climatechangedispatch--2020-05-24--Global Warming: Still Junk Science After All These Years

Written by Lloyd Brown on .
Posted in Latest news Climate alarmists insist that an increase of one degree in the average global temperatures is a signal that the end of civilization is near .
Every day a new revelation : more fires in California , snow in Antarctica is turning green , salmon are dying in Alaska – all attributed to rising temperatures .
The first question an inquiring mind would ask is , does the Earth maintain the same average temperature over millennia and how does it accomplish that task ?
The answer is that it doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to experts , hunter-gatherers were driven from the higher lands because rising temperatures brought drought , loss of plants and animals , and famine .
They moved to river valleys in three or four places around the globe , most notably the Nile River .
There they had water and the water also provided food .
But planting by hand did not suffice .
It was the “ trigger ” that led to a series of technological inventions and discoveries and brought about civilization , according to the book Connections , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly popular TV series in 1978 .
Plowed fields meant surplus crops , and planning for the harvest and storage included preparing for the annual Nile floods , which brought about math , writing and cloth clothing , and a series of events subsequently that Burke linked to the 1965 electrical shutdown in Northeast America .
All because the Earth ’ s temperature had increased 6,000 years ago .
Has the global temperature remained the same every year since then ?
Climate alarmists admit it has not but say it has risen about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say is way too fast .
It will mean crops can ’ t be grown in some places where they now flourish .
But won ’ t they grow in places where it has been too cold ?
Those who predict the end of civilization by the very mechanism that brought about civilization still have a lot of explaining to do if they expect people to give up their freedom and wealth to a global government that promises to control the climate that experts admit they don ’ t fully understand .

Written by Lloyd Brown on May 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate alarmists insist that an increase of one degree in the average global temperatures is a signal that the end of civilization is near.
Every day a new revelation: more fires in California, snow in Antarctica is turning green, salmon are dying in Alaska – all attributed to rising temperatures.
The first question an inquiring mind would ask is, does the Earth maintain the same average temperature over millennia and how does it accomplish that task?
The answer is that it doesn’t.
Civilization began because of global warming.
About 6,000 years ago, according to experts, hunter-gatherers were driven from the higher lands because rising temperatures brought drought, loss of plants and animals, and famine.
They moved to river valleys in three or four places around the globe, most notably the Nile River.
There they had water and the water also provided food. But planting by hand did not suffice.
Someone devised the plow.
It was the “trigger” that led to a series of technological inventions and discoveries and brought about civilization, according to the book Connections, by James Burke, which also became a highly popular TV series in 1978.
Plowed fields meant surplus crops, and planning for the harvest and storage included preparing for the annual Nile floods, which brought about math, writing and cloth clothing, and a series of events subsequently that Burke linked to the 1965 electrical shutdown in Northeast America.
All because the Earth’s temperature had increased 6,000 years ago.
Has the global temperature remained the same every year since then? Climate alarmists admit it has not but say it has risen about one degree since 1850, which they say is way too fast.
It will mean crops can’t be grown in some places where they now flourish.
But won’t they grow in places where it has been too cold?
Those who predict the end of civilization by the very mechanism that brought about civilization still have a lot of explaining to do if they expect people to give up their freedom and wealth to a global government that promises to control the climate that experts admit they don’t fully understand.
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--2020-05-26--Prioritizing Climate Over Pandemics

Prioritizing Climate Over Pandemics

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news As of May 20 , the United States had more than 1.5 million confirmed cases of Wuhan Coronavirus .
US deaths related or attributed to the virus topped 92,000 ( though many were really due to old age and related co-morbidities ) .
Because of COVID , much of the US economy has been shut down since late March .
More than 36 million American workers have now filed for unemployment insurance , while tens of millions more have been furloughed or seen their hours and/or salaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and deaths declining , lockdowns and stay-home orders are finally easing , though only slightly and slowly in many areas .
Millions of businesses face bankruptcy or simple disappearance , and rebuilding the recently vibrant US economy will likely take years .
Lockdown-related deaths from medical screenings and treatments foregone , suicide , drug and alcohol abuse , other diseases of despair , and other causes will likely kill many tens of thousands of Americans in the coming years .
The Eurozone is likewise in dire straits , as are countless other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being hit by the Coronavirus and starvation amid one of the worst locust plagues in its history .
Perhaps the most vital and fundamental role of government , at every level , is to protect its citizenry from criminals , foreign invasions , natural disasters , and other threats – including pandemics that have ravaged mankind repeatedly throughout history .
One , aside from the sudden appearance of the Wuhan COVID-19 pandemic – and bungling and duplicity by Chinese and World Health Organization ( WHO ) officials – why was the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other articles suggest that “ missteps ” nearly everywhere helped magnify problems .
Multiple federal government reports called attention to potential threats and inadequacies during future pandemics , but only modest steps were ever taken to prepare for them .
For example , a Strategic National Stockpile was established in 1999 for pharmaceuticals needed in a terrorist attack , natural disaster , or pandemic , but Congress never allocated ongoing funding for pandemic preparations .
The Bush , Obama , and Trump administrations focused more on preparing for chemical , biological , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reliance on foreign production ( mostly Chinese ) for N95 masks ( 30 % ) and surgical masks ( 90 % ) was highlighted but not addressed ; expanding Made in America capacity was mostly just a slogan .
Left with large quantities of personal protective equipment ( PPE ) , respirators , and other items after the Swine Flu epidemic that ended in 2009 , most manufacturers that had ramped up production during the epidemic refused to maintain high output capacity .
Hospitals with similar experiences slashed inventories of masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce costs ; their inventory tracking software and programs focused on economic efficiency , rather than availability and resiliency during pandemics .
One healthcare system that did stock up on masks failed to replace them after their expiration date , and brittle elastic bands made them unusable .
After Maryland ( and probably other states ) acquired abundant Coronavirus test kits , regulatory red tape and inefficiencies prevented their use for over a week .
Little has been reported about state or local studies , plans , actions , or stockpiles for pandemics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City sold off its ventilator stockpiles to avoid spending more money on storage and maintenance .
Perhaps logical at the time , NYC ’ s decision led to shortages and chaos amid Corona .
Far more lethal was NY Governor Cuomo ’ s decision to compel nursing homes with acutely vulnerable patients to admit recovering ( and likely still contagious ) COVID patients – even though the Javits Center and USS Comfort had some 2,000 empty beds .
Other states did likewise , and far too many imposed blanket policies for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acute problems in a few urban centers .
Post-pandemic analyses , actions , and preparations must ensure these “ mistakes ” never happen again .
Two , what were all these government entities focusing on – if not recurrent pandemics ?
Put another way : How much money , attention , task force time , and policymaking was devoted during the past several decades to preparing for pandemics , drug and PPE needs , and safe nursing homes – versus : How much was devoted to “ dangerous man-made climate change ” … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and use … mandating and subsidizing wind , solar , and biofuel operations … and adapting bridges and other infrastructure to rising seas and other alleged man-made climate crisis disasters ?
Cumulative climate and renewable energy spending at federal , state , and local levels over the past several decades were certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars over this period , if not trillions .
Government time devoted to climate change and renewable energy certainly totaled many millions of hours .
It is unclear whether anyone has any idea how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were devoted to climate research , modeling , preparation , mitigation , “ educations , ” conferences , and just plain fear-mongering .
It ’ s equally uncertain whether any federal or state study examined how much was devoted to preparing for pandemics .
But it was very likely a tiny fraction of the climate change/renewable energy total .
What is clear is that hardworking American taxpayers absolutely deserve and must get a full accounting of how much money and personnel time was devoted to both of these threats .
They deserve to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families and communities from pandemics like the Wuhan Coronavirus and ensuing economic collapse ( and perhaps to other bona fide real-world disasters like hurricanes , tornadoes , floods , and droughts ) – versus crises that exist primarily in unverified computer models and endless assertions that every temperature rise , drought , species loss , and extreme weather event was unprecedented and due to fossil fuel use – despite a near-total absence of real-world evidence to support any of those claims .
The Department of Defense alone spent billions on climate initiatives and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How much did it spend preparing for pandemics on aircraft carriers and during basic training ?
How many billions did federal , state , and local healthcare agencies spend on climate change versus past and future pandemics ?
How much money and attention did those healthcare agencies devote to our excessive dependence on China for masks , pharmaceutical components , metals , critical materials , and solar panels ?
The United States and individual states established countless agencies , task forces , and special legislative and regulatory panels devoted to climate change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
In the seven years following the 2009 Swine Flu Epidemic , how much money and attention did the Obama Administration devote to pandemic prevention and mitigation ?
How about all those House and Senate committees and staffers ?
All those state agencies , state legislatures , counties and city councils ?
In just a few months , the Wuhan Coronavirus locked us in our homes , shuttered our businesses , cost the United States trillions of dollars in lost economic output , and resulted in hundreds of billions in lost tax revenues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , drought , hurricane , tornado , and dead polar bear to man-made climate change , the cumulative impact of our fossil-fuel use won ’ t come anywhere near that .
Does Congress have the stomach for digging into this ?
for appointing a “ blue-ribbon task force ” to do so ?
Will any editors and “ investigative journalists ” at the Washington Post or New York Times take up the challenge ?
Will any states , counties , or cities ?
Will President Trump appoint a special commission ?
They don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of real-world crises versus those that exist only in climate models and environmentalist press releases .
They just need to tally up expenditures on the pandemic and climate sides of the ledger .
That would ensure a factual , data-driven analysis , and minimize politics .
Indeed , Europeans , Canadians , Australians , and people everywhere deserve to know how national , state , and local governments allocated and spent tax revenues on climate versus disease preparation and relief .
There are good reasons why only 2 % of Americans believe “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , natural , or otherwise ) is the most important problem facing the United States .
Federal , state , and local accountings are long overdue – as are a reordering of government priorities .
Will we ever get them ?
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 .

