climatechangedispatch--2020-04-13--The Great ‘Green’ Recycling Racket

The Great ‘Green’ Recycling Racket

Written by Kateri Muys on .
Posted in Latest news I am extremely skeptical of most green initiatives and tend to think that if something appears too good to be true , it usually is .
Hence my stance on recycling , which is that while the aim might be laudable , the way it is carried out is bad for the environment .
First , let ’ s delve into what happens to our rubbish ( or garbage as we say across the pond here in Canada ) .
Daily , citizens in wealthier nations diligently separate their waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The EU has lofty targets for recycling and the UK reports recycling rates hovering around 40-50 percent .
But research in 2015 by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation , a charitable group that promotes environmentally-friendly business models , found that 40 years after the introduction of the recycling symbol on plastic packaging , only 14 percent of such packaging was collected globally and only 2 percent actually recycled .
What about the rest ?
The Foundation ’ s Rob Opsomer explains in this Sky News video ( jump to 7:16 ) that approximately 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes to landfill , and one-third escapes collection and pollutes the environment .
As far as Britain is concerned , up to two-thirds of plastic refuse is sent roughly 6,000 miles overseas ( with all the emissions that entail ) to Far Eastern countries such as China , with dubious environmental practices and dated green technology .
Most of it is low-quality refuse or mixed , dirty and contaminated plastics .
In 2018 China closed its doors by implementing rigorous restrictions on the import of international waste under a policy called ‘ National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of other third world countries interested in the recycling industry at any cost , such as Thailand and Malaysia which have stepped up to accept the waste .
I identify three major ethical dilemmas regarding shipping rubbish indiscriminately to third world countries .
First , where does the refuse go that can not be recycled or reused in any way ?
In China , there are entire cities of waste , some of which could probably have been recycled with proper green technology and care but given the facilities available it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up in rivers and oceans , polluting waters that historically were relied upon for fishing but where now no aquatic life survives .
Roughly 8.75 million tonnes of plastic waste reach the oceans annually .
Other waste is burned in the open air , causing deforestation and wrecking air quality , exposing people and wildlife living in surrounding areas to toxic fumes and chemicals .
Second is the health and safety of the people sorting the refuse or living among it .
The recycling industry gives employment to thousands of people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorting through garbage which even includes biohazard bags .
The environmental impacts include Erin Brockovich-type health concerns due to the air and land pollution .
The people of these countries report ill effects including coughing , a strange smell permeating the air and poor air quality due to the open-air burning .
The third ethical dilemma is that the countries taking the waste use polluting technology to break down plastics , and you can bet frequent inspections and monitoring are not done .
The way the refuse is treated may be even worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been kept in the country of origin .
Even worse , the countries that initially agreed to accept the refuse experienced massive influxes of plastic waste leading to an increase in illegal dumping and open-air burning .
Malaysia banned the import of plastics after experiencing detrimental effects .
However , the system exploits countries with fewer restrictions ( leading to illegal factories , dumping , lack of monitoring and inability to prosecute violators ) .
In these countries , importing may be illegal but it is so lucrative that it continues .
Recycling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about recycling being a clean industry are promulgated by the very producers of plastics and the retailers that sell them to us .
It is beneficial for them to create the illusion that you can buy and indulge as much as you want because all your rubbish will magically be used again without any impact to the environment !
Plastic waste production will continue to soar .
Out of sight , out of mind , as long as it ’ s not on our doorstep .
We don ’ t know if our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just left to pollute the land .
Truthfully , a lot of our recycling is just sitting in foreign countries for months and years .
The aim should be to reduce what we produce and incentivize and modernize local recycling instead of dumping our refuse on other countries to be incinerated .
Even if it is actually recycled , the consequences contribute to air and water pollution – ruining water sources , damaging forests , causing health issues to locals , etc .
It is far more beneficial to reduce single-use and non-essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternatives .
I have never understood why items purchased in-store or online have so much packaging ; it seems like something producers and retailers need to work on , not the average person .
Next , I disregard the recycling symbol as irrelevant ( since now we know what happens to our recycling ) and do not really recycle much .
Finally , I like to buy reusable products such as mesh produce bags , grocery bags , cotton make-up removing pads and Tupperware .
And ( although I am not the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far less plastic .
A return to more traditional roles would actually decrease plastic !
However , I doubt if the left would enjoy that angle…

