climatechangedispatch--2020-08-26--UNFCCC Pushes Alarmist Lies About Its Own Science

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news The United Nations on Monday released its Framework Convention on Climate Change ’ s ( UNFCCC ) 2019 Annual Report , promoting alarmist assertions that defy the UN ’ s own climate science reports .
U.N. General Secretary Antonio Guterres ’ forward to the Annual Report claims the world is being “ overwhelmed by … the continued intensification of the pattern of destruction and losses associated with climate change , … [ and ] going beyond a 1.5 °C increase in average surface temperature will lead us to catastrophic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate summaries published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) conclude there is little or no evidence of extreme weather getting worse .
Concerning hurricanes , the IPCC reports there is , “ only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.
” Also , Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes details that in the United States , hurricane impacts are at an all-time low .
“ The United States recently went more than a decade ( 2005 through 2017 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or higher , which is the longest such period in recorded history .
The United States also recently experienced the fewest number of hurricane strikes in any eight-year period ( 2009 through 2017 ) in recorded history , ” notes Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes , according to data from the National Hurricane Center .
Concerning floods , as noted in Climate at a Glance : Floods , the IPCC finds it has “ low confidence ” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods , essentially conceding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making floods less frequent and less severe as making them worse .
Nor have droughts become more frequent or severe in recent years .
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) reports with “ high confidence ” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) has increased during the past 70 years , while IPCC has “ low confidence ” about any negative trends globally .
Also , data from the National Integrated Drought Information System ( NIDIS ) cited in Climate at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions , with peaks in droughts around 1978 , 1954 , 1930 , and 1900 much larger than what the U.S. has experienced in the 21st century and the late-20th century .
Indeed , in 2017 and 2019 , the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
If Guterres truly believes the false claims he made about climate change intensifying natural disasters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the science presented by his own organization before writing a fictitious forward to the UNFCCC ’ s annual report .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The United Nations on Monday released its Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) 2019 Annual Report, promoting alarmist assertions that defy the UN’s own climate science reports.
U.N. General Secretary Antonio Guterres’ forward to the Annual Report claims the world is being “overwhelmed by … the continued intensification of the pattern of destruction and losses associated with climate change,… [and] going beyond a 1.5 °C increase in average surface temperature will lead us to catastrophic disaster and extreme weather events.”
Yet climate summaries published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclude there is little or no evidence of extreme weather getting worse.
Concerning hurricanes, the IPCC reports there is, “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”
Also, Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes details that in the United States, hurricane impacts are at an all-time low.
“The United States recently went more than a decade (2005 through 2017) without a major hurricane measuring Category 3 or higher, which is the longest such period in recorded history.
The United States also recently experienced the fewest number of hurricane strikes in any eight-year period (2009 through 2017) in recorded history,” notes Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, according to data from the National Hurricane Center.
Concerning floods, as noted in Climate at a Glance: Floods, the IPCC finds it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, essentially conceding climate change is as likely to be making floods less frequent and less severe as making them worse.
Nor have droughts become more frequent or severe in recent years. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports with “high confidence” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) has increased during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Also, data from the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) cited in Climate at a Glance: Drought shows the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions, with peaks in droughts around 1978, 1954, 1930, and 1900 much larger than what the U.S. has experienced in the 21st century and the late-20th century.
Indeed, in 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
If Guterres truly believes the false claims he made about climate change intensifying natural disasters, he should have spent more time digesting the science presented by his own organization before writing a fictitious forward to the UNFCCC’s annual report.
Read more at Climate realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-26--After 48 Years, Democrats Endorse Nuclear Energy In Platform

Written by Robert Bryce on .
Posted in Latest news It took five decades , but the Democratic Party has finally changed its stance on nuclear energy .
In its recently released party platform , the Democrats say they favor a “ technology-neutral ” approach that includes “ all zero-carbon technologies , including hydroelectric power , geothermal , existing and advanced nuclear , and carbon capture and storage.
” That statement marks the first time since 1972 that the Democratic Party has said anything positive in its platform about nuclear energy .
The change in policy is good — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear-energy sector and for everyone concerned about climate change .
The Democrats ’ new position means that for the first time since Richard Nixon was in the White House , both the Republican and Democratic parties are officially on record in support of nuclear energy .
That ’ s the good news .
The less-than-good news is that the Democratic Party platform pledges to deploy outlandish quantities of new solar and wind capacity and do so in just five years .
Further , the platform ignores the amount of land needed for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving up the cost of electricity for low- and middle-income consumers .
( More on that in a moment . )
About a decade ago , a high-ranking official at the Department of Energy told me that a big problem with nuclear energy is that it needs bipartisan support in Congress .
That wasn ’ t happening , he said , because “ Democrats are pro-government and anti-nuclear .
Republicans are pro-nuclear and anti-government.
” That partisan divide is apparent in the polling data .
A 2019 Gallup poll found that 65 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 42 percent of Democrats did so .
The last time the Democratic Party ’ s platform contained a positive statement about nuclear energy was in 1972 when the party said it supported “ greater research and development ” into “ unconventional energy sources ” including solar , geothermal , and “ a variety of nuclear power possibilities to design clean breeder fission and fusion techniques.
” Since then , the Democratic Party has either ignored or professed outright opposition to nuclear energy .
In 2016 , the party ’ s platform said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent threat to our economy , our national security , and our children ’ s health and futures.
” The platform contained 31 uses of the word “ nuclear ” including “ nuclear proliferation , ” “ nuclear weapon , ” and “ nuclear annihilation.
” It did not contain a single mention of “ nuclear energy.
” That stance reflected the orthodoxy of the climate activists and environmental groups who have dominated the Democratic Party ’ s discussion on energy for decades .
For instance , in 2005 , about 300 environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Public Citizen – signed a manifesto which said “ we flatly reject the argument that increased investment in nuclear capacity is an acceptable or necessary solution… .
[ N ] uclear power should not be a part of any solution to address global warming.
” ( The Sierra Club , the biggest environmental group in America , says it remains “ unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.
” ) What changed the Democrats ’ stance on nuclear ?
I can not claim any special knowledge about the drafting of the platform , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ math finally won out .
While vying for their party ’ s nomination , two prominent Democratic presidential hopefuls — Cory Booker and Andrew Yang – both endorsed nuclear energy .
In addition , Joe Biden ’ s energy plan included a shout-out to nuclear .
While the pro-nuclear stance is a welcome change to the Democratic Party ’ s view on energy , the new platform also says that “ Within five years , we will install 500 million solar panels , including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call that a stretch goal would be charitable .
The Democrats say that there is an “ urgent need to decarbonize the power sector.
” But attempting to do so with such massive quantities of solar and wind simply isn ’ t feasible , particularly in just five years .
To put those numbers in perspective , the Solar Star project is one of the largest solar facilities in the country .
It has about 1.7 million solar panels and at full capacity , can generate 579 megawatts of power .
Thus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have a capacity of roughly 173,700 megawatts ) would require building nearly 300 projects the size of Solar Star .
The wind numbers are equally daunting .
The United States currently has about 60,000 wind turbines with a capacity of about 104,000 megawatts .
Where are the Democrats planning to put those forests of turbines ?
In New York , a state dominated by Democrats , the backlash against the siting of large renewable projects has been so widespread that earlier this year , Gov .
Andrew Cuomo pushed through a measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations implemented by local governments when siting energy projects .
In California , where Democrats have controlled the state government for decades , wind capacity has been essentially unchanged since 2013 .
Meanwhile , only 73 megawatts of new wind capacity is being built in New England .
No new wind capacity is under construction in New Jersey , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
Nor do the Democrats mention what building all that capacity will mean for ratepayers .
But some basic estimates show how expensive it will be .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs $ 1 million .
At that price , adding 277,000 megawatts for new wind and solar capacity will cost about $ 277 billion .
That figure is far too low as it ignores the cost of high-voltage transmission lines , substations , and the batteries needed to offset the incurable intermittency of the sun and the wind .
But even at that price , it works out to more than $ 800 for each American .
( Last year , energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie estimated that “ full decarbonization of the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4.5 trillion . )
Whatever the actual tally , there ’ s no doubt that overhauling the power grid will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and that cost will ultimately be passed on to low- and middle-income consumers , either through higher taxes or higher electricity rates .
The essential point here is that talking about changing our energy and power systems is easy .
Making real change happen takes decades and is staggeringly expensive .
Over the past two years or so , bipartisan support on Capitol Hill has led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Innovation and Modernization Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act that will help stimulate the development and deployment of new nuclear fuels , materials , and advanced reactors .
So yes , the Democratic Party ’ s new support for nuclear energy is welcome and overdue .
The hard work will be in turning that support into new reactors .