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As of May 20, the United States had more than 1.5 million confirmed cases of Wuhan Coronavirus.
US deaths related or attributed to the virus topped 92,000 (though many were really due to old age and related co-morbidities). Because of COVID, much of the US economy has been shut down since late March.
More than 36 million American workers have now filed for unemployment insurance, while tens of millions more have been furloughed or seen their hours and/or salaries reduced severely.
With infections, cases, and deaths declining, lockdowns and stay-home orders are finally easing, though only slightly and slowly in many areas.
Millions of businesses face bankruptcy or simple disappearance, and rebuilding the recently vibrant US economy will likely take years.
Lockdown-related deaths from medical screenings and treatments foregone, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, other diseases of despair, and other causes will likely kill many tens of thousands of Americans in the coming years.
The Eurozone is likewise in dire straits, as are countless other countries around the world. Impoverished Africa is being hit by the Coronavirus and starvation amid one of the worst locust plagues in its history.
Perhaps the most vital and fundamental role of government, at every level, is to protect its citizenry from criminals, foreign invasions, natural disasters, and other threats – including pandemics that have ravaged mankind repeatedly throughout history.
This raises two enormously important questions.
One, aside from the sudden appearance of the Wuhan COVID-19 pandemic – and bungling and duplicity by Chinese and World Health Organization (WHO) officials – why was the US response so slow?
Wall Street Journal and other articles suggest that “missteps” nearly everywhere helped magnify problems.
Multiple federal government reports called attention to potential threats and inadequacies during future pandemics, but only modest steps were ever taken to prepare for them.
For example, a Strategic National Stockpile was established in 1999 for pharmaceuticals needed in a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or pandemic, but Congress never allocated ongoing funding for pandemic preparations.
The Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations focused more on preparing for chemical, biological, and other terrorist attacks than on pandemics.
Reliance on foreign production (mostly Chinese) for N95 masks (30%) and surgical masks (90%) was highlighted but not addressed; expanding Made in America capacity was mostly just a slogan.
Left with large quantities of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators, and other items after the Swine Flu epidemic that ended in 2009, most manufacturers that had ramped up production during the epidemic refused to maintain high output capacity.
Hospitals with similar experiences slashed inventories of masks, respirators, and other supplies, to reduce costs; their inventory tracking software and programs focused on economic efficiency, rather than availability and resiliency during pandemics.
One healthcare system that did stock up on masks failed to replace them after their expiration date, and brittle elastic bands made them unusable.
After Maryland (and probably other states) acquired abundant Coronavirus test kits, regulatory red tape and inefficiencies prevented their use for over a week.
Little has been reported about state or local studies, plans, actions, or stockpiles for pandemics. However, in recent years New York City sold off its ventilator stockpiles to avoid spending more money on storage and maintenance.
Perhaps logical at the time, NYC’s decision led to shortages and chaos amid Corona.
Far more lethal was NY Governor Cuomo’s decision to compel nursing homes with acutely vulnerable patients to admit recovering (and likely still contagious) COVID patients – even though the Javits Center and USS Comfort had some 2,000 empty beds.
Other states did likewise, and far too many imposed blanket policies for all hospitals and clinics statewide, based on acute problems in a few urban centers.
Post-pandemic analyses, actions, and preparations must ensure these “mistakes” never happen again.
Two, what were all these government entities focusing on – if not recurrent pandemics?
Put another way: How much money, attention, task force time, and policymaking was devoted during the past several decades to preparing for pandemics, drug and PPE needs, and safe nursing homes – versus:
How much was devoted to “dangerous man-made climate change” … closing down fossil fuel production, pipelines, and use … mandating and subsidizing wind, solar, and biofuel operations … and adapting bridges and other infrastructure to rising seas and other alleged man-made climate crisis disasters?
Cumulative climate and renewable energy spending at federal, state, and local levels over the past several decades were certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars over this period, if not trillions.
Government time devoted to climate change and renewable energy certainly totaled many millions of hours.
It is unclear whether anyone has any idea how much money, time, and resources were devoted to climate research, modeling, preparation, mitigation, “educations,” conferences, and just plain fear-mongering.
It’s equally uncertain whether any federal or state study examined how much was devoted to preparing for pandemics. But it was very likely a tiny fraction of the climate change/renewable energy total.
What is clear is that hardworking American taxpayers absolutely deserve and must get a full accounting of how much money and personnel time was devoted to both of these threats.
They deserve to know how much was devoted to protecting families and communities from pandemics like the Wuhan Coronavirus and ensuing economic collapse (and perhaps to other bona fide real-world disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts) – versus
crises that exist primarily in unverified computer models and endless assertions that every temperature rise, drought, species loss, and extreme weather event was unprecedented and due to fossil fuel use – despite a near-total absence of real-world evidence to support any of those claims.
The Department of Defense alone spent billions on climate initiatives and renewable fuels during the Obama era.
How much did it spend preparing for pandemics on aircraft carriers and during basic training?
How many billions did federal, state, and local healthcare agencies spend on climate change versus past and future pandemics?
How much money and attention did those healthcare agencies devote to our excessive dependence on China for masks, pharmaceutical components, metals, critical materials, and solar panels?
The United States and individual states established countless agencies, task forces, and special legislative and regulatory panels devoted to climate change.
How many did they establish for pandemics? In the seven years following the 2009 Swine Flu Epidemic, how much money and attention did the Obama Administration devote to pandemic prevention and mitigation?
How about all those House and Senate committees and staffers? All those state agencies, state legislatures, counties and city councils?
In just a few months, the Wuhan Coronavirus locked us in our homes, shuttered our businesses, cost the United States trillions of dollars in lost economic output, and resulted in hundreds of billions in lost tax revenues.
Even if we attribute every flood, drought, hurricane, tornado, and dead polar bear to man-made climate change, the cumulative impact of our fossil-fuel use won’t come anywhere near that.
Does Congress have the stomach for digging into this? for appointing a “blue-ribbon task force” to do so?
Will any editors and “investigative journalists” at the Washington Post or New York Times take up the challenge? Will any states, counties, or cities? Will President Trump appoint a special commission?
They don’t have to address the issue of real-world crises versus those that exist only in climate models and environmentalist press releases.
They just need to tally up expenditures on the pandemic and climate sides of the ledger. That would ensure a factual, data-driven analysis, and minimize politics.
Indeed, Europeans, Canadians, Australians, and people everywhere deserve to know how national, state, and local governments allocated and spent tax revenues on climate versus disease preparation and relief.
There are good reasons why only 2% of Americans believe “climate change” (man-made, dangerous, natural, or otherwise) is the most important problem facing the United States.
Federal, state, and local accountings are long overdue – as are a reordering of government priorities. Will we ever get them?
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--2020-05-26--YouTube Cancels Michael Moore’s Green-Energy Doc (Surprised?)