Written by Kateri Muys on Apr 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
I am extremely skeptical of most green initiatives and tend to think that if something appears too good to be true, it usually is.
Hence my stance on recycling, which is that while the aim might be laudable, the way it is carried out is bad for the environment.
First, let’s delve into what happens to our rubbish (or garbage as we say across the pond here in Canada).
Daily, citizens in wealthier nations diligently separate their waste and put it into dedicated containers. The EU has lofty targets for recycling and the UK reports recycling rates hovering around 40-50 percent.
But research in 2015 by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a charitable group that promotes environmentally-friendly business models, found that 40 years after the introduction of the recycling symbol on plastic packaging, only 14 percent of such packaging was collected globally and only 2 percent actually recycled.
What about the rest? The Foundation’s Rob Opsomer explains in this Sky News video (jump to 7:16) that approximately 14 percent is burned, another 40 percent goes to landfill, and one-third escapes collection and pollutes the environment.
As far as Britain is concerned, up to two-thirds of plastic refuse is sent roughly 6,000 miles overseas (with all the emissions that entail) to Far Eastern countries such as China, with dubious environmental practices and dated green technology.
Most of it is low-quality refuse or mixed, dirty and contaminated plastics. In 2018 China closed its doors by implementing rigorous restrictions on the import of international waste under a policy called ‘National Sword’.
However, there are plenty of other third world countries interested in the recycling industry at any cost, such as Thailand and Malaysia which have stepped up to accept the waste.
I identify three major ethical dilemmas regarding shipping rubbish indiscriminately to third world countries.
First, where does the refuse go that cannot be recycled or reused in any way? In China, there are entire cities of waste, some of which could probably have been recycled with proper green technology and care but given the facilities available it is fit only for landfills.
It can end up in rivers and oceans, polluting waters that historically were relied upon for fishing but where now no aquatic life survives. Roughly 8.75 million tonnes of plastic waste reach the oceans annually.
Other waste is burned in the open air, causing deforestation and wrecking air quality, exposing people and wildlife living in surrounding areas to toxic fumes and chemicals.
Second is the health and safety of the people sorting the refuse or living among it. The recycling industry gives employment to thousands of people in third world countries, but they are sorting through garbage which even includes biohazard bags.
The environmental impacts include Erin Brockovich-type health concerns due to the air and land pollution. The people of these countries report ill effects including coughing, a strange smell permeating the air and poor air quality due to the open-air burning.
The third ethical dilemma is that the countries taking the waste use polluting technology to break down plastics, and you can bet frequent inspections and monitoring are not done.
The way the refuse is treated may be even worse for the environment than if it had been kept in the country of origin.
Even worse, the countries that initially agreed to accept the refuse experienced massive influxes of plastic waste leading to an increase in illegal dumping and open-air burning.
Malaysia banned the import of plastics after experiencing detrimental effects. However, the system exploits countries with fewer restrictions (leading to illegal factories, dumping, lack of monitoring and inability to prosecute violators).
In these countries, importing may be illegal but it is so lucrative that it continues.
Recycling is a billion-dollar industry and the messages about recycling being a clean industry are promulgated by the very producers of plastics and the retailers that sell them to us.
It is beneficial for them to create the illusion that you can buy and indulge as much as you want because all your rubbish will magically be used again without any impact to the environment!
Plastic waste production will continue to soar. Out of sight, out of mind, as long as it’s not on our doorstep. We don’t know if our plastics will be burnt, buried or just left to pollute the land.
Truthfully, a lot of our recycling is just sitting in foreign countries for months and years. The aim should be to reduce what we produce and incentivize and modernize local recycling instead of dumping our refuse on other countries to be incinerated.
Even if it is actually recycled, the consequences contribute to air and water pollution – ruining water sources, damaging forests, causing health issues to locals, etc.
It is far more beneficial to reduce single-use and non-essential plastics, reuse when possible and develop alternatives.
I have never understood why items purchased in-store or online have so much packaging; it seems like something producers and retailers need to work on, not the average person.
Next, I disregard the recycling symbol as irrelevant (since now we know what happens to our recycling) and do not really recycle much.
Finally, I like to buy reusable products such as mesh produce bags, grocery bags, cotton make-up removing pads and Tupperware. And (although I am not the most domestic), cooking from scratch uses far less plastic.
A return to more traditional roles would actually decrease plastic! However, I doubt if the left would enjoy that angle…
Read rest at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-13--AP Strikes Again: Spins Welcome African Rain Into Locust Crisis

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Bountiful rains during the past year are bringing treasured water to some of the driest regions of East Africa .
Nevertheless , the Associated Press published an April 10 article claiming this wonderful news is actually horrible news because locusts are among the many creatures benefiting from abundant rainfall and resulting lush vegetation .
Sorry , AP , but bountiful rain in arid landscapes is good news , not the sign of an imminent climate crisis .
East Africa is a region featured in Al Gore ’ s movie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims global warming is drying the region and causing incalculable harm .
A recent article here at Climate Realism documents how the plentiful rains have reinvigorated the East Africa region .
As the life-giving rains defy Gore ’ s claims of increasing drought , however , the Associated Press and other alarmist media outlets are crying , “ Climate crisis !
” The map below shows how East Africa needs more rainfall .
The desert and semi-desert landscape in and around the Horn of Africa is featured in the alarmist AP article claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message in the AP article is that climate change is driving locusts to search for vegetation .
The article curiously fails to mention that vegetation is now more abundant , and crops are more plentiful , because of rains that bring substantial net benefits to very dry East Africa .
Locusts , like humans and nearly all other creatures , benefit from thriving vegetation caused by bountiful rainfall and “ climate change.
” SEE ALSO : The Real Reasons Africa Has Another Locust Plague Climate alarmists , however , always seek to paint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is funny how Al Gore claimed less rain is bad and more rain is good .
Now that more rain is occurring , alarmists claim just the opposite .
Tally the alarmist media ’ s “ locust climate crisis ” as a minor side effect of wonderful climate news .

Written by James Taylor on Apr 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Bountiful rains during the past year are bringing treasured water to some of the driest regions of East Africa.
Nevertheless, the Associated Press published an April 10 article claiming this wonderful news is actually horrible news because locusts are among the many creatures benefiting from abundant rainfall and resulting lush vegetation.
Sorry, AP, but bountiful rain in arid landscapes is good news, not the sign of an imminent climate crisis.
East Africa is a region featured in Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, in which Gore claims global warming is drying the region and causing incalculable harm.
A recent article here at Climate Realism documents how the plentiful rains have reinvigorated the East Africa region.
As the life-giving rains defy Gore’s claims of increasing drought, however, the Associated Press and other alarmist media outlets are crying, “Climate crisis!”
The map below shows how East Africa needs more rainfall. The desert and semi-desert landscape in and around the Horn of Africa is featured in the alarmist AP article claiming more rain is bad.
A central message in the AP article is that climate change is driving locusts to search for vegetation.
The article curiously fails to mention that vegetation is now more abundant, and crops are more plentiful, because of rains that bring substantial net benefits to very dry East Africa.
Locusts, like humans and nearly all other creatures, benefit from thriving vegetation caused by bountiful rainfall and “climate change.”
SEE ALSO: The Real Reasons Africa Has Another Locust Plague
Climate alarmists, however, always seek to paint good climate news as a climate catastrophe. It is funny how Al Gore claimed less rain is bad and more rain is good. Now that more rain is occurring, alarmists claim just the opposite.
Tally the alarmist media’s “locust climate crisis” as a minor side effect of wonderful climate news.
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--2020-04-13--COVID-19 Models Show Us How To Improve Climate Models