Written by Robert Bryce on Aug 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It took five decades, but the Democratic Party has finally changed its stance on nuclear energy.
In its recently released party platform, the Democrats say they favor a “technology-neutral” approach that includes “all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.”
That statement marks the first time since 1972 that the Democratic Party has said anything positive in its platform about nuclear energy.
The change in policy is good — and long overdue — news for the American nuclear-energy sector and for everyone concerned about climate change.
The Democrats’ new position means that for the first time since Richard Nixon was in the White House, both the Republican and Democratic parties are officially on record in support of nuclear energy. That’s the good news.
The less-than-good news is that the Democratic Party platform pledges to deploy outlandish quantities of new solar and wind capacity and do so in just five years.
Further, the platform ignores the amount of land needed for that effort and how it would end up driving up the cost of electricity for low- and middle-income consumers. (More on that in a moment.)
About a decade ago, a high-ranking official at the Department of Energy told me that a big problem with nuclear energy is that it needs bipartisan support in Congress.
That wasn’t happening, he said, because “Democrats are pro-government and anti-nuclear. Republicans are pro-nuclear and anti-government.”
That partisan divide is apparent in the polling data. A 2019 Gallup poll found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so.
The last time the Democratic Party’s platform contained a positive statement about nuclear energy was in 1972 when the party said it supported “greater research and development” into “unconventional energy sources” including solar, geothermal, and “a variety of nuclear power possibilities to design clean breeder fission and fusion techniques.”
Since then, the Democratic Party has either ignored or professed outright opposition to nuclear energy. In 2016, the party’s platform said climate change “poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures.”
The platform contained 31 uses of the word “nuclear” including “nuclear proliferation,” “nuclear weapon,” and “nuclear annihilation.” It did not contain a single mention of “nuclear energy.”
That stance reflected the orthodoxy of the climate activists and environmental groups who have dominated the Democratic Party’s discussion on energy for decades.
For instance, in 2005, about 300 environmental groups – including Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen – signed a manifesto which said “we flatly reject the argument that increased investment in nuclear capacity is an acceptable or necessary solution….[N]uclear power should not be a part of any solution to address global warming.” (The Sierra Club, the biggest environmental group in America, says it remains “unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.”)
What changed the Democrats’ stance on nuclear? I cannot claim any special knowledge about the drafting of the platform, but it appears that science and basic math finally won out.
While vying for their party’s nomination, two prominent Democratic presidential hopefuls — Cory Booker and Andrew Yang – both endorsed nuclear energy. In addition, Joe Biden’s energy plan included a shout-out to nuclear.
While the pro-nuclear stance is a welcome change to the Democratic Party’s view on energy, the new platform also says that “Within five years, we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems, and 60,000 wind turbines.”
To call that a stretch goal would be charitable. The Democrats say that there is an “urgent need to decarbonize the power sector.” But attempting to do so with such massive quantities of solar and wind simply isn’t feasible, particularly in just five years.
To put those numbers in perspective, the Solar Star project is one of the largest solar facilities in the country. It has about 1.7 million solar panels and at full capacity, can generate 579 megawatts of power.
Thus, deploying 500 million solar panels (which would have a capacity of roughly 173,700 megawatts) would require building nearly 300 projects the size of Solar Star.
The wind numbers are equally daunting. The United States currently has about 60,000 wind turbines with a capacity of about 104,000 megawatts. Where are the Democrats planning to put those forests of turbines?
In New York, a state dominated by Democrats, the backlash against the siting of large renewable projects has been so widespread that earlier this year, Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed through a measure that allows the state to override the regulations implemented by local governments when siting energy projects.
In California, where Democrats have controlled the state government for decades, wind capacity has been essentially unchanged since 2013.
Meanwhile, only 73 megawatts of new wind capacity is being built in New England. No new wind capacity is under construction in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Nor do the Democrats mention what building all that capacity will mean for ratepayers. But some basic estimates show how expensive it will be. Let’s assume each megawatt of solar and wind costs $1 million.
At that price, adding 277,000 megawatts for new wind and solar capacity will cost about $277 billion. That figure is far too low as it ignores the cost of high-voltage transmission lines, substations, and the batteries needed to offset the incurable intermittency of the sun and the wind.
But even at that price, it works out to more than $800 for each American. (Last year, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie estimated that “full decarbonization of the US power grid” would cost about $4.5 trillion.)
Whatever the actual tally, there’s no doubt that overhauling the power grid will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and that cost will ultimately be passed on to low- and middle-income consumers, either through higher taxes or higher electricity rates.
The essential point here is that talking about changing our energy and power systems is easy. Making real change happen takes decades and is staggeringly expensive.
Over the past two years or so, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill has led to new laws, including the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act that will help stimulate the development and deployment of new nuclear fuels, materials, and advanced reactors.
So yes, the Democratic Party’s new support for nuclear energy is welcome and overdue. The hard work will be in turning that support into new reactors.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-25--Farmers’ Almanac Forecast: Brutally Cold Winter For 2020-21

Written by Cap Allon on .
Posted in Latest news Unlike the Old Farmers ’ Almanac — which makes weather predictions through a combination of animal signals , chicken bones , pig spleens , and other weather lore — the Farmers ’ Almanac bases its outlook on a “ mathematical and astronomical formula ” dating back to 1818 , which takes sunspot activity and other astronomical anomalies into account , and is , therefore , in my opinion , far more reliable .
This annual periodical is predicting a “ Grand Solar Minimum ” -style winter for the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Winter of the Great Divide , ” the Farmers ’ Almanac is anticipating a brutally cold winter for northern , central , and eastern regions , drought in the west , and everything crazy in between .
If you love the cold of winter , you ’ re going to love our forecast if you live in the northern half of the country , reads a passage from the Farmers ’ Almanac website .
Our long-range forecast is calling for a cold winter with below-normal temperatures in areas from the Great Lakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Central Plains , and the Rockies .
Areas across the Desert Southwest , ( Arizona and southern California ) , are predicted to experience a dry and generally mild winter .
While right along the Pacific Coastal Plain , from northern California and points north through western portions of Oregon and Washington , rainy and wet weather will be the rule for the winter ahead .
The setup is similar in Canada , with a “ snow train ” predicted to blast its way from west to east through the northern provinces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those in both the US and Canada — line-up perfectly with the Grand Solar Minimums of the past which themselves follow the pattern of past Glacial Maximums ( Ice Ages ) : Northern , central , and eastern regions of North America find themselves buffeted by increasingly-intense polar cold during the onset of GSMs as the Arctic encroaches ever-further south , while lower-lying regions to the west are usually spared the worst of the freeze .
This pattern also ties-in with NASA ’ s Maunder Minimum Reconstruction Map ( below ) , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running diagonally down the North American continent , from west to east–again sparing the west from the worst : Also worth noting is that while Earth ’ s overall temperature trends colder during an Ice Age/Grand Solar Minimum , not ALL regions experience the chill .
As with the previous GSM ( the Maunder Minimum , 1645-1715 ) , areas like the Arctic , Alaska , and S. Greenland/N .
Atlantic actually warm during bouts of otherwise “ global ” cooling — and this is exactly what we see developing today .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bout of global cooling ?
It certainly is calling for a brutally cold winter for northern , central , and eastern regions — with a blizzard forecast to deliver 2 feet of snow along the eastern seaboard in mid-February .
If 2020 taught us anything , it ’ s that you “ just never know , ” reads the footnotes of the Almanac ’ s website .
Tellingly , and in addition to predicting the weather , the periodical includes useful advice on ways to raise chickens , boost your immunity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how to live an all-round and more self-sufficient life — advice that completely contradicts what ’ s issued by the powers-that-be who desire total urbanization in order to render us all utterly-dependent on the state , for everything , like a fluffy mass of dutifully herded sheep .