Written by James Delingpole on .
Posted in Latest news Finally , YouTube has found the flimsy pretext it needed @ @ @ @ @ Moore-produced eco-documentary which has been infuriating greenies with its anti-renewables message : ‘ copyright infringement.
@ @ @ @ @ , the documentary executive-produced by Moore and written and directed by his friend Jeff Gibbs @ @ @ @ @ million views on YouTube since its launch last month .
But now — in what @ @ @ @ @ blatant act of censorship ” — YouTube has taken down the video .
This follows @ @ @ @ @ YouTube by Toby Smith , a British environmental photographer , who doesn ’ t like @ @ @ @ @ material was used and who claims a clip of his material was run without his @ @ @ @ @ Guardian : Smith filed the complaint to YouTube on 23 May after discovering Planet of @ @ @ @ @ of footage from his Rare Earthenware project detailing the journey of rare earth minerals from @ @ @

Written by James Delingpole on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Finally, YouTube has found the flimsy pretext it needed to cancel the controversial Michael Moore-produced eco-documentary which has been infuriating greenies with its anti-renewables message: ‘copyright infringement.’
Planet of the Humans, the documentary executive-produced by Moore and written and directed by his friend Jeff Gibbs has racked up over 8 million views on YouTube since its launch last month.
But now — in what Gibbs says is a “blatant act of censorship” — YouTube has taken down the video.
This follows a copyright infringement claim to YouTube by Toby Smith, a British environmental photographer, who doesn’t like the context in which his material was used and who claims a clip of his material was run without his approval.
According to the Guardian:
Smith filed the complaint to YouTube on 23 May after discovering Planet of the Humans used several seconds of footage from his Rare Earthenware project detailing the journey of rare earth minerals from Inner Mongolia.
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--2020-05-26--Protest Limits Make It A ‘Great Time’ To Build A Pipeline

Written by Bob Weber on .
Posted in Latest news Alberta ’ s energy minister says it ’ s a good time to build a pipeline because public health restrictions limit protests against them .
Sonya Savage made the comment Friday on a podcast hosted by the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors .
She was asked about the progress of the Trans Mountain Expansion project , which is under construction on its route between Edmonton and Vancouver .
“ Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can ’ t have protests of more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Let ’ s get it built.
” While the interviewer laughs , Savage does not .
Unprompted , Savage goes on to suggest that the economic turmoil caused by the pandemic favors pipeline construction .
“ People are not going to have tolerance and patience for protests that get in the way of people working , ” she said on the podcast , which was posted on the association ’ s website .
“ People need jobs and those types of ideological protests that get in the way are not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s spokesman acknowledged in an email that she was on the podcast .
“ We respect the right to lawful protests , ” said Kavi Bal .
“ I would note that the limitations to public gatherings … have benefited no one — including project proponents and any opposition groups.
” Both Alberta and B.C .
have increased their limits to 50 people for outdoor gatherings .
Irfan Sabir , the Opposition New Democrat energy critic , called Savage ’ s comments more of the same for the government .
“ These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ The UCP have already used the pandemic as an excuse to suspend environmental monitoring .
When combined with the minister ’ s latest comments , this will harm the reputation of Alberta ’ s energy industry and inhibit our ability to attract investment and get our product to market.
” The premier defended the right to protest in the case of a man recently arrested at the legislature as he was protesting against public health lockdown orders .
Kenney said at the time that he would modify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t interfere with that right , as long as guidelines were being respected .
The government has less tolerance for civil disobedience .
In February , it introduced legislation imposing stiff fines and possible jail terms for protesters who damage or even interfere with the operation of a wide range of energy infrastructure — although such acts are already illegal .
The bill has passed and awaits royal assent to come into force .
A similar bill carrying increased trespassing punishments for animal rights protesters at agricultural facilities came into force in December @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Bob Weber on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Alberta’s energy minister says it’s a good time to build a pipeline because public health restrictions limit protests against them.
Sonya Savage made the comment Friday on a podcast hosted by the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors. She was asked about the progress of the Trans Mountain Expansion project, which is under construction on its route between Edmonton and Vancouver.
“Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people,” Savage said. “Let’s get it built.”
While the interviewer laughs, Savage does not.
Unprompted, Savage goes on to suggest that the economic turmoil caused by the pandemic favors pipeline construction.
“People are not going to have tolerance and patience for protests that get in the way of people working,” she said on the podcast, which was posted on the association’s website.
“People need jobs and those types of ideological protests that get in the way are not going to be tolerated by ordinary Canadians.”
Savage’s spokesman acknowledged in an email that she was on the podcast.
“We respect the right to lawful protests,” said Kavi Bal.
“I would note that the limitations to public gatherings … have benefited no one — including project proponents and any opposition groups.”
Both Alberta and B.C. have increased their limits to 50 people for outdoor gatherings.
Irfan Sabir, the Opposition New Democrat energy critic, called Savage’s comments more of the same for the government.
“These comments do not come as a shock,” he said.
“The UCP have already used the pandemic as an excuse to suspend environmental monitoring. When combined with the minister’s latest comments, this will harm the reputation of Alberta’s energy industry and inhibit our ability to attract investment and get our product to market.”
Jason Kenney’s United Conservative government has a mixed record on protesters.
The premier defended the right to protest in the case of a man recently arrested at the legislature as he was protesting against public health lockdown orders.
Kenney said at the time that he would modify such orders to ensure they didn’t interfere with that right, as long as guidelines were being respected.
The government has less tolerance for civil disobedience.
In February, it introduced legislation imposing stiff fines and possible jail terms for protesters who damage or even interfere with the operation of a wide range of energy infrastructure — although such acts are already illegal. The bill has passed and awaits royal assent to come into force.
A similar bill carrying increased trespassing punishments for animal rights protesters at agricultural facilities came into force in December.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-26--German Research Vessel Gets Stuck In Thick Arctic Drift Ice

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Alfred Wegener Institute ( AWI ) climatologists remain involuntarily stuck in thick pack ice while two sister ships wait in a fjord at Spitsbergen .
Let ’ s see how long this is going to take .
German icebreaker and research vessel “ Polarstern ” has been drifting through the central Arctic on a 140 million euro MOSAIC research expedition since the beginning of October 2019 .
But the Arctic – they have inconveniently discovered – is strongly frozen at its highest level in the last five years .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday , May 16 , 2020 , to make their way to Spitsbergen by Monday , May 25 , but had to stop their engines already on Monday , May 18 , because the two-year drift ice was too thick , they reported .
They wish to reach Spitsbergen by Sunday , May 24 , 2020 , in order to meet up with two sister ships to take on supplies and a new crew .
This is to avoid further evacuations like the one on April 22 , when seven participants of expedition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twin Otter .
They should have been replaced in early April .
Shortly after Easter the vessel had left the drift corridor and drifted southwards in 2- to 3-meter-thick pack ice toward Spitsbergen .
There , ice masses of 4-meter thickness awaited them and thus the biggest and thickest ice surfaces for many years .
The expedition and crew now aim to meet the German research vessels “ FS Sonne ” and “ FS Maria S. Merian ” ( ice class E3 up to 0.8 meters of ice thickness ) in “ calm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire personnel and to resupply .
However , the current drift calculator shows the Polarstern will unlikely reach Spitsbergen on schedule .
The Polarstern had been planned to reach the North Pole , but never reached it .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) climatologists remain involuntarily stuck in thick pack ice while two sister ships wait in a fjord at Spitsbergen. Let’s see how long this is going to take.
German icebreaker and research vessel “Polarstern” has been drifting through the central Arctic on a 140 million euro MOSAIC research expedition since the beginning of October 2019.
But the Arctic – they have inconveniently discovered – is strongly frozen at its highest level in the last five years.
Stopped by two-year, thick ice
The climatologists had prematurely abandoned their floe on Saturday, May 16, 2020, to make their way to Spitsbergen by Monday, May 25, but had to stop their engines already on Monday, May 18, because the two-year drift ice was too thick, they reported.
They wish to reach Spitsbergen by Sunday, May 24, 2020, in order to meet up with two sister ships to take on supplies and a new crew.
This is to avoid further evacuations like the one on April 22, when seven participants of expedition leg 3 were flown out by a Twin Otter. They should have been replaced in early April.
Shortly after Easter the vessel had left the drift corridor and drifted southwards in 2- to 3-meter-thick pack ice toward Spitsbergen.
There, ice masses of 4-meter thickness awaited them and thus the biggest and thickest ice surfaces for many years.
The expedition and crew now aim to meet the German research vessels “FS Sonne” and “FS Maria S. Merian” (ice class E3 up to 0.8 meters of ice thickness) in “calm waters” off Spitsbergen and exchange the entire personnel and to resupply.
However, the current drift calculator shows the Polarstern will unlikely reach Spitsbergen on schedule.
The Polarstern had been planned to reach the North Pole, but never reached it.
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--2020-05-26--UK Wind Farms Paid Whopping $11.3 Million Not To Run For Single Day

