverty-relief programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s New Deal .
The corps will pay individuals to work on green energy infrastructure projects , such as plugging abandoned mines and wells .
Although Biden ’ s plan is only hours old it is already receiving criticism from Republicans , many of whom compare it to the Green New Deal championed by progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez ( D-NY ) .
“ We know what that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the studies show clearly it would be devastating to jobs in America , ” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise ( R-LA ) told reporters when discussing the plan on Tuesday .

Written by Haris Alic on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Joe Biden is proposing, if elected in November, to spend upwards of $2 trillion to remake America’s energy infrastructure so it better addresses “environmental and climate justice.”
On Tuesday, the former vice president released his long-awaited climate change plan. Biden’s proposal, heavily influenced by the recommendations of a unity task force set up earlier this year by the presumptive nominee and his vanquished primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), suggests spending $2 trillion over four years to combat climate change.
The price tag is substantially higher than the $1.7 trillion that Biden proposed to spend over ten years on climate issues during the Democrat primary last year.
Most of the new spending comes from the ambitious goals laid out in the proposal the former vice president unveiled Tuesday.
For instance, Biden is now proposing to adopt a 100 percent clean-electricity standard by 2035.
A similar idea was initially raised by Gov. Jay Inslee (D-WA) last year during his own ill-fated run for the Democrat nomination.
If implemented, it would ensure that all electricity produced in the United States would be “carbon-free.”
This would likely have a massive impact on the coal and natural gas industries that, according to the Energy Information Association, produce around 63 percent of all electricity in the country.
Biden’s ambitions, though, do not stop there. The former vice president proposes creating one million jobs in the audit industry by boosting the production of energy-efficient vehicles.
To achieve the goal, Biden is backing legislation, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to incentivize individuals to trade in their gas-powered vehicles for ones running on either electricity or hydrogen.
Among a bevy of other initiatives, the former vice president’s plan provides funding for more than four million homeowners to upgrade their dwellings to meet energy efficacy standards.
It also creates an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice.
The division, modeled off local efforts by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, would be responsible for cracking down on polluting businesses and corporations.
To help implement the wide-reaching agenda, Biden is proposing the creation of an environmental conservation corps, based on the poverty-relief programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
The corps will pay individuals to work on green energy infrastructure projects, such as plugging abandoned mines and wells.
Although Biden’s plan is only hours old it is already receiving criticism from Republicans, many of whom compare it to the Green New Deal championed by progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY).
“We know what that kind of radical energy policy looks like, and the studies show clearly it would be devastating to jobs in America,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) told reporters when discussing the plan on Tuesday.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--Burger King Targets Kids In New Video Pushing Climate Propaganda

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s official : 2020 corporate America has gone bonkers .
Burger King ’ s latest Twitter antics promoting climate change through a children ’ s video is just the latest example .
Popular fast-food chain Burger King posted a rank climate change propaganda music video of children singing about the dangers of cow farts and burps on Twitter July 14 .
Really .
Burger King captioned the tweet : “ Cow farts & burps are no laughing matter .
they release methane , contributing to climate change.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] hat ’ s why we ’ re working to change our cows ’ diet by adding lemongrass to reduce their emissions by approximately 33 % .
” Watch the children ’ s video promoting their new endeavor below ( WARNING : The cringe level is maxed out . )
The tweet was posted to promote an absurd study that stipulated that “ Livestock is responsible for 14.5 % of all human-induced greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions , according to estimates from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 41 % of those emissions.
” It continued : “ As the cows digest their feed , they produce a lot of methane .
This greenhouse gas is released every time the cows burp and fart the methane gas out.
” According to the page ’ s summary : From Jeff Bezos ’ s Amazon announcing it was changing the name of Seattle ’ s KeyArena to the “ Climate Pledge Arena ” to Burger King ’ s cow fart and burp climate change propaganda , corporate America sure seems to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burger King at 1-866-394-2493 and let them know what you think about the company exploiting children to push rank climate-change propaganda in its advertising on social media .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s official: 2020 corporate America has gone bonkers. Burger King’s latest Twitter antics promoting climate change through a children’s video is just the latest example.
Popular fast-food chain Burger King posted a rank climate change propaganda music video of children singing about the dangers of cow farts and burps on Twitter July 14. Really.
Burger King captioned the tweet: “Cow farts & burps are no laughing matter. they release methane, contributing to climate change.”
The tweet continued: “[T]hat’s why we’re working to change our cows’ diet by adding lemongrass to reduce their emissions by approximately 33%.”
Watch the children’s video promoting their new endeavor below (WARNING: The cringe level is maxed out.)
cow farts & burps are no laughing matter. they release methane, contributing to climate change. that’s why we’re working to change our cows’ diet by adding lemongrass to reduce their emissions by approximately 33%. learn about our ongoing study: https://t.co/kPCXpjfbGL #CowsMenu pic.twitter.com/DnmF8gVVL0 — Burger King (@BurgerKing) July 14, 2020
The tweet was posted to promote an absurd study that stipulated that “Livestock is responsible for 14.5% of all human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to estimates from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and beef production accounts for 41% of those emissions.”
It continued: “As the cows digest their feed, they produce a lot of methane. This greenhouse gas is released every time the cows burp and fart the methane gas out.”
According to the page’s summary:
At Burger King, we’ve been working on finding scalable solutions to tackle the climate impact of the food we produce and deliver to guests around the world everyday. To do it right, we started with understanding the facts.
From Jeff Bezos’s Amazon announcing it was changing the name of Seattle’s KeyArena to the “Climate Pledge Arena” to Burger King’s cow fart and burp climate change propaganda, corporate America sure seems to have lost its grip in 2020.
Contact Burger King at 1-866-394-2493 and let them know what you think about the company exploiting children to push rank climate-change propaganda in its advertising on social media.
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--2020-07-15--Eastern European Nations Reject New Climate Targets