Written by Cap Allon on Aug 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Unlike the Old Farmers’ Almanac — which makes weather predictions through a combination of animal signals, chicken bones, pig spleens, and other weather lore — the Farmers’ Almanac bases its outlook on a “mathematical and astronomical formula” dating back to 1818, which takes sunspot activity and other astronomical anomalies into account, and is, therefore, in my opinion, far more reliable.
This annual periodical is predicting a “Grand Solar Minimum”-style winter for the United States and Canada this season.
Officially dubbed “Winter of the Great Divide,” the Farmers’ Almanac is anticipating a brutally cold winter for northern, central, and eastern regions, drought in the west, and everything crazy in between.
If you love the cold of winter, you’re going to love our forecast if you live in the northern half of the country, reads a passage from the Farmers’ Almanac website.
Our long-range forecast is calling for a cold winter with below-normal temperatures in areas from the Great Lakes and Midwest, westward through the Northern and Central Plains, and the Rockies.
Areas across the Desert Southwest, (Arizona and southern California), are predicted to experience a dry and generally mild winter.
While right along the Pacific Coastal Plain, from northern California and points north through western portions of Oregon and Washington, rainy and wet weather will be the rule for the winter ahead.
The setup is similar in Canada, with a “snow train” predicted to blast its way from west to east through the northern provinces:
In short, these patterns — those in both the US and Canada — line-up perfectly with the Grand Solar Minimums of the past which themselves follow the pattern of past Glacial Maximums (Ice Ages):
Northern, central, and eastern regions of North America find themselves buffeted by increasingly-intense polar cold during the onset of GSMs as the Arctic encroaches ever-further south, while lower-lying regions to the west are usually spared the worst of the freeze.
This pattern also ties-in with NASA’s Maunder Minimum Reconstruction Map (below), which clearly depicts a western-boundary of deeper blue running diagonally down the North American continent, from west to east–again sparing the west from the worst:
Also worth noting is that while Earth’s overall temperature trends colder during an Ice Age/Grand Solar Minimum, not ALL regions experience the chill.
As with the previous GSM (the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715), areas like the Arctic, Alaska, and S. Greenland/N. Atlantic actually warm during bouts of otherwise “global” cooling — and this is exactly what we see developing today.
Is the Farmers Almanac 2020-21 preparing us for a bout of global cooling?
It certainly is calling for a brutally cold winter for northern, central, and eastern regions — with a blizzard forecast to deliver 2 feet of snow along the eastern seaboard in mid-February.
If 2020 taught us anything, it’s that you “just never know,” reads the footnotes of the Almanac’s website.
Tellingly, and in addition to predicting the weather, the periodical includes useful advice on ways to raise chickens, boost your immunity, grow food, and also offers tips on how to live an all-round and more self-sufficient life — advice that completely contradicts what’s issued by the powers-that-be who desire total urbanization in order to render us all utterly-dependent on the state, for everything, like a fluffy mass of dutifully herded sheep.
Read rest at ElectroVerse
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-25--Tucker Carlson: WHO Links Pandemic To Fighting Climate Change

Written by David Krayden on .
Posted in Latest news Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Monday that the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and global elites are trying to link the coronavirus to climate change .
“ At first , authorities told us that we could resume our lives after the curb was flattened .
The curve stayed flat , ” Carlson said on “ Tucker Carlson Tonight.
” “ So , we have a new benchmark for when we can get back .
When we get a vaccine .
Everything will be fine once we can vaccinate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us that .
They are still telling us that.
” Carlson noted how Virginia is planning to make the vaccine mandatory when it is available .
Vaccine or not , that “ will not be the end of all of this , ” Carlson said .
“ It will never end .
You can get your injection , they ’ ll make you get it , but you ’ ll still be under arrest.
” “ The World Health Organization says that finding a vaccine is not the goal ; reordering society is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not , we can not go back to the way things were.
’ That ’ s a direct quote from the leader of the World Health Organization , Dr. Tedros , who by the way it is not really a doctor.
” Carlson said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus does not ultimately see the coronavirus as just “ a public health crisis really or even a mere virus .
COVID-19 … is really about global warming .
As he puts it , quote , ‘ The COVID-19 pandemic has given new impetus to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to climate change.
’ ” The Fox News host also pointed to comments from billionaire Bill Gates , who argued that the coronavirus pandemic is really a lesson in learning how to “ sacrifice even more to save the Earth from warming.
” In 2015 , Gates predicted an influenza pandemic that would kill millions of people .
“ Now , for people who are not billionaire global influencers , this is all pretty confusing .
Quick , what does the coronavirus have to do with climate change ?
Well , for one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But Carlson said that this not the point for either Tedros or Gates .
“ No .
For Dr. Tedrose and Bill Gates , pandemic and climate change share a very different connection .
Both are useful pretexts for mass social control .
Both are essentially unsolvable crises they can harness to bypass democracy and force powerless populations to obey their commands.
” WHO has also linked the coronavirus with abortion , insisting that “ reproductive rights ” are essential medical services during the pandemic .
“ Now it makes sense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus a major public health crisis but not suicides and drug ODs ?
This is why .
When a 26-year-old mother in New Hampshire drops dead from fentanyl , Bill Gates and Dr. Tedros don ’ t get more powerful .
Her death is useless to them .
”

Written by David Krayden on Aug 25, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Monday that the World Health Organization (WHO) and global elites are trying to link the coronavirus to climate change.
“At first, authorities told us that we could resume our lives after the curb was flattened. The curve stayed flat,” Carlson said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
“So, we have a new benchmark for when we can get back. When we get a vaccine. Everything will be fine once we can vaccinate against COVID-19. Many in authority told us that. They are still telling us that.”
Carlson noted how Virginia is planning to make the vaccine mandatory when it is available.
Vaccine or not, that “will not be the end of all of this,” Carlson said. “It will never end. You can get your injection, they’ll make you get it, but you’ll still be under arrest.”
“The World Health Organization says that finding a vaccine is not the goal; reordering society is the goal. Quote, ‘We will not, we cannot go back to the way things were.’ That’s a direct quote from the leader of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros, who by the way it is not really a doctor.”
Carlson said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus does not ultimately see the coronavirus as just “a public health crisis really or even a mere virus. COVID-19 … is really about global warming.
As he puts it, quote, ‘The COVID-19 pandemic has given new impetus to the need to accelerate efforts to respond to climate change.’”
The Fox News host also pointed to comments from billionaire Bill Gates, who argued that the coronavirus pandemic is really a lesson in learning how to “sacrifice even more to save the Earth from warming.”
In 2015, Gates predicted an influenza pandemic that would kill millions of people.
“Now, for people who are not billionaire global influencers, this is all pretty confusing. Quick, what does the coronavirus have to do with climate change? Well, for one thing, China caused both of them.”
But Carlson said that this not the point for either Tedros or Gates.
“No. For Dr. Tedrose and Bill Gates, pandemic and climate change share a very different connection. Both are useful pretexts for mass social control. Both are essentially unsolvable crises they can harness to bypass democracy and force powerless populations to obey their commands.”
WHO has also linked the coronavirus with abortion, insisting that “reproductive rights” are essential medical services during the pandemic.
“Now it makes sense. Ever wondered why our leaders consider the coronavirus a major public health crisis but not suicides and drug ODs? This is why. When a 26-year-old mother in New Hampshire drops dead from fentanyl, Bill Gates and Dr. Tedros don’t get more powerful. Her death is useless to them.”
Read more at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-28--4,500 Extra Police To Fight Climate Protests, Raves Across London

Written by Anthony France on .
Posted in Latest news More than 4,500 extra officers will be deployed on London ’ s streets over the bank holiday weekend to police a fresh wave of environmental protests and dozens of illegal raves to replace Notting Hill Carnival .
The Extinction Rebellion group plans to target airports and block roads with rallies , marches , and sit-ins as it renews its campaign of “ non-violent direct action ” which last year brought central London to a standstill .
Anneka Sutcliffe , from XR Actions Circle , said a “ few thousand ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests , with marches starting from Tate Britain , Trafalgar Square , Buckingham Palace , Westminster Cathedral and Smithfield Market to converge at a central location .
Meanwhile , Met chiefs have urged people to stay away from the traditional carnival route and watch this year ’ s festivities online .
Officers have intelligence that up to 80 unlicensed music events are being planned across the city .
Commander Bas Javid urged revelers : “ Watch the celebration of Carnival from the comfort of your own home .
We urge people not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are no events .
Where there are large gatherings of people , officers will be deployed to interact with those gathered.
” The Metropolitan Police has responded to more than 1,000 unlicensed events since the end of June , with officers coming under attack at some in ugly scenes .
Mr. Javid added : “ Unlicensed music events are a blight on our communities and cause untold distress and fear , often attracting criminal behavior and violence — if you have any information about an unlicensed music event , contact us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them down .
“ We know people will want to be out celebrating the holiday , and we want them to so safely — reminding Londoners of the restrictions which are in place to keep them safe.
” From today , anyone organizing an unlicensed music event or “ any other unlawful gathering of 30 people or more ” could face fines of up to £10,000 .
Ken Marsh , chairman of the rank-and-file Met Police Federation , said : “ Officers don ’ t want to be lambs to the slaughter this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events and other protests .
“ We are ready to deal with anything put in front of us but I have great concerns it will get out of control .
This weekend has all the ingredients to be very , very stressful .
”