Written by Kurt Zindulka on .
Posted in Latest news The British taxpayer will be footing the majority of a record £9.3-million ( $ 11.3m ) bill that was paid to wind farms not to run their giant turbines .
On Friday , over 80 wind farms in England and Scotland were given “ constraint payments ” from the National Grid in exchange for shutting down the production of their supposedly green energy .
The payout is nearly double the previous record of £4.8 million ( $ 5.9m ) in October of 2018 .
The reason for the shutdown of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be overloaded with energy during a time in which many businesses are shut due to the coronavirus lockdown .
The British public will be on the hook for £6.9m ( $ 8.4m ) that was sent to 66 Scottish wind farms and an additional £1.9m ( $ 2.3m ) to 14 sites in England .
The director of the Renewable Energy Foundation , Dr. John Constable , told The Telegraph : “ Grid balancing expenditure so far this year is already horrific and by the end of the summer it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a national embarrassment and a disgrace to the management of the electricity sector who have complacently allowed this crisis to develop over the last decade , ” he lamented .
The Renewable Energy Foundation revealed that 86 wind farms across the country were given a record £136 in “ constraint payments ” last year alone .
The unpredictable nature of wind electricity and other forms of “ green energy ” like solar power is referred to as intermittency — one of the biggest problems the renewable industry has faced in trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not enough wind , the machines produce little to no power and when there are high levels of wind , the output places strain on electrical grid systems as there is currently no viable storage system for the energy .
Though often hailed as a solution to the supposed “ climate emergency ” the true environmental costs of wind turbines is relatively high .
The industrial strength magnets that are required to generate electricity out of wind are reliant on rare earth minerals such as neodymium , a mineral that is mostly mined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by journalist Simon Parry found that the mining of neodymium in China had resulted in the creation of a toxic lake outside the Inner Mongolian city of Baotou .
Cancer rates soared amongst the neighboring villagers , and children were reported to have been born with soft bones .
“ The reality is that , as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines , it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China , ” wrote Parry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s government pledged to quadruple the amount of wind energy produced offshore as a part of the government ’ s green agenda , which promises to make the country carbon neutral by 2050 .

Written by Kurt Zindulka on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The British taxpayer will be footing the majority of a record £9.3-million ($11.3m) bill that was paid to wind farms not to run their giant turbines.
On Friday, over 80 wind farms in England and Scotland were given “constraint payments” from the National Grid in exchange for shutting down the production of their supposedly green energy.
The payout is nearly double the previous record of £4.8 million ($5.9m) in October of 2018.
The reason for the shutdown of production was so that the grid would not be overloaded with energy during a time in which many businesses are shut due to the coronavirus lockdown.
The British public will be on the hook for £6.9m ($8.4m) that was sent to 66 Scottish wind farms and an additional £1.9m ($2.3m) to 14 sites in England.
The director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, Dr. John Constable, told The Telegraph:
“Overdeployment of renewables in the UK, particularly uncontrollable wind and solar, has resulted in a very fragile electricity system, which is inflexible and unable to deal with accidents and unexpected circumstances at a reasonable cost to consumers.”
“Grid balancing expenditure so far this year is already horrific and by the end of the summer it will be terrifying,” Constable added.
“This is a national embarrassment and a disgrace to the management of the electricity sector who have complacently allowed this crisis to develop over the last decade,” he lamented.
The Renewable Energy Foundation revealed that 86 wind farms across the country were given a record £136 in “constraint payments” last year alone.
The unpredictable nature of wind electricity and other forms of “green energy” like solar power is referred to as intermittency — one of the biggest problems the renewable industry has faced in trying to become viable.
When there is not enough wind, the machines produce little to no power and when there are high levels of wind, the output places strain on electrical grid systems as there is currently no viable storage system for the energy.
Though often hailed as a solution to the supposed “climate emergency” the true environmental costs of wind turbines is relatively high.
The industrial strength magnets that are required to generate electricity out of wind are reliant on rare earth minerals such as neodymium, a mineral that is mostly mined in communist-controlled China.
A 2011 report by journalist Simon Parry found that the mining of neodymium in China had resulted in the creation of a toxic lake outside the Inner Mongolian city of Baotou.
Cancer rates soared amongst the neighboring villagers, and children were reported to have been born with soft bones.
“The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China,” wrote Parry.
In January, Boris Johnson’s government pledged to quadruple the amount of wind energy produced offshore as a part of the government’s green agenda, which promises to make the country carbon neutral by 2050.
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--2020-05-26--Report: Reassuring Facts About The Climate In 2019

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , GWPF , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The year 2019 saw the continuation of many climate trends , most of them unalarming and even reassuring .
That ’ s the conclusion of a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation .
According to the author , Professor Ole Humlum , although there has been gentle warming in the last 40 years , storm activity is unchanged and snow cover remains stable .
And while sea ice has declined , much of this may be natural variation .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on climate modeling speculations , says Professor Humlum .
“ We should , therefore , be greatly reassured by what these data are telling us ” .
Professor Humlum also points out that new data on rising ocean temperatures raise interesting questions about the source of the heat .
“ We can detect a great deal of heat rising from the bottom of the oceans .
This obviously can not be anything to do with human activity .
So although people say the oceans are warming , in reality there is still much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that where there is ignorance , it is always wise to be cautious .
“ We have learned in recent months about the potentially high cost of leaping to conclusions .
We must take more care in our response to small changes in the climate.
” The full report can be downloaded here

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The year 2019 saw the continuation of many climate trends, most of them unalarming and even reassuring.
That’s the conclusion of a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
According to the author, Professor Ole Humlum, although there has been gentle warming in the last 40 years, storm activity is unchanged and snow cover remains stable.
And while sea ice has declined, much of this may be natural variation.
“This report focuses on empirical observations and not on climate modeling speculations, says Professor Humlum. “We should, therefore, be greatly reassured by what these data are telling us”.
Professor Humlum also points out that new data on rising ocean temperatures raise interesting questions about the source of the heat.
“We can detect a great deal of heat rising from the bottom of the oceans. This obviously cannot be anything to do with human activity. So although people say the oceans are warming, in reality there is still much to learn.”
And Professor Humlum points out that where there is ignorance, it is always wise to be cautious.
“We have learned in recent months about the potentially high cost of leaping to conclusions. We must take more care in our response to small changes in the climate.”
The full report can be downloaded here
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-26--Pacific Island States Will No Longer Play Climate-Alarmist Patsies