Written by GWPF News on .
Posted in Latest news The European Union remains deeply divided over plans to increase its CO2 emissions targets , with Eastern European ministers refusing to commit to bigger cuts .
The EU has agreed to unilaterally cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 % by 2030 .
This target has been criticized by climate activists who claim that more radical cuts are needed to prevent ‘ catastrophic ’ climate change .
Responding to this campaign , the European Commission plans to publish an impact assessment of the additional cost of a revised CO2 target to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The EU would then need to agree on a new target with member states and lawmakers .
According to Reuters , a meeting of environment ministers from the EU ’ s 27-member states failed to find agreement on whether the target should be raised at all .
“ Some are skeptical , ” German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said after the meeting .
On Monday , Poland , Slovakia , Bulgaria , Romania , Czech Republic , and Hungary wrote to the European Commission , announcing that they will not support a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Commission ’ s economic impact assessment .

Written by GWPF News on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The European Union remains deeply divided over plans to increase its CO2 emissions targets, with Eastern European ministers refusing to commit to bigger cuts.
The EU has agreed to unilaterally cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030.
This target has been criticized by climate activists who claim that more radical cuts are needed to prevent ‘catastrophic’ climate change.
Responding to this campaign, the European Commission plans to publish an impact assessment of the additional cost of a revised CO2 target to 50% or 55% by 2030.
The EU would then need to agree on a new target with member states and lawmakers.
According to Reuters, a meeting of environment ministers from the EU’s 27-member states failed to find agreement on whether the target should be raised at all.
“Some are skeptical,” German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said after the meeting.
On Monday, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, and Hungary wrote to the European Commission, announcing that they will not support a new CO2 target until they have seen the Commission’s economic impact assessment.
Read more at GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--Study Debunks Link Between Arctic Warming And Harsher Winters

Written by Die kalte Sonne and Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Researchers can no longer blame inconvenient cold winters on Arctic warming .
No scientific basis , new study shows .
The Arctic is warming faster than the mid-latitudes .
It ’ s the so-called Arctic amplification ( AA ) .
According to a study by Polvani et al .
2020 , half of Arctic warming is due to ozone-depleting substances – and not CO2 .
This was of course a great surprise , as we have already reported here .
So no wonder that the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far attributed almost the entire warming to CO2 .
CO2 has been hopelessly overbooked , as it now turns out .
In Nature Climate Change , a paper by Cohen et al .
2020 has been published and it shakes another myth .
In the past , researchers were too happy to tell us that strong Arctic warming leads to harsh winters in mid-latitudes .
However , there is a problem : the models are largely unable to reconstruct this presumed relationship : The paper finds : The Arctic has warmed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average since the late twentieth century , a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification ( AA ) .
Recently , there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical contributions to AA , and progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms that link it to midlatitude weather variability .
Observational studies overwhelmingly support that AA is contributing to winter continental cooling .
Although some model experiments support the observational evidence , most modeling results show little connection between AA and severe mid-latitude weather or suggest the export of excess heating from the Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model and observational studies , and even intramodel studies , continue to obfuscate a clear understanding of how AA is influencing mid-latitude weather.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Die kalte Sonne and Pierre Gosselin on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
By Die kalte Sonne (German text translated by P. Gosselin)
Researchers can no longer blame inconvenient cold winters on Arctic warming. No scientific basis, new study shows.
The Arctic is warming faster than the mid-latitudes. It’s the so-called Arctic amplification (AA).
According to a study by Polvani et al. 2020, half of Arctic warming is due to ozone-depleting substances – and not CO2. This was of course a great surprise, as we have already reported here.
So no wonder that the climate models are going crazy since they have so far attributed almost the entire warming to CO2.
CO2 has been hopelessly overbooked, as it now turns out.
In Nature Climate Change, a paper by Cohen et al. 2020 has been published and it shakes another myth.
In the past, researchers were too happy to tell us that strong Arctic warming leads to harsh winters in mid-latitudes.
However, there is a problem: the models are largely unable to reconstruct this presumed relationship: The paper finds:
Divergent consensuses on Arctic amplification influence on mid-latitude severe winter weather The Arctic has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average since the late twentieth century, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification (AA). Recently, there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical contributions to AA, and progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms that link it to midlatitude weather variability. Observational studies overwhelmingly support that AA is contributing to winter continental cooling. Although some model experiments support the observational evidence, most modeling results show little connection between AA and severe mid-latitude weather or suggest the export of excess heating from the Arctic to lower latitudes. Divergent conclusions between model and observational studies, and even intramodel studies, continue to obfuscate a clear understanding of how AA is influencing mid-latitude weather.”
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