Written by Anthony France on Aug 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
More than 4,500 extra officers will be deployed on London’s streets over the bank holiday weekend to police a fresh wave of environmental protests and dozens of illegal raves to replace Notting Hill Carnival.
The Extinction Rebellion group plans to target airports and block roads with rallies, marches, and sit-ins as it renews its campaign of “non-violent direct action” which last year brought central London to a standstill.
Anneka Sutcliffe, from XR Actions Circle, said a “few thousand” people had indicated they would join the protests, with marches starting from Tate Britain, Trafalgar Square, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Cathedral and Smithfield Market to converge at a central location.
Meanwhile, Met chiefs have urged people to stay away from the traditional carnival route and watch this year’s festivities online. Officers have intelligence that up to 80 unlicensed music events are being planned across the city.
Commander Bas Javid urged revelers: “Watch the celebration of Carnival from the comfort of your own home. We urge people not to come into the traditional area to celebrate. There are no events. Where there are large gatherings of people, officers will be deployed to interact with those gathered.”
The Metropolitan Police has responded to more than 1,000 unlicensed events since the end of June, with officers coming under attack at some in ugly scenes.
Mr. Javid added: “Unlicensed music events are a blight on our communities and cause untold distress and fear, often attracting criminal behavior and violence — if you have any information about an unlicensed music event, contact us so we can respond quickly to close them down.
“We know people will want to be out celebrating the holiday, and we want them to so safely — reminding Londoners of the restrictions which are in place to keep them safe.”
From today, anyone organizing an unlicensed music event or “any other unlawful gathering of 30 people or more” could face fines of up to £10,000.
Ken Marsh, chairman of the rank-and-file Met Police Federation, said: “Officers don’t want to be lambs to the slaughter this weekend and be attacked at unlicensed music events and other protests.
“We are ready to deal with anything put in front of us but I have great concerns it will get out of control. This weekend has all the ingredients to be very, very stressful.”
Read more at Evening Standard
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-28--Cold Weather Linked To Nearly All Temperature-Related Deaths

Written by Jacqueline Carey on .
Posted in Latest news With the number of extreme weather days rising around the globe in recent years due to global warming , it is no surprise that there has been an upward trend in hospital visits and admissions for injuries caused by high heat over the last several years .
But cold temperatures are responsible for almost all temperature-related deaths , according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research .
According to the new study by researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago , patients who died because of cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature-related deaths , even though hypothermia was responsible for only 27 % of temperature-related hospital visits .
“ With the decrease in the number of cold weather days over the last several decades , we still see more deaths due to cold weather as opposed to hot weather , ” said Lee Friedman , associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences in the UIC School of Public Health and corresponding author on the paper .
“ This is in part due to the body ’ s poorer ability to thermoregulate once hypothermia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are fewer cold weather days overall , people don ’ t have time to acclimate to cold when those rarer cold days do occur.
” Hypothermia , or a drop in the body ’ s core temperature , doesn ’ t require sub-arctic temps .
Even mildly cool temperatures can initiate hypothermia , defined as a drop in body temperature from the normal 98.7 degrees to 95 degrees Fahrenheit .
When this occurs , organs and systems begin to shut down in an effort to preserve the brain .
The process , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get under control ; however , people who are more regularly exposed to lower temperatures are better able to resist hypothermia .
“ People who were experiencing homelessness in the records we looked at were less likely to die from temperature-related injury , ” Friedman said .
“ Because they have greater outdoor exposure , they acclimate better to both heat and cold.
” Heat-related issues are more likely to self-resolve by getting to a cooler place or by hydrating , Friedman said .
The researchers looked at inpatient and outpatient heat- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit in Illinois between 2011 and 2018 .
They identified 23,834 cold-related cases and 24,233 heat-related cases .
Among these patients , there were 1,935 cold-related deaths and 70 heat-related deaths .
[ That ’ s nearly 28 times more cold deaths versus heat ] Friedman said government data systems that track temperature-related deaths significantly undercount these deaths .
“ We found five to 10 times more temperature-related deaths by linking the hospital data to data from the National Weather Service and medical examiner ’ s data , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from temperature-related injuries than is generally reported .
”

Written by Jacqueline Carey on Aug 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
With the number of extreme weather days rising around the globe in recent years due to global warming, it is no surprise that there has been an upward trend in hospital visits and admissions for injuries caused by high heat over the last several years.
But cold temperatures are responsible for almost all temperature-related deaths, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research.
According to the new study by researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago, patients who died because of cold temperatures were responsible for 94% of temperature-related deaths, even though hypothermia was responsible for only 27% of temperature-related hospital visits.
“With the decrease in the number of cold weather days over the last several decades, we still see more deaths due to cold weather as opposed to hot weather,” said Lee Friedman, associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences in the UIC School of Public Health and corresponding author on the paper.
“This is in part due to the body’s poorer ability to thermoregulate once hypothermia sets in, as well as since there are fewer cold weather days overall, people don’t have time to acclimate to cold when those rarer cold days do occur.”
Hypothermia, or a drop in the body’s core temperature, doesn’t require sub-arctic temps. Even mildly cool temperatures can initiate hypothermia, defined as a drop in body temperature from the normal 98.7 degrees to 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
When this occurs, organs and systems begin to shut down in an effort to preserve the brain. The process, once started, can be very difficult to get under control; however, people who are more regularly exposed to lower temperatures are better able to resist hypothermia.
“People who were experiencing homelessness in the records we looked at were less likely to die from temperature-related injury,” Friedman said. “Because they have greater outdoor exposure, they acclimate better to both heat and cold.”
Heat-related issues are more likely to self-resolve by getting to a cooler place or by hydrating, Friedman said.
The researchers looked at inpatient and outpatient heat- and cold-related injuries that required a hospital visit in Illinois between 2011 and 2018.
They identified 23,834 cold-related cases and 24,233 heat-related cases. Among these patients, there were 1,935 cold-related deaths and 70 heat-related deaths. [That’s nearly 28 times more cold deaths versus heat]
Friedman said government data systems that track temperature-related deaths significantly undercount these deaths.
“We found five to 10 times more temperature-related deaths by linking the hospital data to data from the National Weather Service and medical examiner’s data,” he said. “There are a lot more people dying from temperature-related injuries than is generally reported.”
Image by Totolowe from Pixabay
Read rest at UIC Today
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-28--California Reveals The Sad Reality Of ‘Green Energy’

Written by Kenneth Green on .
Posted in Latest news As everyone outside of the green energy bubble has heard by now , California has given the world yet another great example of how foolish and shortsighted the rush to renewables has been in the golden state .
On top of the usual litany of California disasters : wildfires , earthquakes , mudslides , urban decay , massive homelessness , gang violence , periodic riots , and now plague ( COVID-19 ) we can now add “ rolling blackouts ” to the attractions offered in beautiful California .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high concentration of bad thespians who routinely infect the state .
Thus it happened that in August of the Year of our Plague 2020 , California was forced to institute rolling blackouts , turning the lights out for millions of citizens in August , a sweltering month in much of California .
( Having grown up in the San Fernando Valley ( oh m ’ Gawd ! )
I can attest to that reality first-hand . )
Of course , analysts are “ stumped ” and “ bewildered ” as to how this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite some 30 years of warnings from energy experts pointing out that wind and solar power are expensive , unreliable sources of power that can ’ t be stored at any meaningful scale , we were assured that those warnings were just smoke-screens paid for by fossil fuel companies working with climate deniers .
But the sage folks at the California Independent Systems Operator ( ISO ) apparently do have some clue as to what might have gone wrong : The California Independent System Operator , the non-profit entity that controls the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , said it acted after three power plants shut down and wind power production dropped .
It also cited a lack of access to electricity from out-of-state sources .
“ We understand rolling outages are not easy , and we do everything we can to avoid them , ” said Anne Gonzales , a spokeswoman for California ISO .
“ The reason for the energy shortfall is high heat and people naturally wanting to stay cool.
” Right .
It was hot , and the juice stores were out of juice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly , were the energy cupboards so bare ?
Therein lies a tale of “ hide the reality ” of renewable power , which is that when the wind doesn ’ t blow , and the sun doesn ’ t shine , you need backup power .
You can either generate that with conventional power such as gas or nuclear power or if your state is rabidly anti-fossil fuels , you buy electricity from outside the state while avoiding any mention of how it was produced .
Setting aside that this means sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and their jobs and profits ) , it means that you ’ ve simply moved your vulnerability to intermittent “ renewable energy ” out of sight .
That ’ s all fine , as these things go until you ask this very difficult question : “ Might the people selling us our backup power actually need to use it sometimes for their own high-demand weather patterns , that , amazingly enough , heavily overlap with California ’ s ?
” And the answer to that question turns out to be – surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California have something in common – they ’ re also largely deserted .
But apparently the sage heads in California didn ’ t let this dissuade them .
Last year , the [ Public Utilities ] commission ordered utilities and retail power suppliers to procure 3,300 megawatts of additional capacity between 2021 and 2023 , calling it a “ ‘ least regrets ’ strategy , since electricity shortages would most certainly lead to regrets.
” Yes , sweltering to death in the desert heat could be considered regrettable .
Yet the obfuscation continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” about this event , and looking madly for people to blame : incompetent regulators !
Enron !
( Really , they ’ re still blaming Enron for this ? )
Deregulation !
The reality is much more simple .
Renewable power is a lot like an electric car .
If you have an EV , you need a backup car when the EV power is not enough for the job , so you buy a conventional gasoline car that sits , mostly unused ( and hidden from your eco-nut neighbors ) in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it regardless of how little you use it .
So most of the time , you ’ re paying for two cars to have the use of one , but you look “ green.
” But then sometimes , you run out of juice in the EV , only to find that your spouse has taken the old reliable gas-powered car out for some important errands , and there you are , stranded , on the California freeway , in the heat of a riot-filled , plague-ridden broiling summer of discontent .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lights !
Camera !
Action !
” Lights ?
Lights !
Can we have some lights here ?