Written by Paul Driessen and David R. Legates , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news President Trump and his Coronavirus Task Force presented some frightening numbers during their March 31 White House briefing .
Based on now two-week-old data and models , as many as 100,000 Americans at the models ’ low end , to 2.2 million at their high end , could die from the fast-spreading virus , they said .
However , the President , Vice President Pence , and Drs .
Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx hastened to add , those high-end numbers are based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ unlikely ” if Americans keep doing what they are doing now to contain , mitigate and treat the virus .
Although that worst-case scenario “ is possible , ” it is “ unlikely if we do the kinds of things that we ’ re essentially outlining right now.
” On March 31 , Dr. Fauci said , the computer models were saying that , even with full mitigation , it is “ likely ” that America could still suffer at least 100,000 deaths .
But he then added a very important point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the models really telling us what ’ s going on ?
When someone creates a model , they put in various assumptions .
And the models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions you put into them .
As we get more data , as the weeks go by , that might change .
We feed the data back into the models and relook at the models.
” The data can change the assumptions – and thus the models ’ forecasts .
“ If we have more data like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go up , ” Dr. Birx added .
But if the numbers coming in are more like Washington or California , which reacted early and kept their infection and death rates down – then the models would likely show lower numbers .
“ We ’ re trying to prevent that logarithmic increase in New Orleans and Detroit and Chicago – trying to make sure those cities work more like California than like the New York metro area.
” That seems to be happening , for the most part .
If death rates from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other model assumptions should now change , if azithromycin , hydroxychloroquine , and other treatments , and people ’ s immunities are reducing infections – then business shutdowns and stay-home orders could ( and should ) end earlier , and we can go back to work and life , rebuild America ’ s and the world ’ s economies … and avoid different disasters , like these : Millions of businesses that never reopen .
Tens of millions of workers with no paychecks .
Tens of trillions of dollars vanished from our economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and savings .
Millions of cases of depression , stroke , heart attack , domestic violence , suicide , murder-suicide , and early death due to depression , obesity and alcoholism , due to unemployment , foreclosure and destroyed dreams .
In other words , numerous deaths because of actions taken to prevent infections and deaths from COVID .
It is vital that they recheck the models and assumptions – and distinguish between COVID-19 deaths actually due to the virus … and not just associated with or compounded by it , but primarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other issues .
We can ’ t afford a cure that ’ s worse than the disease – or a prolonged and deadly national economic shutdown that could have been shortened by updated and corrected models .
Now just imagine : What if we could have that same honest , science-based approach to climate models ?
What if the White House , EPA , Congress , UN , EU , and IPCC acknowledged that climate models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions built into them ?
What if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by and we got more real-world temperature , sea level , and extreme weather data – we used that information to honestly refine the models ?
Would the assumptions and therefore the forecasts change dramatically ?
What if we use real science to help us understand Earth ’ s changing climate and weather ?
And base energy and other policies on real science that honestly examines man-made and natural influences on climate ?
Many climate modelers claim we face existential man-made climate cataclysms caused by our use of fossil fuels .
They use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuels that provide 80 % of US and global energy ; close down countless industries , companies , and jobs ; totally upend our economy ; give trillions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel replacement companies , and drastically curtail our travel and lifestyles .
Shouldn ’ t we demand that these models be verified against real-world evidence ?
Natural forces have caused climate changes and extreme weather events throughout history .
What proof is there that what we see today is due to fossil fuel emissions , and not to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want energy “ solutions ” that don ’ t work and are far worse than the supposed man-made climate and weather ‘ virus.
’ And we have the climate data .
We ’ ve got years of data .
The data show the models don ’ t match reality .
Model-predicted temperatures are more than 0.5 degrees F above actual satellite-measured average global temperatures – and “ highest ever ” records are mere hundredths of a degree above previous records from 50 to 80 years ago .
Actual hurricane , tornado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other historic records show no unprecedented trends or changes , no looming crisis , no evidence that humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate and weather in the real world outside the modelers ’ labs .
Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes .
They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed , then test them against actual evidence , observations and data .
If the hypotheses ( and predictions based on them ) are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ findings , the hypotheses become theories , rules or laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments , or devises better explanations .
Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately , depict or model complex natural systems , or forecast future events or conditions .
But they test their models against real-world evidence .
If the models , observations and predictions don ’ t match up , real scientists modify or discard the models and the hypotheses behind them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate .
Real scientists don ’ t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world data , evidence , and observations .
They don ’ t alter or “ homogenize ” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work .
They don ’ t tweak their models after comparing predictions to actual subsequent observations , to make it look like the models “ got it right.
” They don ’ t “ lose ” or hide data and computer codes , restrict peer review to closed circles of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reputations and funding , claim “ the debate is over , ” or try to silence anyone who asks inconvenient questions or criticizes their claims or models .
Climate modelers have done all of this – and more .
Put bluntly , what climate modelers are essentially saying is this : We don ’ t need data ; we have models .
If real-world observations don ’ t conform to our computer model predictions , the real world must be wrong .
Climate models have always overstated warming .
But even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tuned ” – revised after the fact to make it look like they predicted temperatures accurately – the modelers have made no attempt to change the climate sensitivity to match reality .
Why not ?
They know disaster scenarios sell .
Disaster forecasts keep them employed , swimming in research money – and empowered to tell legislators and regulators that humanity must take immediate , draconian action to eliminate all fossil fuel use – the economic , human and environmental consequences be damned .
And they probably will never admit their mistakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable .
“ Wash your hands !
You could save millions of lives !
” has far more impact than “ You could save your own life , your kids ’ lives , dozens of lives.
” When it comes to climate change , you ’ re saving the planet .
With Mann-made climate change , we are always shown the worst-case scenario : RCP 8.5 , the “ business-as-usual ” … ten times more coal use in 2100 than now … “ total disaster.
” Alarmist climatologists know their scenario has maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new energy technologies over the next 80 years .
But energy technologies have evolved incredibly over the last 80 years – since 1940 , the onset of World War II !
Who could possibly think technologies won ’ t change at least as much going forward ?
Disaster scenarios are promoted because most people don ’ t know any better – and voters and citizens won ’ t accept extreme measures and sacrifices unless they are presented with extreme disaster scenarios .
The Fauci-Birx team is trying to do science-based modeling for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their models .
Forecasts for infections and deaths are down significantly .
Thankfully .
So now we must demand honest , factual , evidence-based climate models as well .
No more alarmists and charlatans setting climate and energy policy .
Our economy , livelihoods , lives , and liberties are too vital .
The fact is , models are also only as good as the number of variables they can handle , and the data quality for every variable .
There is no way that models can possibly factor in the hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variables associated with COVID – and Earth ’ s climate is vastly more complex .
Simply put , models play a role but should never be a primary driving force in setting important public policies .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of books and articles on energy , environment , climate , and human rights issues .
David R. Legates is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware .