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news The science is settled .
The time for debate is over .
It ’ s actually better than we thought .
The Pacific islands are not sinking under rising sea levels , in fact , the peer-reviewed science shows the exact opposite , the majority of low lying islands are either stable or increasing in size — something even ABC FactCheck was forced to concede .
Nevertheless , this has not stopped climate alarmists led by the Portuguese socialist and UN General Secretary Guterres from denying the peer-reviewed science and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as patsies to peddle fear and misinformation with discredited claims of ” sinking islands.
” And so far , the Pacific islanders have been happy to play along ; perhaps driven by a cargo-cult mentality , believing if they utter the magic words ” climate change ” and pose for the international media forlornly staring out over the sea , that they might be rewarded with cash handouts from the UN Green Global Climate fund .
But that was all before the Wuhan Flu .
Firstly , the worldwide economic devastation caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belief that the UN Green Climate Fund would have US $ 100 billion cash annually to hand out rivers of gold to Pacific Island nations , into nothing other than a delusional fantasy .
Secondly , the Wuhan flu , by temporarily putting an end to international tourism has given the Pacific Islanders a taste of the dark future they face if the alarmists pushing for “ net-zero ” get their way and end air travel until the eco-fantasy of electric-powered jumbo-jets powered by unicorn farts and pulled along by flying pigs becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a professor of Engineering and the Environment at Cambridge University , has recently admitted , the only way of achieving the fabled net-zero emissions in aviation is “ by having a substantial period of no aviation at all.
” For an island nation like Fiji , tourism ( which is dependent upon international air travel ) contributes nearly 40 % of their GPD and directly/indirectly employs over 150,000 people out of the nation ’ s population of around 900,000 — and where airfreight plays a vital role in exports and imports — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run ” of what life would be like if climate alarmists are successful in enforcing their sinister plans of net-zero .
Currently , with the Wuhan Flu restricting air travel and closing borders , Fiji Airways , the country ’ s national airline , has already grounded 95 percent of flights .
The Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association ( FHTA ) says a staggering 279 hotels and resorts have closed , with over 40,000 tourism workers either laid off or sent on leave without pay .
And unlike Australia , Fiji doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on .
This current situation has been described as a ‘ disaster ’ , a ‘ complete catastrophe ’ , with livelihoods being destroyed and tens of thousands pushed into dire poverty .
And although hopefully , this will only be temporary until the travel restrictions are lifted , the Pacific Islanders will quickly realize , that if the climate alarmists get their way , this will become permanent .
And if their fragile economies are in ruins from the permanent decline in tourism brought on by the Climate Alarmists ’ enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pacific island nations will be substantially more vulnerable to not only the next cyclone that strikes but also to the seductive lure of selling their souls for China ’ s Belt and Road .
So having been awaken to the economic reality of what ’ s in store for them should the climate alarmists ’ manage to enforce their sinister plan , when the next UN delegation sets foot upon the ‘ friendly islands ’ of the Pacific and starts parroting on about climate change , sinking islands ’ and the need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a warm embrace and traditional floral lei , these alarmists will be more deserving of the treatment that was dished out to the less fortunate visiting European missionaries during the nineteenth century .
Number seven in Craig Kelly ’ s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists ’ coffin .

Written by Craig Kelly on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The science is settled. The time for debate is over. It’s actually better than we thought.
The Pacific islands are not sinking under rising sea levels, in fact, the peer-reviewed science shows the exact opposite, the majority of low lying islands are either stable or increasing in size — something even ABC FactCheck was forced to concede.
Nevertheless, this has not stopped climate alarmists led by the Portuguese socialist and UN General Secretary Guterres from denying the peer-reviewed science and exploiting Pacific Island nations, by using them as patsies to peddle fear and misinformation with discredited claims of ”sinking islands.”
And so far, the Pacific islanders have been happy to play along; perhaps driven by a cargo-cult mentality, believing if they utter the magic words ”climate change” and pose for the international media forlornly staring out over the sea, that they might be rewarded with cash handouts from the UN Green Global Climate fund.
But that was all before the Wuhan Flu.
Firstly, the worldwide economic devastation caused by the Wuhan Flu has turned the belief that the UN Green Climate Fund would have US$100 billion cash annually to hand out rivers of gold to Pacific Island nations, into nothing other than a delusional fantasy.
Secondly, the Wuhan flu, by temporarily putting an end to international tourism has given the Pacific Islanders a taste of the dark future they face if the alarmists pushing for “net-zero” get their way and end air travel until the eco-fantasy of electric-powered jumbo-jets powered by unicorn farts and pulled along by flying pigs becomes a reality.
For as Julian Allwood, a professor of Engineering and the Environment at Cambridge University, has recently admitted, the only way of achieving the fabled net-zero emissions in aviation is “by having a substantial period of no aviation at all.”
For an island nation like Fiji, tourism (which is dependent upon international air travel) contributes nearly 40% of their GPD and directly/indirectly employs over 150,000 people out of the nation’s population of around 900,000 — and where airfreight plays a vital role in exports and imports — they are now getting a “trial run” of what life would be like if climate alarmists are successful in enforcing their sinister plans of net-zero.
Currently, with the Wuhan Flu restricting air travel and closing borders, Fiji Airways, the country’s national airline, has already grounded 95 percent of flights.
The Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association (FHTA) says a staggering 279 hotels and resorts have closed, with over 40,000 tourism workers either laid off or sent on leave without pay. And unlike Australia, Fiji doesn’t have a JobKeeper scheme to fall back on.
This current situation has been described as a ‘disaster’, a ‘complete catastrophe’, with livelihoods being destroyed and tens of thousands pushed into dire poverty.
And although hopefully, this will only be temporary until the travel restrictions are lifted, the Pacific Islanders will quickly realize, that if the climate alarmists get their way, this will become permanent.
And if their fragile economies are in ruins from the permanent decline in tourism brought on by the Climate Alarmists’ enforcement of ‘net zero’, these Pacific island nations will be substantially more vulnerable to not only the next cyclone that strikes but also to the seductive lure of selling their souls for China’s Belt and Road.
So having been awaken to the economic reality of what’s in store for them should the climate alarmists’ manage to enforce their sinister plan, when the next UN delegation sets foot upon the ‘friendly islands’ of the Pacific and starts parroting on about climate change, sinking islands’ and the need for ”net-zero” rather than being greeted with a warm embrace and traditional floral lei, these alarmists will be more deserving of the treatment that was dished out to the less fortunate visiting European missionaries during the nineteenth century.
Number seven in Craig Kelly’s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists’ coffin.
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--2020-05-26--More Useless Energy Policies From Down Under