Written by Kenneth Green on Aug 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As everyone outside of the green energy bubble has heard by now, California has given the world yet another great example of how foolish and shortsighted the rush to renewables has been in the golden state.
On top of the usual litany of California disasters: wildfires, earthquakes, mudslides, urban decay, massive homelessness, gang violence, periodic riots, and now plague (COVID-19) we can now add “rolling blackouts” to the attractions offered in beautiful California.
And that doesn’t even count the chronically high concentration of bad thespians who routinely infect the state.
Thus it happened that in August of the Year of our Plague 2020, California was forced to institute rolling blackouts, turning the lights out for millions of citizens in August, a sweltering month in much of California. (Having grown up in the San Fernando Valley (oh m’ Gawd!) I can attest to that reality first-hand.)
Of course, analysts are “stumped” and “bewildered” as to how this could possibly have happened.
After all, despite some 30 years of warnings from energy experts pointing out that wind and solar power are expensive, unreliable sources of power that can’t be stored at any meaningful scale, we were assured that those warnings were just smoke-screens paid for by fossil fuel companies working with climate deniers.
But the sage folks at the California Independent Systems Operator (ISO) apparently do have some clue as to what might have gone wrong:
The California Independent System Operator, the non-profit entity that controls the flow of electricity for 80 percent of California, said it acted after three power plants shut down and wind power production dropped.
It also cited a lack of access to electricity from out-of-state sources. “We understand rolling outages are not easy, and we do everything we can to avoid them,” said Anne Gonzales, a spokeswoman for California ISO. “The reason for the energy shortfall is high heat and people naturally wanting to stay cool.”
Right. It was hot, and the juice stores were out of juice. Which begs the question, why, exactly, were the energy cupboards so bare?
Therein lies a tale of “hide the reality” of renewable power, which is that when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine, you need backup power.
You can either generate that with conventional power such as gas or nuclear power or if your state is rabidly anti-fossil fuels, you buy electricity from outside the state while avoiding any mention of how it was produced.
Setting aside that this means sending California rate-payer money to out-of-state power producers (and their jobs and profits), it means that you’ve simply moved your vulnerability to intermittent “renewable energy” out of sight.
That’s all fine, as these things go until you ask this very difficult question: “Might the people selling us our backup power actually need to use it sometimes for their own high-demand weather patterns, that, amazingly enough, heavily overlap with California’s?”
And the answer to that question turns out to be – surprise – YES! because the states around California have something in common – they’re also largely deserted. But apparently the sage heads in California didn’t let this dissuade them.
Last year, the [Public Utilities] commission ordered utilities and retail power suppliers to procure 3,300 megawatts of additional capacity between 2021 and 2023, calling it a “‘least regrets’ strategy, since electricity shortages would most certainly lead to regrets.”
Yes, sweltering to death in the desert heat could be considered regrettable.
Yet the obfuscation continues, with green energy advocates “baffled” about this event, and looking madly for people to blame: incompetent regulators! Enron! (Really, they’re still blaming Enron for this?) Deregulation!
The reality is much more simple. Renewable power is a lot like an electric car. If you have an EV, you need a backup car when the EV power is not enough for the job, so you buy a conventional gasoline car that sits, mostly unused (and hidden from your eco-nut neighbors) in your garage, where you pay for it regardless of how little you use it.
So most of the time, you’re paying for two cars to have the use of one, but you look “green.”
But then sometimes, you run out of juice in the EV, only to find that your spouse has taken the old reliable gas-powered car out for some important errands, and there you are, stranded, on the California freeway, in the heat of a riot-filled, plague-ridden broiling summer of discontent.
They ought to make a movie. “Lights! Camera! Action!” Lights? Lights! Can we have some lights here?
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-28--How The Wuhan Virus Stole Greta Thunberg’s Thunder

Written by James Macpherson on .
Posted in Latest news World leaders stole her childhood and now coronavirus has stolen her crisis .
So there ’ s nothing left for activist Greta Thunberg but to go back to school .
The teen campaigner , dubbed the Goblin of Doom for her incessant warnings that carbon emissions are about to destroy the Earth , has spent the past year circling the globe lecturing world leaders and organizing protests .
But the same country that was exhaling a good portion of those emissions suddenly coughed up a flu bug that really did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has now made travel all but impossible .
World leaders are suddenly preoccupied with an actual problem .
And mass gatherings to protest a naturally occurring gas are banned for fear of contracting an unnaturally occurring virus .
Moreover , the great Covid-19 lockdown of 2020 has given the world a glimpse of “ the new normal ” should Greta realize her net-zero emissions dream .
And no one likes it .
So last year ’ s Time Magazine Person of the Year suddenly has a lot of free time on her sanitized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My gap year from school is over , and it feels so great to finally be back in school again !
” We can all say amen to that .
Though , sadly for the Left , it leaves them looking for a new child to take their cues from .
Eleven months ago , Greta was skipping class to scold world leaders at the UN : “ You have stolen my dreams and my childhood … how dare you !
” Watching world leaders grovel as the pigtailed Swedish school girl staged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podium was cringeworthy and yet morbidly fascinating .
For all her faults , she at least got to sneer “ How dare you !
” at UN leaders .
What I wouldn ’ t give to do that !
Along with about nine million Israelis , I suspect .
But I digress .
Nothing better highlighted the hysteria and hypocrisy of warmists than world leaders inviting a kid to hector them about public policy and “ saving the planet ” .
The same people who dismissed anyone expressing doubt about climate change with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a climate scientist ” suddenly changed their retort to “ but you ’ re not a climate scientist or a Swedish school girl with fiery visions ” .
The only thing more absurd than Greta being put front and center on the world stage was the amount of media coverage her every utterance on the weather was given .
“ I shouldn ’ t be up here , ” Greta complained at the UN last September .
“ I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ global warming but to global Wuhaning , she is .

Written by James Macpherson on Aug 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
World leaders stole her childhood and now coronavirus has stolen her crisis. So there’s nothing left for activist Greta Thunberg but to go back to school.
The teen campaigner, dubbed the Goblin of Doom for her incessant warnings that carbon emissions are about to destroy the Earth, has spent the past year circling the globe lecturing world leaders and organizing protests.
But the same country that was exhaling a good portion of those emissions suddenly coughed up a flu bug that really did change the environment.
The Chinese flu has now made travel all but impossible. World leaders are suddenly preoccupied with an actual problem.
And mass gatherings to protest a naturally occurring gas are banned for fear of contracting an unnaturally occurring virus.
Moreover, the great Covid-19 lockdown of 2020 has given the world a glimpse of “the new normal” should Greta realize her net-zero emissions dream. And no one likes it.
So last year’s Time Magazine Person of the Year suddenly has a lot of free time on her sanitized hands.
She tweeted Monday: “My gap year from school is over, and it feels so great to finally be back in school again!”
We can all say amen to that. Though, sadly for the Left, it leaves them looking for a new child to take their cues from.
Eleven months ago, Greta was skipping class to scold world leaders at the UN: “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood … how dare you!”
Watching world leaders grovel as the pigtailed Swedish school girl staged a hissy fit from the UN assembly podium was cringeworthy and yet morbidly fascinating.
For all her faults, she at least got to sneer “How dare you!” at UN leaders. What I wouldn’t give to do that! Along with about nine million Israelis, I suspect. But I digress.
Nothing better highlighted the hysteria and hypocrisy of warmists than world leaders inviting a kid to hector them about public policy and “saving the planet”.
The same people who dismissed anyone expressing doubt about climate change with shouts of “but you’re not a climate scientist” suddenly changed their retort to “but you’re not a climate scientist or a Swedish school girl with fiery visions”.
The only thing more absurd than Greta being put front and center on the world stage was the amount of media coverage her every utterance on the weather was given.
“I shouldn’t be up here,” Greta complained at the UN last September. “I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean!”
Indeed.
And now, thanks not to global warming but to global Wuhaning, she is.
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--2020-08-31--New Book Argues For More Science Skeptics, Except In Climatology