Written by Paul Driessen and David R. Legates, guest post on Apr 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
President Trump and his Coronavirus Task Force presented some frightening numbers during their March 31 White House briefing.
Based on now two-week-old data and models, as many as 100,000 Americans at the models’ low end, to 2.2 million at their high end, could die from the fast-spreading virus, they said.
However, the President, Vice President Pence, and Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx hastened to add, those high-end numbers are based on computer models.
And they are “unlikely” if Americans keep doing what they are doing now to contain, mitigate and treat the virus. Although that worst-case scenario “is possible,” it is “unlikely if we do the kinds of things that we’re essentially outlining right now.”
On March 31, Dr. Fauci said, the computer models were saying that, even with full mitigation, it is “likely” that America could still suffer at least 100,000 deaths. But he then added a very important point:
“The question is, are the models really telling us what’s going on? When someone creates a model, they put in various assumptions. And the models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions you put into them.
As we get more data, as the weeks go by, that might change. We feed the data back into the models and relook at the models.” The data can change the assumptions – and thus the models’ forecasts.
“If we have more data like the NY-NJ metro area, the numbers could go up,” Dr. Birx added. But if the numbers coming in are more like Washington or California, which reacted early and kept their infection and death rates down – then the models would likely show lower numbers.
“We’re trying to prevent that logarithmic increase in New Orleans and Detroit and Chicago – trying to make sure those cities work more like California than like the New York metro area.” That seems to be happening, for the most part.
If death rates from corona are misattributed or inflated, if other model assumptions should now change, if azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and other treatments, and people’s immunities are reducing infections – then business shutdowns and stay-home orders could (and should) end earlier, and we can go back to work and life, rebuild America’s and the world’s economies … and avoid different disasters, like these:
Millions of businesses that never reopen. Tens of millions of workers with no paychecks. Tens of trillions of dollars vanished from our economy. Millions of families with lost homes and savings.
Millions of cases of depression, stroke, heart attack, domestic violence, suicide, murder-suicide, and early death due to depression, obesity and alcoholism, due to unemployment, foreclosure and destroyed dreams.
In other words, numerous deaths because of actions taken to prevent infections and deaths from COVID.
It is vital that they recheck the models and assumptions – and distinguish between COVID-19 deaths actually due to the virus … and not just associated with or compounded by it, but primarily due to age, obesity, pneumonia or other issues.
We can’t afford a cure that’s worse than the disease – or a prolonged and deadly national economic shutdown that could have been shortened by updated and corrected models.
Now just imagine: What if we could have that same honest, science-based approach to climate models?
What if the White House, EPA, Congress, UN, EU, and IPCC acknowledged that climate models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions built into them?
What if – as the months and years went by and we got more real-world temperature, sea level, and extreme weather data – we used that information to honestly refine the models? Would the assumptions and therefore the forecasts change dramatically?
What if we use real science to help us understand Earth’s changing climate and weather? And base energy and other policies on real science that honestly examines man-made and natural influences on climate?
Many climate modelers claim we face existential man-made climate cataclysms caused by our use of fossil fuels.
They use models to justify calls to banish fossil fuels that provide 80% of US and global energy; close down countless industries, companies, and jobs; totally upend our economy; give trillions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel replacement companies, and drastically curtail our travel and lifestyles.
Shouldn’t we demand that these models be verified against real-world evidence? Natural forces have caused climate changes and extreme weather events throughout history.
What proof is there that what we see today is due to fossil fuel emissions, and not to those same natural forces? We certainly don’t want energy “solutions” that don’t work and are far worse than the supposed man-made climate and weather ‘virus.’
And we have the climate data. We’ve got years of data. The data show the models don’t match reality.
Model-predicted temperatures are more than 0.5 degrees F above actual satellite-measured average global temperatures – and “highest ever” records are mere hundredths of a degree above previous records from 50 to 80 years ago.
Actual hurricane, tornado, sea level, flood, drought, and other historic records show no unprecedented trends or changes, no looming crisis, no evidence that humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate and weather in the real world outside the modelers’ labs.
Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and data.
If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent observations or findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules or laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.
Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence.
If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.
Real scientists don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world data, evidence, and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work.
They don’t tweak their models after comparing predictions to actual subsequent observations, to make it look like the models “got it right.”
They don’t “lose” or hide data and computer codes, restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who asks inconvenient questions or criticizes their claims or models.
Climate modelers have done all of this – and more.
Put bluntly, what climate modelers are essentially saying is this: We don’t need data; we have models. If real-world observations don’t conform to our computer model predictions, the real world must be wrong.
Climate models have always overstated warming. But even though modelers have admitted that their models are “tuned” – revised after the fact to make it look like they predicted temperatures accurately – the modelers have made no attempt to change the climate sensitivity to match reality. Why not?
They know disaster scenarios sell. Disaster forecasts keep them employed, swimming in research money – and empowered to tell legislators and regulators that humanity must take immediate, draconian action to eliminate all fossil fuel use – the economic, human and environmental consequences be damned.
And they probably will never admit their mistakes or duplicity, much less be held accountable.
“Wash your hands! You could save millions of lives!” has far more impact than “You could save your own life, your kids’ lives, dozens of lives.” When it comes to climate change, you’re saving the planet.
With Mann-made climate change, we are always shown the worst-case scenario: RCP 8.5, the “business-as-usual” … ten times more coal use in 2100 than now … “total disaster.”
Alarmist climatologists know their scenario has maybe a 0.1% likelihood and assumes no new energy technologies over the next 80 years. But energy technologies have evolved incredibly over the last 80 years – since 1940, the onset of World War II! Who could possibly think technologies won’t change at least as much going forward?
Disaster scenarios are promoted because most people don’t know any better – and voters and citizens won’t accept extreme measures and sacrifices unless they are presented with extreme disaster scenarios.
The Fauci-Birx team is trying to do science-based modeling for the ChiCom-WHO coronavirus – feeding updated data into their models. Forecasts for infections and deaths are down significantly. Thankfully.
So now we must demand honest, factual, evidence-based climate models as well. No more alarmists and charlatans setting climate and energy policy. Our economy, livelihoods, lives, and liberties are too vital.
The fact is, models are also only as good as the number of variables they can handle, and the data quality for every variable.
There is no way that models can possibly factor in the hundreds of infection, treatment, death and other variables associated with COVID – and Earth’s climate is vastly more complex. Simply put, models play a role but should never be a primary driving force in setting important public policies.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues. David R. Legates is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-13--‘Media Bias/Fact Check’ Site Served With Cease And Desist, Gets Fact-Checked