Written by Viv Forbes , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The Australian Minister for Promoting Useless Energy thinks that hydrogen fuel , carbon capture and storage , soil carbon , and biofuels are priorities for energy policy and greenhouse gas reduction .
If that ’ s the best our leaders can come up with , Australia should have voted Green last election to speed the inevitable recession and blackouts that will eventually kill this tsunami of energy nonsense .
“ Hydrogen ” does not supply net energy-burning it can return some of the energy used to produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is an expensive explosive gas that makes less sense than Snowy 2 – more energy in than out !
Moreover , we have no infrastructure that can safely store , distribute , or use hydrogen in our transport fleet , energy network , or smelters .
Governments should not force energy consumers or taxpayers to promote Canberra ’ s thought bubbles – let the “ green hydrogen ” entrepreneurs risk their own or shareholders ’ money .
“ Carbon capture and storage ” is another dumb idea .
To capture CO2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biomass power stations consumes a lot of energy to separate , store , pipe , and pump it underground ( hoping it will stay there ) .
It would be far better to leave non-polluting CO2 in the lower atmosphere and surround every power station with crops and forests hungry for the CO2 plant food so essential to their growth .
Trying to extract CO2 from the atmosphere is even dumber because the mighty oceans will quickly release CO2 from their huge stores to restore equilibrium between the atmosphere and oceans .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a bad idea – why steal plant food from grass , crops , and forests ?
“ Soil carbon ” is green-speak for what every sensible pastoralist tries to do – increase the humus and biological activity in the soil .
The quickest way to do this is via keyline/contour ripping to retain water in the soil ( as shown in Australia by P A Yeoman ) , and by the managed , periodic heavy impact of grazing animals to promote pasture growth ( as shown in Africa by Alan Savory ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn “ carbon farming ” into a costly rural rort run by a bureaucracy of soil samplers and modelers who think it will cool the climate .
“ Biofuels ” are another way to waste energy , food crops , and trees to do jobs better done by coal , gas , and oil – a crime against humanity and the environment .
If our Minister for Promoting Useless Energy is determined to sequester and store carbon , there is only one sensible way – restore the forestry industry .
Harvest mature forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , paper , cardboard , or dance floors .
Then replant with new trees .
Young trees grow rapidly and extract much CO2 .
But old trees reach a stage of carbon equilibrium when the CO2 they extract in summer is equal to what they lose as leaves , branches , and trunks fall to frosts , droughts , bushfires , and termites .
Viv Forbes is a geologist , financial analyst , weather watcher , and pastoralist with long experience at maintaining the health of pastures and soils .
He is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Viv Forbes, guest post on May 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Australian Minister for Promoting Useless Energy thinks that hydrogen fuel, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon, and biofuels are priorities for energy policy and greenhouse gas reduction.
If that’s the best our leaders can come up with, Australia should have voted Green last election to speed the inevitable recession and blackouts that will eventually kill this tsunami of energy nonsense.
“Hydrogen” does not supply net energy-burning it can return some of the energy used to produce it from hydrocarbons or electrolysis of water. It is an expensive explosive gas that makes less sense than Snowy 2 – more energy in than out!
Moreover, we have no infrastructure that can safely store, distribute, or use hydrogen in our transport fleet, energy network, or smelters.
Governments should not force energy consumers or taxpayers to promote Canberra’s thought bubbles – let the “green hydrogen” entrepreneurs risk their own or shareholders’ money.
“Carbon capture and storage” is another dumb idea. To capture CO2 emissions from coal, gas, or biomass power stations consumes a lot of energy to separate, store, pipe, and pump it underground (hoping it will stay there).
It would be far better to leave non-polluting CO2 in the lower atmosphere and surround every power station with crops and forests hungry for the CO2 plant food so essential to their growth.
Trying to extract CO2 from the atmosphere is even dumber because the mighty oceans will quickly release CO2 from their huge stores to restore equilibrium between the atmosphere and oceans.
Even if it could be done, it is a bad idea – why steal plant food from grass, crops, and forests?
“Soil carbon” is green-speak for what every sensible pastoralist tries to do – increase the humus and biological activity in the soil.
The quickest way to do this is via keyline/contour ripping to retain water in the soil (as shown in Australia by P A Yeoman), and by the managed, periodic heavy impact of grazing animals to promote pasture growth (as shown in Africa by Alan Savory).
But it is total nonsense to turn “carbon farming” into a costly rural rort run by a bureaucracy of soil samplers and modelers who think it will cool the climate.
“Biofuels” are another way to waste energy, food crops, and trees to do jobs better done by coal, gas, and oil – a crime against humanity and the environment.
If our Minister for Promoting Useless Energy is determined to sequester and store carbon, there is only one sensible way – restore the forestry industry.
Harvest mature forest trees for poles, posts, sleepers, paper, cardboard, or dance floors. Then replant with new trees. Young trees grow rapidly and extract much CO2.
But old trees reach a stage of carbon equilibrium when the CO2 they extract in summer is equal to what they lose as leaves, branches, and trunks fall to frosts, droughts, bushfires, and termites.
Viv Forbes is a geologist, financial analyst, weather watcher, and pastoralist with long experience at maintaining the health of pastures and soils. He is the Executive Director of the Saltbush Club.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-27--Policymakers Reluctant To Wreck Economies For Climate Goals

Written by Mark Lawson on .
Posted in Latest news With the Covid-19 pandemic starting to recede , activists are again moaning that industrial emissions are destroying the climate .
But having wrecked national economies once to fend off the virus , policymakers are proving reluctant to wreck them again for the climate cause .
In mid-May , governor of California Gavin Newsom proposed canceling much of the $ US12 billion worth of climate initiatives originally announced only in January , which included feel-good programs for encouraging companies to buy electric cars and more useful spending on projects to prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This caused a major outcry in a state that has proved a haven for green activists and with the vocal US green industry sore over President Trump leading America out of the Paris Agreement .
However , faced with an estimated budget deficit of $ 54.3 billion thanks to the virus lockdown , Governor Newsom has little choice but to throw green policies under a bus .
In late April , leader of Germany ’ s Christian Democratic CDU/CSU grouping in the European parliament , Markus Pieper , declared to the German @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the much-trumpeted green deal promoted by EU Commission leader Ursula von der Leyen was not financially viable .
As the CDU remains the ruling party in Germany , headed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel until late 2018 ( Ms. Merkel plans to remain as chancellor until 2021 ) , and Germany remains Europe ’ s banker , Pieper ’ s comments threaten to derail the EU deal which the European parliament has agreed to in principle .
Pieper has been careful to say he wants a watered-down version of the carbon-neutral plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the problem of the updated climate goals announced to date by major emitters .
Under the Paris Agreement , each country sets its own climate goals which are to be updated regularly , with the first updates expected before yet another conference in November , the fifth anniversary of the Paris conference , to be held in Glasgow .
The updates posted to date by major emitters Russia and Japan have proved disappointing to activists .
Russia ’ s original pledge amounted to little and the updated pledge with promises on such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and boosting renewable energy is little improvement .
Japan , with double the CO2 emissions of Australia , released new goals that are virtually unchanged from those of Paris .
Japan is also one of the few developed countries still building coal-fired power plants .
Back in Europe the EU green deal and a similar vague promise from Boris Johnson ’ s Britain is about all that ’ s left of all the strong action to reduce emissions promised in Paris .
Although the EU deal is largely uncosted and , like almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real detail – public statements mention two €100 billion funds – the deal aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050 .
The aim seems to be to muddle through to that goal .
( Poland , which is happy selling its coal-fired power , wants to be left out . )
In normal times the response to all this climate policy sabotage would be a rush to podiums to give speeches .
The problem is that the usual climate jamborees and talkfests have been canceled due to the virus .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christiana Figueres , expressed disappointment to the German press that she was unable to speak at the big event planned for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in Washington in April – one of a number of rallies that had to cancel .
She had to make do with an online conference .
A host of other lesser-known talkfests to be attended by delegates arriving on emission-intensive international flights , such as Africa Climate Week due to be held in Uganda in April , have been canceled or postponed .
Those cancellations have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held in Madrid in December fizzled out with little apparent progress in countries agreeing to wreck their economies for the sake of the climate .
However , it did not help much that the conference had to be relocated twice .
Originally due to the held in Brazil , newly elected right-wing Brazilian President Jay Bolsonaro ( also no fan of the Paris Agreement although Brazil is a top carbon emitter ) moved it on , saying that it was too costly to host the event .
He gave the conference organizers a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A highly inconvenient alternative of Chile was arranged but the event had to be moved again , with just four weeks ’ notice and with many delegates sailing ( as opposed to taking emissions-intensive flights ) over the Atlantic to attend .
Another problem for the now vast green political-industrial complex is the carbon price , the centerpiece of the EU Emissions Trading System .
After nearly a decade of carbon prices below €15 ( $ A25 ) , and mostly well below €10 a tonne – prices that aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after reforms limiting the ability of participating governments to hand out free certificates to their own industries , the main carbon price came within a whisker of €30 in July .
Then the pandemic caused prices to crash to almost €15 before a recovery pushed it back to €20 a tonne , which is borderline effective .
To add to the climate industry ’ s troubles , iconoclastic documentary maker Michael Moore , known for a string of anti-capitalist documentaries , has produced one targeting the green energy industry .
The documentary Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar energy are unreliable and require fossil fuels to function .
This theme is hardly surprising to those who know anything about electric cars and solar energy , but Moore had previously been one of the green industry ’ s own and the documentary attacks individuals , notably former US vice president Al Gore for bolstering corporations that push flawed technology .
The green industry has reacted with fury calling for the documentary to be withdrawn .
All this adds up to intractable problems for the climate industry .
It is increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 months ’ worth of protesting by school children , most of the major carbon emitters are simply going through the motions required by the Paris Agreement with little interest in making major changes .
Thanks to the immense cost of fighting Covid-19 , the nations that might take Paris seriously do not have the financial capacity for strong action .
The climate goals for emissions and temperatures that activists continue to scream about are receding into the distance .