Written by Donna Laframboise on .
Posted in Latest news Psychologist Stuart Ritchie is the author of a new book , Science Fictions : How Fraud , Bias , Negligence , and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth .
In the words of his publisher , it demonstrates that “ failures in peer review and mistakes in statistics have rendered a shocking number of scientific studies useless.
” Ritchie declares the scientific publication process “ badly broken.
” He argues persuasively that enormous resources are being wasted , and that our heads “ are being filled with ‘ facts ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or drastically misleading.
” These arguments overlap many found in my 2016 report , Peer Review : Why Skepticism is Essential .
But new scandals and controversies have emerged since then , and Ritchie does a great job of explaining why all of this matters .
But there ’ s a catch .
Here we have an author lamenting delusion and self-deception .
Here we have an author championing skepticism and hard-headed empiricism .
Yet he , himself , utterly refuses to confront what all of the above implies about climate science .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychology , economics , evolutionary biology , organic chemistry , geoscience , and medicine can ’ t be reproduced/replicated when third parties attempt to do so , if many published studies really are useless , on what basis shall we go on imagining that climate research is a separate case ?
How can that field possibly be exempt from problems that are widespread elsewhere ?
Environmental research has , after all , been highly politicized for at least two decades .
Cambridge University Press was urged by scientists to withdraw Bjorn Lomborg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to essentially burn his book back in 2002 .
A reasonable observer might therefore suspect that climate research is saturated with tribalism and bias , rather than the opposite .
Ergo : many of the studies on which politicians now base their climate decisions must be unreliable .
How ironic that Ritchie is incapable of following his own arguments to their logical conclusion .
Nevertheless , it ’ s difficult not to feel sympathy for this young academic .
His book was no doubt completed late last year .
He had no way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was about to spread across the globe and that John Ioannidis , one of the people he cites extensively in his book , would respond to the pandemic in unexpected ways .
Two weeks before Science Fictions was released in mid-July , Ritchie published an essay titled There should never be heroes in science .
It begins by telling us about the late Hans Eysenck , once the most-cited psychologist in Britain .
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century , this eminent personality ( who died in 1997 ) , devoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own profession honest .
As Ritchie tells it , Eysenck authored “ blistering critiques of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy , noting the unscientific nature of Freudian theories and digging into the evidence base for therapy ’ s effects on mental health.
” Last year , more than a dozen of Eysenck ’ s papers were retracted .
Dozens more are now officially considered questionable .
An investigation by Kings College London concurred with critics who ’ ve long been concerned about the quality of Eysenck ’ s data and “ the implausibility of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this “ strong advocate of rigor in science ” was better at identifying the flaws in other people ’ s reasoning , than in producing bulletproof research of his own .
Ritchie then turns his attention to Ioannidis : It ’ s fair to say that Stanford University ’ s John Ioannidis is a hero of mine .
He ’ s the medical researcher who made waves in 2005 with a paper carrying the firecracker title “ Why Most Published Research Findings are False ” , and who has published an eye-watering number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , economics , psychology , statistics , nutrition research and more .
…Ioannidis ’ s contribution to science has been to make it far more open , honest , and self-reflective about its flaws .
How odd it is , then , to see his failure to follow his own advice .
Yesterday , American deaths from COVID-19 exceeded 187,000 .
Even if that count is wrong by 20 % in either direction , we ’ re definitely talking a different ballpark .
Ritchie tells us Ioannidis has since authored more than one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design flaws .
Even the best minds amongst us , therefore , succumb to bias .
Even professional skeptics can exhibit , as Ritchie says , a “ strong aversion to having their cherished theories proved wrong.
” Here ’ s the last paragraph in Ritchie ’ s essay : Above , I should really have said that John Ioannidis was a hero of mine .
Because this whole episode has reminded me that those self-critical , self-correcting principles of science simply don ’ t allow for hero-worship .
Even the strongest critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; those who raise the biggest questions about the way we do research need themselves to be questioned .
Healthy science needs a whole community of sceptics , all constantly arguing with one another…Who watches the watchmen in science ?
The answer is , or at least should be : all of us .
[ bold added ; italics in the original ] I invite you to re-read that sentence in bold font .
So says a man whose book dismisses climate skeptics in peremptory fashion .
In fact , Ritchie ends his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that implies climate policies will automatically create a “ better world ” even if the climate crisis turns out to be overblown .
This is unfortunate .
Ritchie ’ s argument is that improving the way research is conducted makes sense even if we reject his contention that “ something has gone very wrong with science.
” But that famous climate cartoon naively presupposes that good intentions are enough , that climate programs have no negative consequences , that government policies are never counterproductive , ill-conceived , or designed to financially benefit political @ @

Written by Donna Laframboise on Aug 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Psychologist Stuart Ritchie is the author of a new book, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth.
In the words of his publisher, it demonstrates that “failures in peer review and mistakes in statistics have rendered a shocking number of scientific studies useless.”
Ritchie declares the scientific publication process “badly broken.” He argues persuasively that enormous resources are being wasted, and that our heads “are being filled with ‘facts’ that are either incorrect, exaggerated, or drastically misleading.”
These arguments overlap many found in my 2016 report, Peer Review: Why Skepticism is Essential. But new scandals and controversies have emerged since then, and Ritchie does a great job of explaining why all of this matters.
But there’s a catch. Here we have an author lamenting delusion and self-deception. Here we have an author championing skepticism and hard-headed empiricism.
Yet he, himself, utterly refuses to confront what all of the above implies about climate science.
If significant numbers of peer-reviewed papers in psychology, economics, evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, geoscience, and medicine can’t be reproduced/replicated when third parties attempt to do so, if many published studies really are useless, on what basis shall we go on imagining that climate research is a separate case? How can that field possibly be exempt from problems that are widespread elsewhere?
Environmental research has, after all, been highly politicized for at least two decades. Cambridge University Press was urged by scientists to withdraw Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist from publication – to essentially burn his book back in 2002.
A reasonable observer might therefore suspect that climate research is saturated with tribalism and bias, rather than the opposite.
Ergo: many of the studies on which politicians now base their climate decisions must be unreliable. How ironic that Ritchie is incapable of following his own arguments to their logical conclusion.
Nevertheless, it’s difficult not to feel sympathy for this young academic. His book was no doubt completed late last year.
He had no way of anticipating that a deadly new coronavirus was about to spread across the globe and that John Ioannidis, one of the people he cites extensively in his book, would respond to the pandemic in unexpected ways.
Two weeks before Science Fictions was released in mid-July, Ritchie published an essay titled There should never be heroes in science. It begins by telling us about the late Hans Eysenck, once the most-cited psychologist in Britain.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, this eminent personality (who died in 1997), devoted much of his energy to keeping his own profession honest.
As Ritchie tells it, Eysenck authored “blistering critiques of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, noting the unscientific nature of Freudian theories and digging into the evidence base for therapy’s effects on mental health.”
Last year, more than a dozen of Eysenck’s papers were retracted. Dozens more are now officially considered questionable.
An investigation by Kings College London concurred with critics who’ve long been concerned about the quality of Eysenck’s data and “the implausibility of the results presented.”
In other words, this “strong advocate of rigor in science” was better at identifying the flaws in other people’s reasoning, than in producing bulletproof research of his own.
Ritchie then turns his attention to Ioannidis:
It’s fair to say that Stanford University’s John Ioannidis is a hero of mine. He’s the medical researcher who made waves in 2005 with a paper carrying the firecracker title “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”, and who has published an eye-watering number of papers outlining problems in clinical trials, economics, psychology, statistics, nutrition research and more. …Ioannidis’s contribution to science has been to make it far more open, honest, and self-reflective about its flaws. How odd it is, then, to see his failure to follow his own advice.
Ritchie points to a March 2020 article in which Ioannidis legitimately observed that politicians were making decisions about how to respond to the coronavirus “without reliable data.”
Five months on, that’s still true. Many of the numbers currently available to us are compromised in one way or another.
But whether Ioannidis’ own hunches are correct is a different matter altogether. Writes Ritchie:
The most memorable part of the article was his prediction – on the basis of his analysis of the cursed cruise ship Diamond Princess – that around 10,000 people in the US would die from COVID-19…As US deaths have just hit 125,000, I don’t need to emphasise how wrong that prediction was.
Yesterday, American deaths from COVID-19 exceeded 187,000. Even if that count is wrong by 20% in either direction, we’re definitely talking a different ballpark.
Ritchie tells us Ioannidis has since authored more than one piece of COVID-related research marred by serious design flaws. Even the best minds amongst us, therefore, succumb to bias.
Even professional skeptics can exhibit, as Ritchie says, a “strong aversion to having their cherished theories proved wrong.”
Here’s the last paragraph in Ritchie’s essay:
Above, I should really have said that John Ioannidis was a hero of mine. Because this whole episode has reminded me that those self-critical, self-correcting principles of science simply don’t allow for hero-worship. Even the strongest critics of science need themselves to be criticised; those who raise the biggest questions about the way we do research need themselves to be questioned. Healthy science needs a whole community of sceptics, all constantly arguing with one another…Who watches the watchmen in science? The answer is, or at least should be: all of us. [bold added; italics in the original]
I invite you to re-read that sentence in bold font. So says a man whose book dismisses climate skeptics in peremptory fashion.
In fact, Ritchie ends his final chapter by referencing a famous cartoon that implies climate policies will automatically create a “better world” even if the climate crisis turns out to be overblown.
This is unfortunate. Ritchie’s argument is that improving the way research is conducted makes sense even if we reject his contention that “something has gone very wrong with science.”
But that famous climate cartoon naively presupposes that good intentions are enough, that climate programs have no negative consequences, that government policies are never counterproductive, ill-conceived, or designed to financially benefit political donors.
I critiqued that climate cartoon last year.
Read more at Big Pic News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-31--Great Barrier Reef Platitudes Are More Dangerous Than Sharks