Written by John O'Sullivan on .
Posted in Latest news CCD Editor ’ s note : Our site has also come under attack by this dubious website , which forced me to correct them on our About Us page .
I ’ m delighted that someone is finally taking them on in the courts .
Discredited , self-styled ‘ fact-checker ’ website was served with a ‘ cease and desist ’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK , Principia Scientific International CIC is : “ CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence .
These [ … ] ” So , who is fact-checking the ‘ fact-checkers ’ ?
Today , PSI has issued Media Bias/Fact Check ( MBFC ) site owner , Dave Van Zandt with a pre-action legal notice to take down the defamatory and false smear .
Ironically , the self-styled ‘ MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK ‘ ( MB/FC ) which negatively fact-checked PSI admits it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how biased others are .
In other words , MB/FC is a pseudoscientific fact checker !
Apart from unlawfully smearing PSI , Mr. Van Zandt has smeared other websites that publish scientific articles critical of man-made global warming claims .
Among the unfairly smeared are : Below we help readers to fact-check the pseudo-fact-checker .
We put Dave Van Zandt the faceless fact-checker under the microscope and discovered the following : • Van Zandt Cites No Scientific Qualifications At All • Van Zandt Was Exposed By WND As A Fraud And A Liar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MBFC ) Does Not Apply Any Objective Scientific Method • MBFC Relies On Unverifiable Subjectivity ( Own Bias ) To Make Judgments In a 2017 WND Exclusive ‘ Phony baloney : The 9 fakest fake-news checkers ’ , Chelsea Schilling uncovered that Van Zandt was a seasoned systemic faker .
She wrote : “ WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt ’ s byline .
Ironically , the “ fact checker ” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the field of journalism and evaluating news sources , Van Zandt told WND : “ I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics .
You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.
” Concerning his purported “ 25+ years ” of experience writing for print and web media , he said : “ I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website.
” With the increasing scourge of fake news reports , especially on matters of wider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PSI ) has become a recognized source of highly-qualified scientific opinion .
That scoundrels like Mr. Van Zandt get much traction with his bogus ‘ fact-checking ’ website is a testimony for the need for more diligence and push back from honest scientists , other journalists , and citizens sickened by endless scientific fraud and misinformation .
Below we share with readers the take-down letter issued today to Mr. Van Zandt : Please accept this communication as a Cease and Desist Notice prior to legal action under 28 U.S. Code § 4101 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our attention that your business , MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK is libeling our business , Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) by posting the following ( recorded on March 13 , 2020 ) On your site at : https : //mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ you state : The Conspiracy/Pseudoscience designation is reserved for sources that publish unverifiable information that relates to known conspiracies such as the New World Order , Illuminati , False Flags , Aliens , etc .
Pseudoscience is determined by publishing unverified health and scientific claims .
In order to be classified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the source must revolve around conspiracies or pseudoscience.
” On the same webpage you add the following disclaimer : “ Disclaimer : The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own .
It is not a tested scientific method .
It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source ’ s bias .
Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention .
We make every effort to be as factual as possible .
Our goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biased by our own criteria.
” According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary the term ‘ pseudoscience ’ is defined as : “ a system of theories , assumptions , and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.
” You thus taint our scientific organisation as unscientific – a palpable lie provable in a court of law .
It is our belief you have made the above published statement with intention of causing damage to the reputation of our legally regulated UK non-profit scientific association which is scrupulously regulated under law as a community interest company ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is prohibited from political bias i.e .
it can not advocate for any political point of view .
To engage in such action would render us likely to be struck off the register or be prosecuted .
Contrary to the false impression you give your readers , we are an international body of 5,500+ members , many of whom are credentialed science professionals , engineers and STEM academics , including award-winning scientists , government experts , etc .
Our published work is not pseudoscience but premised on established scientific methods .
A select @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is here : A Selection Of Member Biographies .
[ 1 ] In conclusion , not only do you admit your own methodology is unscientific , but because you also fail to cite which specific PSI posts are pseudoscience , you condemn all our members , which compounds your own bias .
As per 28 U.S. Code § 4101 ( 1 ) we regard the words below civilly actionable and demand removal of them within 28 days : “ CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] ” If you persist in maintaining this false assertion against us to jeopardize our legal standing , I hereby require you to provide substantiation of your accusation .
You may do so by providing us a selection of hyperlinks from published material on our website ( s ) which you claim are ‘ conspiracy-pseudoscience.
’ Such evidence may then be considered for submission to a court of law for adjudication of the veracity of your claims .
If you are unwilling/unable to provide us the evidence you rely on to make your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove your false statement .

Written by John O'Sullivan on Mar 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
CCD Editor’s note: Our site has also come under attack by this dubious website, which forced me to correct them on our About Us page. I’m delighted that someone is finally taking them on in the courts.
* * * * *
Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
According to MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK, Principia Scientific International CIC is:
“CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international
So, who is fact-checking the ‘fact-checkers’?
Today, PSI has issued Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) site owner, Dave Van Zandt with a pre-action legal notice to take down the defamatory and false smear.
Ironically, the self-styled ‘MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK‘ (MB/FC) which negatively fact-checked PSI admits it relies on the subjective bias to decide how biased others are. In other words, MB/FC is a pseudoscientific fact checker!
Apart from unlawfully smearing PSI, Mr. Van Zandt has smeared other websites that publish scientific articles critical of man-made global warming claims. Among the unfairly smeared are:
Below we help readers to fact-check the pseudo-fact-checker. We put Dave Van Zandt the faceless fact-checker under the microscope and discovered the following:
Van Zandt Cites No Scientific Qualifications At All
Van Zandt Was Exposed By WND As A Fraud And A Liar
Van Zandt’s Website (MBFC) Does Not Apply Any Objective Scientific Method
MBFC Relies On Unverifiable Subjectivity (Own Bias) To Make Judgments
In a 2017 WND Exclusive ‘Phony baloney: The 9 fakest fake-news checkers’, Chelsea Schilling uncovered that Van Zandt was a seasoned systemic faker. She wrote:
“WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources. Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.” Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website.”
With the increasing scourge of fake news reports, especially on matters of wider scientific interest, Principia Scientific International (PSI) has become a recognized source of highly-qualified scientific opinion.
That scoundrels like Mr. Van Zandt get much traction with his bogus ‘fact-checking’ website is a testimony for the need for more diligence and push back from honest scientists, other journalists, and citizens sickened by endless scientific fraud and misinformation.
Below we share with readers the take-down letter issued today to Mr. Van Zandt:
Mr Dave Van Zandt
Media Bias/Fact Check
(mediabiasfactcheck.com)
Greensboro, NC Editor@Mediabiasfactcheck.com Dear Mr Dave Van Zandt, Re: Notice to Cease & Desist Libelous Conduct Please accept this communication as a Cease and Desist Notice prior to legal action under 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1). It has been drawn to our attention that your business, MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK is libeling our business, Principia Scientific International(PSI) by posting the following (recorded on March 13, 2020) On your site at: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ you state: “Conspiracy/Pseudoscience The Conspiracy/Pseudoscience designation is reserved for sources that publish unverifiable information that relates to known conspiracies such as the New World Order, Illuminati, False Flags, Aliens, etc. Pseudoscience is determined by publishing unverified health and scientific claims. In order to be classified in this group the central theme of the source must revolve around conspiracies or pseudoscience.” On the same webpage you add the following disclaimer: “Disclaimer: The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias. Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention. We make every effort to be as factual as possible. Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own criteria.” According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary the term ‘pseudoscience’ is defined as: “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” You thus taint our scientific organisation as unscientific – a palpable lie provable in a court of law. It is our belief you have made the above published statement with intention of causing damage to the reputation of our legally regulated UK non-profit scientific association which is scrupulously regulated under law as a community interest company (CiC). By law a CIC is prohibited from political bias i.e. it cannot advocate for any political point of view. To engage in such action would render us likely to be struck off the register or be prosecuted. Contrary to the false impression you give your readers, we are an international body of 5,500+ members, many of whom are credentialed science professionals, engineers and STEM academics, including award-winning scientists, government experts, etc. Our published work is not pseudoscience but premised on established scientific methods. A select list of some of our distinguished member is here: A Selection Of Member Biographies. [1] In conclusion, not only do you admit your own methodology is unscientific, but because you also fail to cite which specific PSI posts are pseudoscience, you condemn all our members, which compounds your own bias. As per 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1) we regard the words below civilly actionable and demand removal of them within 28 days: “CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]” https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international If you persist in maintaining this false assertion against us to jeopardize our legal standing, I hereby require you to provide substantiation of your accusation. You may do so by providing us a selection of hyperlinks from published material on our website(s) which you claim are ‘conspiracy-pseudoscience.’ Such evidence may then be considered for submission to a court of law for adjudication of the veracity of your claims. If you are unwilling/unable to provide us the evidence you rely on to make your claims then you are hereby required to remove your false statement. [1] https://principia-scientific.org/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/ I await your reply. Sincerely, John O’Sullivan CEO
Kudos to PSI!
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-13--UK Budget Puts Net-Zero Climate Target In Jeopardy