Written by Mark Lawson on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
With the Covid-19 pandemic starting to recede, activists are again moaning that industrial emissions are destroying the climate.
But having wrecked national economies once to fend off the virus, policymakers are proving reluctant to wreck them again for the climate cause.
In mid-May, governor of California Gavin Newsom proposed canceling much of the $US12 billion worth of climate initiatives originally announced only in January, which included feel-good programs for encouraging companies to buy electric cars and more useful spending on projects to prepare for floods, droughts, and bushfires.
This caused a major outcry in a state that has proved a haven for green activists and with the vocal US green industry sore over President Trump leading America out of the Paris Agreement.
However, faced with an estimated budget deficit of $54.3 billion thanks to the virus lockdown, Governor Newsom has little choice but to throw green policies under a bus.
In late April, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic CDU/CSU grouping in the European parliament, Markus Pieper, declared to the German media that after the coronavirus economic bloodletting the much-trumpeted green deal promoted by EU Commission leader Ursula von der Leyen was not financially viable.
As the CDU remains the ruling party in Germany, headed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel until late 2018 (Ms. Merkel plans to remain as chancellor until 2021), and Germany remains Europe’s banker, Pieper’s comments threaten to derail the EU deal which the European parliament has agreed to in principle.
Pieper has been careful to say he wants a watered-down version of the carbon-neutral plan, rather than its abandonment.
Then there is the problem of the updated climate goals announced to date by major emitters.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country sets its own climate goals which are to be updated regularly, with the first updates expected before yet another conference in November, the fifth anniversary of the Paris conference, to be held in Glasgow.
The updates posted to date by major emitters Russia and Japan have proved disappointing to activists.
Russia’s original pledge amounted to little and the updated pledge with promises on such matters as promoting increased insulation in buildings and boosting renewable energy is little improvement.
Japan, with double the CO2 emissions of Australia, released new goals that are virtually unchanged from those of Paris. Japan is also one of the few developed countries still building coal-fired power plants.
Back in Europe the EU green deal and a similar vague promise from Boris Johnson’s Britain is about all that’s left of all the strong action to reduce emissions promised in Paris.
Although the EU deal is largely uncosted and, like almost all net-zero declarations, lacking in any real detail – public statements mention two €100 billion funds – the deal aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050.
The aim seems to be to muddle through to that goal. (Poland, which is happy selling its coal-fired power, wants to be left out.)
In normal times the response to all this climate policy sabotage would be a rush to podiums to give speeches. The problem is that the usual climate jamborees and talkfests have been canceled due to the virus.
One of the architects of the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres, expressed disappointment to the German press that she was unable to speak at the big event planned for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in Washington in April – one of a number of rallies that had to cancel. She had to make do with an online conference.
A host of other lesser-known talkfests to be attended by delegates arriving on emission-intensive international flights, such as Africa Climate Week due to be held in Uganda in April, have been canceled or postponed.
Those cancellations have come after the annual post-Paris Agreement conference held in Madrid in December fizzled out with little apparent progress in countries agreeing to wreck their economies for the sake of the climate.
However, it did not help much that the conference had to be relocated twice.
Originally due to the held in Brazil, newly elected right-wing Brazilian President Jay Bolsonaro (also no fan of the Paris Agreement although Brazil is a top carbon emitter) moved it on, saying that it was too costly to host the event.
He gave the conference organizers a year’s notice to go elsewhere. A highly inconvenient alternative of Chile was arranged but the event had to be moved again, with just four weeks’ notice and with many delegates sailing (as opposed to taking emissions-intensive flights) over the Atlantic to attend.
Another problem for the now vast green political-industrial complex is the carbon price, the centerpiece of the EU Emissions Trading System.
After nearly a decade of carbon prices below €15 ($A25), and mostly well below €10 a tonne – prices that aren’t going to affect company behavior – and after reforms limiting the ability of participating governments to hand out free certificates to their own industries, the main carbon price came within a whisker of €30 in July.
Then the pandemic caused prices to crash to almost €15 before a recovery pushed it back to €20 a tonne, which is borderline effective.
To add to the climate industry’s troubles, iconoclastic documentary maker Michael Moore, known for a string of anti-capitalist documentaries, has produced one targeting the green energy industry.
The documentary Planet of the Humans argues that electric cars and solar energy are unreliable and require fossil fuels to function.
This theme is hardly surprising to those who know anything about electric cars and solar energy, but Moore had previously been one of the green industry’s own and the documentary attacks individuals, notably former US vice president Al Gore for bolstering corporations that push flawed technology.
The green industry has reacted with fury calling for the documentary to be withdrawn.
All this adds up to intractable problems for the climate industry.
It is increasingly apparent that despite the endless activism and 18 months’ worth of protesting by school children, most of the major carbon emitters are simply going through the motions required by the Paris Agreement with little interest in making major changes.
Thanks to the immense cost of fighting Covid-19, the nations that might take Paris seriously do not have the financial capacity for strong action.
The climate goals for emissions and temperatures that activists continue to scream about are receding into the distance.
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--2020-05-27--Media Applaud Activists Urging Fake ‘Climate’ Death Certificates

Written by H. Sterling Burnett , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Five college employees in Australia published a letter in the medical journal Lancet demanding medical doctors list climate factors like heat more often as a person ’ s cause of death .
The authors observed that death certificates don ’ t reflect as many climate-caused deaths as their models and predictions suggested , so medical doctors should begin listing heat and other climate factors on the death certificates of people who died from other reasons .
And Lancet published the letter .
And the media are promoting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a concern to many people .
But if the effect of extreme temperatures is not recorded , its full impact can never be understood .
Death certification needs to be modernized , indirect causes should be reported , with all death certification prompting for external factors contributing to death , and these death data must be coupled with large-scale environmental datasets so that impact assessments can be done , ” the authors argue .
A story in Science Alert uncritically discusses the Lancet editorial , while misrepresenting scientific evidence .
“ People around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate crisis , and yet all too often , official death records do not reflect the impact of these large-scale environmental catastrophes , ” the Science Alert article claims .
Death certificates in Australia and elsewhere do have a section for pre-existing conditions and other factors .
Doctors , however , rarely find evidence of external weather or climate conditions causing or contributing to a person ’ s death .
Data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , as well as scientific bodies in Australia , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme events including droughts , floods , hurricanes , and wildfires have neither become more common nor more severe during the recent period of modestly warming temperatures .
Also , the actual research that has been done on climate and premature mortality indicates it is cold , not heat , that causes more death .
Indeed , a study published in the Lancet in 2015 , researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries , accounting for more than 74 million deaths—a huge sample size from which to draw sound conclusions—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , killed 1,700 percent more people than hot weather .
No , that is not a typo – 1,700 percent more people die from cold temperatures than warm or hot temperatures .
Well heck , if people aren ’ t dying as often from climate change as you say they are , then just change the death certificates .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Five college employees in Australia published a letter in the medical journal Lancet demanding medical doctors list climate factors like heat more often as a person’s cause of death.
The authors observed that death certificates don’t reflect as many climate-caused deaths as their models and predictions suggested, so medical doctors should begin listing heat and other climate factors on the death certificates of people who died from other reasons.
And Lancet published the letter. And the media are promoting the effort.
“Climate change is a concern to many people. But if the effect of extreme temperatures is not recorded, its full impact can never be understood. Death certification needs to be modernized, indirect causes should be reported, with all death certification prompting for external factors contributing to death, and these death data must be coupled with large-scale environmental datasets so that impact assessments can be done,” the authors argue.
A story in Science Alert uncritically discusses the Lancet editorial, while misrepresenting scientific evidence.
“People around the world are already dying from the climate crisis, and yet all too often, official death records do not reflect the impact of these large-scale environmental catastrophes,” the Science Alert article claims.
Death certificates in Australia and elsewhere do have a section for pre-existing conditions and other factors. Doctors, however, rarely find evidence of external weather or climate conditions causing or contributing to a person’s death.
Data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as scientific bodies in Australia, the United States, and elsewhere, indicate extreme events including droughts, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires have neither become more common nor more severe during the recent period of modestly warming temperatures.
Also, the actual research that has been done on climate and premature mortality indicates it is cold, not heat, that causes more death.
Indeed, a study published in the Lancet in 2015, researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths—a huge sample size from which to draw sound conclusions—and found cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700 percent more people than hot weather.
No, that is not a typo – 1,700 percent more people die from cold temperatures than warm or hot temperatures.
Well heck, if people aren’t dying as often from climate change as you say they are, then just change the death certificates.
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--2020-05-27--NYTimes Op-Ed: ‘Stop Eating Animals’ Because Climate Change