Written by Jennifer Marohasy on .
Posted in Latest news It has always been the case that the individual is expected to conform and that there is a hierarchy within myths .
Myths are of course traditional stories , often explaining a natural phenomenon typically involving supernatural beings or events .
Of course , most people , most of the time , are so immersed ( and kept so busy ) within the established hierarchy and the myth , that they see it as their only reality .
But it may not actually work for them ( it could even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to be adventurous , and if they want to know the truth and be successful .
This is especially the case if they want to profit from the environment because at this point in our history anyone who interacts in a robust way with the natural environment , for example , a farmer or fisherman , is likely to be immediately portrayed as harming the natural environment .
Never mind that fundamental to our existence is food , that it still all comes from nature – whether farmed or hunted or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case in point .
At the top of the established hierarchy are the scientists .
They are telling us all that the reef is under so much stress from rising ocean temperatures , catastrophic cyclones , and declining water quality and it ’ s our fault .
Rising ocean temperatures have apparently caused the destruction of so many reefs especially through coral bleaching , which is when the corals expel their symbiotic zooxanthellae and become a stark white color .
Because the scientists are at the top of the hierarchy , whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others .
Yet it makes no sense to undertake aerial surveys at 300 meters altitude from a plane window as a way of assessing the health of coral reefs that are growing vertically down cliff faces .
Yet this is what they do , how the most widely reported assessments of reef health are conducted .
Scuba divers , and dive operators , record and log water temperatures and they go under-the-waves , including over vertical edges and under dark ledges where so many colorful corals can be found .
So , Scuba @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the state of the corals .
What few realize , is that many dive operators are also dependent on established hierarchies for their permits to operate , to visit the marine parks where the best corals grow .
When those with first-hand experience turn-off their televisions and stop and think , they mostly know it to be a lie that ocean temperatures are rising catastrophically , and that the corals in the marine parks are in decline .
Their experience is otherwise .
If there is any statistic that gives me cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is well documented that hundreds of sharks are killed each year in nets and on drumlines all along the Queensland coast .
Scuba divers who have spent whole careers under-the-sea , including Val Taylor , write that the sharks are not coming back – that numbers are not what they used to be even in the most protected green zones within the marine parks .
In the end , if we really care about nature ( the sharks and the corals ) there needs to be much less hierarchy , and much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers , and scientists about the real issues that need addressing , and with all the evidence admitted .
At present , there is a tendency for contrary evidence to be expelled like zooxanthellae from bleached reefs .
Except , that while most of the corals that expelled their zooxanthellae back in April 2016 have taken it all back and recovered – the situation within key Great Barrier Reef research institutions is to permanently expel contrary evidence and squash any , and everyone , who refuses to parrot their extraordinary claims .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that just as the institutions expel wayward scientists , they also have the power to take away the licenses of dive operators – such are the current hierarchies .
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs .
Her website can be found here .

Written by Jennifer Marohasy on Aug 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It has always been the case that the individual is expected to conform and that there is a hierarchy within myths.
Myths are of course traditional stories, often explaining a natural phenomenon typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Of course, most people, most of the time, are so immersed (and kept so busy) within the established hierarchy and the myth, that they see it as their only reality.
But it may not actually work for them (it could even be making them unhappy) especially if they want to be adventurous, and if they want to know the truth and be successful.
This is especially the case if they want to profit from the environment because at this point in our history anyone who interacts in a robust way with the natural environment, for example, a farmer or fisherman, is likely to be immediately portrayed as harming the natural environment.
Never mind that fundamental to our existence is food, that it still all comes from nature – whether farmed or hunted or gathered.
The Great Barrier Reef is a case in point. At the top of the established hierarchy are the scientists. They are telling us all that the reef is under so much stress from rising ocean temperatures, catastrophic cyclones, and declining water quality and it’s our fault.
Rising ocean temperatures have apparently caused the destruction of so many reefs especially through coral bleaching, which is when the corals expel their symbiotic zooxanthellae and become a stark white color.
Because the scientists are at the top of the hierarchy, whatever they say tends to be parroted by others.
Yet it makes no sense to undertake aerial surveys at 300 meters altitude from a plane window as a way of assessing the health of coral reefs that are growing vertically down cliff faces.
Yet this is what they do, how the most widely reported assessments of reef health are conducted.
Scuba divers, and dive operators, record and log water temperatures and they go under-the-waves, including over vertical edges and under dark ledges where so many colorful corals can be found.
So, Scuba divers have firsthand experience of water temperatures and the state of the corals.
What few realize, is that many dive operators are also dependent on established hierarchies for their permits to operate, to visit the marine parks where the best corals grow.
When those with first-hand experience turn-off their televisions and stop and think, they mostly know it to be a lie that ocean temperatures are rising catastrophically, and that the corals in the marine parks are in decline.
Their experience is otherwise.
If there is any statistic that gives me cause to worry it is shark numbers. It is well documented that hundreds of sharks are killed each year in nets and on drumlines all along the Queensland coast.
Scuba divers who have spent whole careers under-the-sea, including Val Taylor, write that the sharks are not coming back – that numbers are not what they used to be even in the most protected green zones within the marine parks.
In the end, if we really care about nature (the sharks and the corals) there needs to be much less hierarchy, and much more discussion between divers, fishers, farmers, and scientists about the real issues that need addressing, and with all the evidence admitted.
At present, there is a tendency for contrary evidence to be expelled like zooxanthellae from bleached reefs.
Except, that while most of the corals that expelled their zooxanthellae back in April 2016 have taken it all back and recovered – the situation within key Great Barrier Reef research institutions is to permanently expel contrary evidence and squash any, and everyone, who refuses to parrot their extraordinary claims.
What is not realized by most, is that just as the institutions expel wayward scientists, they also have the power to take away the licenses of dive operators – such are the current hierarchies.
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Her website can be found here.
Read rest at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-31--Data Shows ‘Global Warming’ Isn’t Behind California Wildfires