Written by Jon Stone on .
Posted in Latest news The Budget unveiled by the government makes it more difficult for the UK to meet its net-zero carbon climate target , academics and environmentalists have warned .
The chancellor , Rishi Sunak , was accused of undermining the goal set by Theresa May just nine months ago after he froze fuel duty yet again – a policy that has cost a cumulative £50 bn since 2011 .
As well as making it even cheaper to drive compared with public transport fares , the chancellor announced a £27 bn , 4,000-mile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for green transport .
Environmental groups said that the Budget on Wednesday was “ truly awful ” and that it “ completely destroys any pretense of UK government leadership ” .
The Budget comes just months before the UK is due to host the international COP26 summit , where other countries will be asked to make their own contributions to cutting their carbon emissions .
“ It is a mistake to freeze the fuel-duty escalator for the 10th year in a row , threatening attainment of UK ’ s net-zero target , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance of hosting the UN climate conference in December , ” said Steven Sorrell , professor of energy policy at the University of Sussex Business School .
“ Car drivers have enjoyed a large price cut in real terms since 2010 since the price of gasoline and diesel has not kept pace with inflation .
At the same time , public transport fares have risen faster than inflation , and bus travel has declined .
“ Cheap fuel prices have encouraged people to purchase gas-guzzling SUVs , which now account for one-quarter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transport are rising , and cars now emit more CO2 than power stations .
These trends are not sustainable.
” Professor Sorrell said the global fall in oil prices had provided a political “ opportunity ” to reinstate the escalator and argued that “ much of the burden ” would fall on high-income groups .

Written by Jon Stone on Mar 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Budget unveiled by the government makes it more difficult for the UK to meet its net-zero carbon climate target, academics and environmentalists have warned.
The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, was accused of undermining the goal set by Theresa May just nine months ago after he froze fuel duty yet again – a policy that has cost a cumulative £50 bn since 2011.
As well as making it even cheaper to drive compared with public transport fares, the chancellor announced a £27 bn, 4,000-mile road-building program compared with just £1 bn for green transport.
Environmental groups said that the Budget on Wednesday was “truly awful” and that it “completely destroys any pretense of UK government leadership”.
The Budget comes just months before the UK is due to host the international COP26 summit, where other countries will be asked to make their own contributions to cutting their carbon emissions.
“It is a mistake to freeze the fuel-duty escalator for the 10th year in a row, threatening attainment of UK’s net-zero target, and damaging the UK’s credibility in advance of hosting the UN climate conference in December,” said Steven Sorrell, professor of energy policy at the University of Sussex Business School.
“Car drivers have enjoyed a large price cut in real terms since 2010 since the price of gasoline and diesel has not kept pace with inflation. At the same time, public transport fares have risen faster than inflation, and bus travel has declined.
“Cheap fuel prices have encouraged people to purchase gas-guzzling SUVs, which now account for one-quarter of new car sales. Carbon emissions from transport are rising, and cars now emit more CO2 than power stations. These trends are not sustainable.”
Professor Sorrell said the global fall in oil prices had provided a political “opportunity” to reinstate the escalator and argued that “much of the burden” would fall on high-income groups.
Read rest at The Independent
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-13--Climate Crazies Plan ‘Public Suicides’ At Next UN Climate Summit