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news What is it with liberal outlets and their apparent virtue-signaling obsession with eliminating meat from our diets ?
The New York Times published a wacky op-ed headlined “ The End of Meat Is Here.
” In the sub-headline , author Jonathan Safran Foer grumbled that “ If you care about the working poor , about racial justice , and about climate change , you have to stop eating animals.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Only leftists like Foer would know how to make that nonsensical connection .
Foer began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Is any panic more primitive than the one prompted by the thought of empty grocery store shelves ?
Is any relief more primitive than the one provided by comfort food ?
” Foer then inserted the liberal criticize President Donald Trump angle in order to bolster his already suspect thesis : Pivoting off of the “ [ a ] nimal agriculture is now recognized as a leading cause of global warming ” narrative , Foer later wrote that “ We can not protect our environment while continuing to eat meat regularly.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banal truism.
” Of course , Foer needed to get some digs in at cows and their polluting burps : Foer decried how “ We can not claim to care about the humane treatment of animals while continuing to eat meat regularly.
” He used this to then dramatize animal rights abuses , such as how “ Modern chickens have been so genetically modified that their very bodies have become prisons of pain even if we open their cages.
” Foer then played on fears surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic : “ We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eat meat regularly.
” Foer said later about his opinion piece posted in the Opinion section of The Times that “ [ t ] hese are not my or anyone ’ s opinions , despite a tendency to publish this information in opinion sections.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
With the horror of pandemic pressing from behind , and the new questioning of what is essential , we can now see the door that was always there .
As in a dream where our homes have rooms unknown to our waking selves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better way of eating , a life closer to our values .
On the other side is not something new , but something that calls from the past — a world in which farmers were not myths , tortured bodies were not food and the planet was not the bill at the end of the meal .
One meal in front of the other , it ’ s time to cross the threshold .
On the other side is home .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
What is it with liberal outlets and their apparent virtue-signaling obsession with eliminating meat from our diets?
The New York Times published a wacky op-ed headlined “The End of Meat Is Here.”
In the sub-headline, author Jonathan Safran Foer grumbled that “If you care about the working poor, about racial justice, and about climate change, you have to stop eating animals.” [Emphasis added.]
Only leftists like Foer would know how to make that nonsensical connection.
Foer began his article with two leading questions: “Is any panic more primitive than the one prompted by the thought of empty grocery store shelves? Is any relief more primitive than the one provided by comfort food?”
Foer then inserted the liberal criticize President Donald Trump angle in order to bolster his already suspect thesis:
The combination of meat shortages and President Trump’s decision to order slaughterhouses open despite the protestations of endangered workers has inspired many Americans to consider just how essential meat is.
Pivoting off of the “[a]nimal agriculture is now recognized as a leading cause of global warming” narrative, Foer later wrote that “We cannot protect our environment while continuing to eat meat regularly.” He said that this is a “banal truism.”
Of course, Foer needed to get some digs in at cows and their polluting burps:
Whether they become Whoppers or boutique grass-fed steaks, cows produce an enormous amount of greenhouse gas. If cows were a country, they would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.”
Foer decried how “We cannot claim to care about the humane treatment of animals while continuing to eat meat regularly.”
He used this to then dramatize animal rights abuses, such as how “Modern chickens have been so genetically modified that their very bodies have become prisons of pain even if we open their cages.”
Foer then played on fears surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic: “We cannot protect against pandemics while continuing to eat meat regularly.”
Foer said later about his opinion piece posted in the Opinion section of The Times that “[t]hese are not my or anyone’s opinions, despite a tendency to publish this information in opinion sections.” [Emphasis added.]
Foer’s concluding remarks reeked of eco-utopianism:
With the horror of pandemic pressing from behind, and the new questioning of what is essential, we can now see the door that was always there. As in a dream where our homes have rooms unknown to our waking selves, we can sense there is a better way of eating, a life closer to our values. On the other side is not something new, but something that calls from the past — a world in which farmers were not myths, tortured bodies were not food and the planet was not the bill at the end of the meal. One meal in front of the other, it’s time to cross the threshold. On the other side is home.
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--2020-05-27--‘Dubious’ Record-High Temp Allowed To Stand Despite Known Problems

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Leading German daily Bild here reports on the controversy , which still continues to swirl , over Germany ’ s all-time record-high temperature recorded last year in North Germany near the Dutch border ( pictured ) .
Independent meteorologists say the readings need to be thrown out Last year on July 25th , the Lingen thermometer reached a whopping 42.6°C , far eclipsing the old German all-time record of 40.3°C .
But that recording quickly came under fire by independent weather experts who say the station data was corrupted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located in a depression in the earth , near a parking lot , and shielded by trees from the wind , thus creating the ideal conditions for trapping heat .
Last year NTZ reported on the controversial record here noting that surrounding stations did not even come close to record reading in Lingen .
What follows is a comparison of the Lingen ’ s readings to those of 6 nearby stations over the five day period , July 23 – July 27 : On every single day , Lingen handily beat its neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , a year later – as reported by Bild – meteorologists continue to slam the Lingen record .
Bild writes that the Lingen station today “ keeps on recording record-breaking temperatures : Bild also notes that German meteorologist Dominik Jung ( wetternet.de ) “ massively doubts the results of the station in Lingen ” and that “ it is dubious that the DWD allows such a weather station at all.
” Bild also cites meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt of donnerwetter.de : “ The station in Lingen has the problem that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heats up the temperatures .
This is definitely not the warmest place in Germany.
” So is Germany ’ s DWD National Weather Service , which operates the station , ready to dump Lingen ’ s overheated data ?
Bild reports that the DWD plans to stick to the Lingen readings , deeming them to be of good scientific quality .
The DWD replied to Bild : “ As a result of a site assessment , it can be stated that the station conditions have no serious influence on the temperature measurements and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Exactly .
There ’ s nothing suspicious at all about a station routinely being 3°C warmer than all the others around it .
Silly anyone would get the idea to question that .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on May 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Leading German daily Bild here reports on the controversy, which still continues to swirl, over Germany’s all-time record-high temperature recorded last year in North Germany near the Dutch border (pictured).
Independent meteorologists say the readings need to be thrown out
Last year on July 25th, the Lingen thermometer reached a whopping 42.6°C, far eclipsing the old German all-time record of 40.3°C.
But that recording quickly came under fire by independent weather experts who say the station data was corrupted by siting issues.
The Lingen station is located in a depression in the earth, near a parking lot, and shielded by trees from the wind, thus creating the ideal conditions for trapping heat.
Comparison to nearby stations shows a huge anomaly
Last year NTZ reported on the controversial record here noting that surrounding stations did not even come close to record reading in Lingen.
What follows is a comparison of the Lingen’s readings to those of 6 nearby stations over the five day period, July 23 – July 27:
On every single day, Lingen handily beat its neighbors by at times huge, red-flag-raising margins.
Today, a year later – as reported by Bild – meteorologists continue to slam the Lingen record.
Almost 4°C too hot?
Bild writes that the Lingen station today “keeps on recording record-breaking temperatures:
On May 20th, the station had 23.6 degrees. In the neighborhood it was below 20 degrees. On May 10, 27.7 degrees were measured in Lingen, in the neighborhood it was barely over 24 degrees.”
“Massive doubts”… “definitely not the warmest place”
Bild also notes that German meteorologist Dominik Jung (wetternet.de) “massively doubts the results of the station in Lingen” and that “it is dubious that the DWD allows such a weather station at all.”
Jung adds: “The station should be moved.”
Bild also cites meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt of donnerwetter.de: “The station in Lingen has the problem that it is located in a depression, which heats up the temperatures. This is definitely not the warmest place in Germany.”
So is Germany’s DWD National Weather Service, which operates the station, ready to dump Lingen’s overheated data? Bild reports that the DWD plans to stick to the Lingen readings, deeming them to be of good scientific quality.
The DWD replied to Bild: “As a result of a site assessment, it can be stated that the station conditions have no serious influence on the temperature measurements and therefore do not contradict the WMO standards.”
Exactly. There’s nothing suspicious at all about a station routinely being 3°C warmer than all the others around it. Silly anyone would get the idea to question that.
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