Written by Robert Morton on .
Posted in Latest news Global Warming alarmists have a habit of blaming everything on global warming .
They even pivoted to the term “ climate change ” so they weren ’ t hemmed in by catastrophes that might be the result of global cooling .
So , naturally , global warming is the reason for both the existence of wildfires ( primarily but not entirely in California ) as well as their number , frequency , and severity .
The “ argument , ” such as it is , goes something like this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which more efficiently dries out flammable vegetation , making it easier to set ablaze .
Like most nonsense arguments , it fails to account for all the other factors that are involved in wildfires .
The oversimplification and lack of intellectual and scientific rigor is a hallmark of Leftist “ thought , ” and this scenario is no different .
We can dispense with the claim that the number of fires has been increasing .
The National Interagency Fire Center shows that there is no obvious trend whatsoever , with an average of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deviation of 5,283 – meaning there ’ s a wide variance , as well .
There ’ s more .
The area of forest land that has been burned in the US – even in years where consumption was greatest — is far below both the average and peak years from 1926 to 1950 .
Remember , the peak period of fires occurred prior to the years of alleged man-made global warming .
The reduction in fire isn ’ t because of deforestation , either .
The USDA Forest Service reports that forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1910.
” Yes , dry fuel feeds and maintains fires .
Northeasterly winds kick up and spread the fires .
Some spark , such as lightning strikes or arson or public utility incompetence , lights the proverbial match .
Yet none of this is the result of global warming .
California is dry in the summer because the Pacific Ocean doesn ’ t throw off thunderstorms .
It ’ s cooler than the Atlantic .
The jet stream also shifts further north in summer .
Thus , by the time “ fire season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying around for fires is going to be naturally dried out .
Even if they weren ’ t dried out , the winds that kick up during fires would dry them out anyway .
All of this is to say that “ global warming ” doesn ’ t matter .
California is dry , period .
Fuel is added to the inevitable fire during the winter rains , as more grass and plant life grows .
When summer rolls around , all of this life still dries out , adding to the undergrowth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rainfall in California , thereby contributing to more vegetation growth , and therefore more fuel ?
Nope .
The National Climate Assessment demonstrates that rainfall from December to March has no discernible pattern .
This leaves the question of the winds .
Almost every wildfire in California is accompanied by the famous Santa Ana winds .
These winds are generated in the intermountain west by high pressure at the surface that builds up .
Once it crests at the level of the terrain , known as “ ridging , ” the winds start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for increased ridging ?
The NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories suggest that there is not .
There are other factors that contribute to the wildfire situation .
If one insists on attaching human involvement in wildfires , it isn ’ t global warming that ’ s the culprit .
A major contributor to wildfires is fire suppression itself .
While there is an obvious need to protect homes and property , there is a natural inclination to just knock down fires wherever they spring up .
Yet doing so creates thick underlayers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next fire .
Nature has a purpose , and fire serves a purpose .
We refer to wildfires as “ devastating ” but any biologist will tell you that fires burn overgrowth , effectively “ re-booting ” nature in any given area .
When chaparral and other growth become thick and prevalent , most wildlife moves on and is replaced by scavengers and bottom-feeders .
New life emerges when areas burn naturally and burn out naturally .
Fire suppression forestalls this process .
Fire suppression is unnatural , and we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s the environmental movement itself , in which preservation of land seems to be almost sacred in comparison to permitting timber activity of any kind .
That creates more fuel .
Almost half of California is federal land and political battles have restricted the timber industry , as well as livestock grazing .
Not only that , but the importance of controlled burns – “ prescribed fires ” to reduce fuel – is also undisputed .
The National Forest Service says : However , a host of problems have kept this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sad state of affairs in California is that global warming isn ’ t the problem .
Seven months after the Camp Fire killed 85 people and destroyed much of Paradise , and with another potentially catastrophic wildfire season getting underway , a growing body of experts say California is neglecting a major tool in its battle against mega-fires : the practice of fighting fire with fire .
These experts say state and federal firefighting agencies should allow more fires that don ’ t threaten the public to run their natural course .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies should conduct more “ prescribed ” burns — fires that are deliberately set , under carefully controlled conditions , to reduce the fuels that can feed a disaster .
In California , the debate over prescribed burns is complicated by a deadly history with wildfires that have grown quickly out of control , the state ’ s stringent environmental regulations , fear of liability lawsuits and infringement on property rights , and the huge swaths of federal forestland with their own management rules and oversight .
There are several other problematic policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Almost one in twelve homes in California are located in wildfire zones .
The lunacy of permitting high-risk wildfire areas to be zoned for residential housing can be laid at the feet of the state and federal governments .
While multiple parties stand to benefit from the creation of housing – home builders , the construction lobby , large businesses seeking new population zones to open stores – it is the state and local government that stands to benefit the most .
Property taxes aren ’ t as lucrative on undeveloped land , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which bring families , which bring children , who need to go to school .
Schools require teachers and unions , and more government services and regulations , and of course , more income taxes .
The wealthier the community , the higher the taxes that get collected .
Insurance companies are hip to these poor decisions , however .
They have become increasingly restrictive in writing and maintaining policies in wildland-urban fire zones .
Naturally , the California state government tried but failed ( this time ) to force them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigation , known as “ home hardening.
” The bottom line is that global warming does not cause or contribute to wildfires in California .
Foolish and short-sighted policies are to blame .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Robert Morton on Aug 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Global Warming alarmists have a habit of blaming everything on global warming. They even pivoted to the term “climate change” so they weren’t hemmed in by catastrophes that might be the result of global cooling.
So, naturally, global warming is the reason for both the existence of wildfires (primarily but not entirely in California) as well as their number, frequency, and severity.
The “argument,” such as it is, goes something like this: global warming makes the air warmer, which more efficiently dries out flammable vegetation, making it easier to set ablaze.
Like most nonsense arguments, it fails to account for all the other factors that are involved in wildfires. The oversimplification and lack of intellectual and scientific rigor is a hallmark of Leftist “thought,” and this scenario is no different.
We can dispense with the claim that the number of fires has been increasing. The National Interagency Fire Center shows that there is no obvious trend whatsoever, with an average of 41,617 fires per year and a standard deviation of 5,283 – meaning there’s a wide variance, as well.
There’s more. The area of forest land that has been burned in the US – even in years where consumption was greatest — is far below both the average and peak years from 1926 to 1950.
Remember, the peak period of fires occurred prior to the years of alleged man-made global warming. The reduction in fire isn’t because of deforestation, either.
The USDA Forest Service reports that forest area “has been relatively stable since 1910.” Yes, dry fuel feeds and maintains fires. Northeasterly winds kick up and spread the fires.
Some spark, such as lightning strikes or arson or public utility incompetence, lights the proverbial match.
Yet none of this is the result of global warming. California is dry in the summer because the Pacific Ocean doesn’t throw off thunderstorms. It’s cooler than the Atlantic.
The jet stream also shifts further north in summer. Thus, by the time “fire season” rolls around, all the fuel lying around for fires is going to be naturally dried out. Even if they weren’t dried out, the winds that kick up during fires would dry them out anyway.
All of this is to say that “global warming” doesn’t matter. California is dry, period. Fuel is added to the inevitable fire during the winter rains, as more grass and plant life grows. When summer rolls around, all of this life still dries out, adding to the undergrowth.
Does global warming contribute to higher rainfall in California, thereby contributing to more vegetation growth, and therefore more fuel? Nope.
The National Climate Assessment demonstrates that rainfall from December to March has no discernible pattern.
This leaves the question of the winds. Almost every wildfire in California is accompanied by the famous Santa Ana winds.
These winds are generated in the intermountain west by high pressure at the surface that builds up. Once it crests at the level of the terrain, known as “ridging,” the winds start to blow.
Is global warming responsible for increased ridging? The NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories suggest that there is not.
There are other factors that contribute to the wildfire situation. If one insists on attaching human involvement in wildfires, it isn’t global warming that’s the culprit.
A major contributor to wildfires is fire suppression itself. While there is an obvious need to protect homes and property, there is a natural inclination to just knock down fires wherever they spring up. Yet doing so creates thick underlayers of growth that merely provide more fuel for the next fire.
Nature has a purpose, and fire serves a purpose. We refer to wildfires as “devastating” but any biologist will tell you that fires burn overgrowth, effectively “re-booting” nature in any given area.
When chaparral and other growth become thick and prevalent, most wildlife moves on and is replaced by scavengers and bottom-feeders. New life emerges when areas burn naturally and burn out naturally.
Fire suppression forestalls this process. Fire suppression is unnatural, and we’ve been doing it since 1905.
Then there’s the environmental movement itself, in which preservation of land seems to be almost sacred in comparison to permitting timber activity of any kind. That creates more fuel. Almost half of California is federal land and political battles have restricted the timber industry, as well as livestock grazing.
Not only that, but the importance of controlled burns – “prescribed fires” to reduce fuel – is also undisputed. The National Forest Service says:
Prescribed fire is one of the most important tools used to manage fire today. A scientific prescription for each fire, prepared in advance, describes its objectives, fuels, size, the precise environmental conditions under which it will burn, and conditions under which it may be suppressed. The fire may be designed to create a mosaic of diverse habitats for plants and animals, to help endangered species recover, or to reduce fuels and thereby prevent a destructive fire.
However, a host of problems have kept this tool in check in California. The sad state of affairs in California is that global warming isn’t the problem.
Seven months after the Camp Fire killed 85 people and destroyed much of Paradise, and with another potentially catastrophic wildfire season getting underway, a growing body of experts say California is neglecting a major tool in its battle against mega-fires: the practice of fighting fire with fire. These experts say state and federal firefighting agencies should allow more fires that don’t threaten the public to run their natural course. What’s more, they say fire agencies should conduct more “prescribed” burns — fires that are deliberately set, under carefully controlled conditions, to reduce the fuels that can feed a disaster. In California, the debate over prescribed burns is complicated by a deadly history with wildfires that have grown quickly out of control, the state’s stringent environmental regulations, fear of liability lawsuits and infringement on property rights, and the huge swaths of federal forestland with their own management rules and oversight.
There are several other problematic policies that set communities up for wildfires. Almost one in twelve homes in California are located in wildfire zones.
The lunacy of permitting high-risk wildfire areas to be zoned for residential housing can be laid at the feet of the state and federal governments.
While multiple parties stand to benefit from the creation of housing – home builders, the construction lobby, large businesses seeking new population zones to open stores – it is the state and local government that stands to benefit the most. Property taxes aren’t as lucrative on undeveloped land, after all.
New neighborhoods bring people, which bring families, which bring children, who need to go to school. Schools require teachers and unions, and more government services and regulations, and of course, more income taxes. The wealthier the community, the higher the taxes that get collected.
Insurance companies are hip to these poor decisions, however. They have become increasingly restrictive in writing and maintaining policies in wildland-urban fire zones.
Naturally, the California state government tried but failed (this time) to force them to insure those zones where homeowners engaged in mitigation, known as “home hardening.”
The bottom line is that global warming does not cause or contribute to wildfires in California. Foolish and short-sighted policies are to blame.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print