Written by David Rose , Scottish Mail on .
Posted in Latest news Extinction Rebellion leaders are considering a series of ‘ extreme ’ protests to disrupt this year ’ s UN climate change summit in Glasgow – including a possible hunger strike that ends in death or a demonstrator publicly committing suicide .
The activists are also proposing to spray traffic lights black , close motorways and road tunnels and carry out ‘ industrial sabotage ’ , according to insider documents obtained by The Scottish Mail on Sunday .
The papers were drawn up by Extinction Rebellion ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is responsible for planning future protests and the form they should take .
They say the time has come for a ‘ temporary moratorium on our traditional “ midground ” arrestable actions ’ , such as the occupations of central London streets which took place twice last year .
In their place should be a new wave of ‘ higher risk protests ’ , to be justified by ‘ our own vulnerability in terms of the imminent threats to our food systems and economy , the risk of fascism , famine , disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top ideas ’ the group has discussed are a ‘ hunger strike to the death ’ and even people possibly prepared for ‘ suicide ’ .
The documents say disrupting the Glasgow conference , known as COP26 , will be the ‘ pinnacle of our action campaign this year ’ .
Up to 200 world leaders are expected to attend the event , with around 30,000 delegates and campaigners .
One document , headed ‘ Vital Additions to Actions Strategy ’ , outlines ‘ a set of core principles and projects ’ that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include a section on ‘ extremes of sacrifice ’ .
It states : ‘ As the climate and ecological emergency becomes more dangerous every day , we must encourage more extreme actions to achieve meaningful change.
’ This movement must not become ineffectual and forget its rebellious heart as it grows .
Extreme self-sacrificial actions can act as a vanguard for the movement , inspiring people in their rebellious journey and focusing the world ’ s attention.
’ It adds : ‘ It also seems necessary for the movement to clearly outline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to encourage more extreme action in response to the genuine growing crisis so as not to face pushback from the movement as a whole every time a highly sacrificial action takes place.
’ The document also suggests that the eco-protest movement – also known as XR – is well aware of the widespread fury triggered when its ‘ rebels ’ climbed on top of a tube train in a poor area of London in October and disrupted thousands of commuters ’ journeys to work .
The incident was depicted in videos showing XR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the train .
The October protest ‘ was arguably problematic for the movement ’ , the document admits , and was ‘ alienating.
’ Unfortunately , the document says , ‘ at the present time , we simply do not have the numbers needed to achieve our goals through mass civil disobedience ’ .
The answer is to ‘ focus on extremes of sacrifice levels ’ , with ‘ extreme self-sacrificial actions [ that ] can act as a vanguard for the movement , inspiring people in their rebellious journey and focusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ document says the hunger strike until death will be ‘ a high sacrifice action with ongoing support… [ we need to ] go to extremes of sacrifice levels .
‘ For such high-risk actions , action design must be slick and highly considered.
’ In its view , ‘ more extreme actions ’ will ‘ achieve meaningful change ’ .
According to the document , Extinction Rebellion needs to ‘ scare the f*** out of people ’ , by encouraging them to experience ‘ fear of death ’ from ‘ famine ’ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear of hell , hell on Earth , fire , and floods , ’ and make use of ‘ children and vulnerable people on the front line ’ .
XR ’ s willingness to undertake more extreme forms of protest was hinted at by its founder , Roger Hallam , a former organic farmer , in an interview with a Swiss newspaper this year .
He said : ‘ Civil disobedience is not for cowards .
Martin Luther King also made people sit on the streets .
He also knew that statistically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re doing and what they ’ re getting into.
’ Other documents seen by the MoS outline the movement ’ s large and growing income and expenditure .
Last year it received more than £4 million from crowd-funding and donors .
As of December , it was paying ‘ living expenses ’ – in other words , salaries – to 120 staff .
Last night , an Extinction Rebellion spokesman said : ‘ These notes are an informal list of ideas gathered from people during brainstorming , they have not informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ As with any brainstorm , people would likely be encouraged to think broadly – that doesn ’ t mean that these ideas should or would be taken further , or out of context .
‘ Yes , we , humanity , are in an extreme situation .
Would Extinction Rebellion encourage people to engage in non-violent peaceful civil disobedience ?
Yes .
Would Extinction Rebellion encourage anyone to put their own life at risk or the life of others ?
No.
’ Last month , MoS told how the safety of world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitive blueprints of the summit site were put online by bungling civil servants .
The UK Government admitted the documents had been uploaded in error and quickly removed them .

Written by David Rose, Scottish Mail on Mar 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Extinction Rebellion leaders are considering a series of ‘extreme’ protests to disrupt this year’s UN climate change summit in Glasgow – including a possible hunger strike that ends in death or a demonstrator publicly committing suicide.
The activists are also proposing to spray traffic lights black, close motorways and road tunnels and carry out ‘industrial sabotage’, according to insider documents obtained by The Scottish Mail on Sunday.
The papers were drawn up by Extinction Rebellion’s ‘Action Strategy Group’, which is responsible for planning future protests and the form they should take.
They say the time has come for a ‘temporary moratorium on our traditional “midground” arrestable actions’, such as the occupations of central London streets which took place twice last year.
In their place should be a new wave of ‘higher risk protests’, to be justified by ‘our own vulnerability in terms of the imminent threats to our food systems and economy, the risk of fascism, famine, disease, and war’.
Among ‘top ideas’ the group has discussed are a ‘hunger strike to the death’ and even people possibly prepared for ‘suicide’.
The documents say disrupting the Glasgow conference, known as COP26, will be the ‘pinnacle of our action campaign this year’.
They add:
‘The COP UN Climate Change Summit due to be held in Glasgow in November is a tool of a broken system. ‘Presented by some as our last hope for change, it will not give us the solutions we need. So our 2020 rebellion will culminate in Glasgow but will look beyond COP as we explore internationalist solutions… leading to a Global Citizens’ Assembly on Climate and Ecological Justice.’
Up to 200 world leaders are expected to attend the event, with around 30,000 delegates and campaigners.
One document, headed ‘Vital Additions to Actions Strategy’, outlines ‘a set of core principles and projects’ that are regarded as ‘essential’ and include a section on ‘extremes of sacrifice’.
It states: ‘As the climate and ecological emergency becomes more dangerous every day, we must encourage more extreme actions to achieve meaningful change.’
This movement must not become ineffectual and forget its rebellious heart as it grows. Extreme self-sacrificial actions can act as a vanguard for the movement, inspiring people in their rebellious journey and focusing the world’s attention.’
It adds: ‘It also seems necessary for the movement to clearly outline in any strategy going forward, the intention to encourage more extreme action in response to the genuine growing crisis so as not to face pushback from the movement as a whole every time a highly sacrificial action takes place.’
The document also suggests that the eco-protest movement – also known as XR – is well aware of the widespread fury triggered when its ‘rebels’ climbed on top of a tube train in a poor area of London in October and disrupted thousands of commuters’ journeys to work.
The incident was depicted in videos showing XR protesters being pelted with missiles and pulled off the train. The October protest ‘was arguably problematic for the movement’, the document admits, and was ‘alienating.’
Unfortunately, the document says, ‘at the present time, we simply do not have the numbers needed to achieve our goals through mass civil disobedience’.
The answer is to ‘focus on extremes of sacrifice levels’, with ‘extreme self-sacrificial actions [that] can act as a vanguard for the movement, inspiring people in their rebellious journey and focusing the world’s attention.’
The document says the hunger strike until death will be ‘a high sacrifice action with ongoing support… [we need to] go to extremes of sacrifice levels.
‘For such high-risk actions, action design must be slick and highly considered.’
In its view, ‘more extreme actions’ will ‘achieve meaningful change’. According to the document, Extinction Rebellion needs to ‘scare the f*** out of people’, by encouraging them to experience ‘fear of death’ from ‘famine’ and pollution.
It should foster a ‘fear of hell, hell on Earth, fire, and floods,’ and make use of ‘children and vulnerable people on the front line’.
XR’s willingness to undertake more extreme forms of protest was hinted at by its founder, Roger Hallam, a former organic farmer, in an interview with a Swiss newspaper this year.
He said: ‘Civil disobedience is not for cowards. Martin Luther King also made people sit on the streets. He also knew that statistically, someone would die… Our activists know what they’re doing and what they’re getting into.’
Other documents seen by the MoS outline the movement’s large and growing income and expenditure.
Last year it received more than £4 million from crowd-funding and donors. As of December, it was paying ‘living expenses’ – in other words, salaries – to 120 staff.
Last night, an Extinction Rebellion spokesman said: ‘These notes are an informal list of ideas gathered from people during brainstorming, they have not informed Extinction Rebellion’s 2020 strategy.
‘As with any brainstorm, people would likely be encouraged to think broadly – that doesn’t mean that these ideas should or would be taken further, or out of context.
‘Yes, we, humanity, are in an extreme situation. Would Extinction Rebellion encourage people to engage in non-violent peaceful civil disobedience? Yes. Would Extinction Rebellion encourage anyone to put their own life at risk or the life of others? No.’
Last month, MoS told how the safety of world leaders had been put at risk after sensitive blueprints of the summit site were put online by bungling civil servants.
The UK Government admitted the documents had been uploaded in error and quickly removed them.
h/t GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-13--California’s Bullet Train A Bigger Mess Than Anyone Realized

Written by Jazz Shaw on .
Posted in Latest news Going back to early 2018 , Ed Morrissey was already sounding the alarm about the way that California ’ s vaunted high-speed rail line , affectionately known as the bullet train , was imploding as the world watched .
By that point , cost estimates for the rail project had nearly tripled from the original projections , jumping high enough to quite literally pay for seven new nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for the Navy or wipe out more than three-quarters of Venezuela ’ s staggering national debt .
We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the specifics of how things flew so badly off the rails ( pardon the pun ) have remained something of a mystery .
It would be easy enough to write this off to normal bureaucratic incompetence , except the daunting magnitude of this financial failure seems a bit much even for gross stupidity to explain .
Now , however , the Los Angeles Times has spoken to a number of whistleblowers from WSP , the primary contractor handling the planning and management of the huge construction project .
Several of them agree that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the company ’ s leadership had made it clear that nobody was to speak up about it or their careers would take a downward turn .
A core problem was the project ’ s operating culture , in which managers for WSP , the bullet train ’ s lead consultant , threatened to punish or terminate employees if they failed to toe the company line , Styles said .
“ I was told to shut up and not say anything , ” said Styles , a career construction manager who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheduler in the project ’ s Fresno office .
“ I was told that I didn ’ t understand the political arena the project was in .
I told them I am not going to shut up .
This is my job.
” The atmosphere described by Styles has been corroborated by a half dozen current and former senior officials knowledgeable about the project ’ s Fresno office .
The person being quoted in the article is Mark Styles .
He was brought onboard at WSP in 2018 to oversee Central Valley scheduling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And as soon as he was on the job , he knew that he had been handed a big , flaming bag of dog poo .
The company consistently failed at tasks as basic as delivering plausible cost estimates , creating realistic construction schedules and being able to adapt to changes in the state ’ s program .
But despite all of this , the project continued to barrel forward even as the estimates of the final cost to California ’ s taxpayers ballooned .
SEE ALSO : Bait & Switch : Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His Climate Goals And according to multiple former employees , WSP let everyone know that they shouldn ’ t bring any bad news forward and they should paint a sunny face on things .
Styles eventually left the company for a new job in another state .
Several of the other former employees quoted in the article have also moved on .
A WSP spokesperson denies all of this , simply saying , “ We always work carefully with our client to evaluate the demands of each project and to prepare realistic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Really ?
Lady , the cost of this project is going up by ten billion dollars when a new estimate is given .
How on Earth can you stand there with a straight face and say that you always deliver realistic and transparent summaries of schedules and budgets ?
In the end , however , the true blame can only be assigned to one entity and that ’ s not WSP .
They may have fudged the books on some of their estimates , but it ’ s the government of California that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted the deal .
They could have bailed out of this money sink years ago or at least engaged new contractors to do a more competent job .
But they didn ’ t do that .
They kept plowing ahead even as they plowed more and more money down a rat hole .
At this point , nobody knows if the project will ever be finished .
It may simply run out of money and have to be abandoned before a single train ever travels the first mile on those tracks .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held accountable for this undescribable boondoggle ?
Nobody .
The culprits have been spread across multiple administrations and many of them have moved on by now .
And in the end , all they may wind up with is stretches of track and trestles littering the state , slowly rusting away as children a couple of generations from now ask their parents why there are never any choo-choos on them .

Written by Jazz Shaw on Mar 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Going back to early 2018, Ed Morrissey was already sounding the alarm about the way that California’s vaunted high-speed rail line, affectionately known as the bullet train, was imploding as the world watched.
By that point, cost estimates for the rail project had nearly tripled from the original projections, jumping high enough to quite literally pay for seven new nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for the Navy or wipe out more than three-quarters of Venezuela’s staggering national debt.
We’re now talking about $77B. But the specifics of how things flew so badly off the rails (pardon the pun) have remained something of a mystery.
It would be easy enough to write this off to normal bureaucratic incompetence, except the daunting magnitude of this financial failure seems a bit much even for gross stupidity to explain.
Now, however, the Los Angeles Times has spoken to a number of whistleblowers from WSP, the primary contractor handling the planning and management of the huge construction project.
Several of them agree that everyone knew the project was a disaster, but the company’s leadership had made it clear that nobody was to speak up about it or their careers would take a downward turn.
A core problem was the project’s operating culture, in which managers for WSP, the bullet train’s lead consultant, threatened to punish or terminate employees if they failed to toe the company line, Styles said. “I was told to shut up and not say anything,” said Styles, a career construction manager who was hired as WSP’s senior supervisory scheduler in the project’s Fresno office. “I was told that I didn’t understand the political arena the project was in. I told them I am not going to shut up. This is my job.” The atmosphere described by Styles has been corroborated by a half dozen current and former senior officials knowledgeable about the project’s Fresno office.
The person being quoted in the article is Mark Styles. He was brought onboard at WSP in 2018 to oversee Central Valley scheduling for the California bullet train project.
And as soon as he was on the job, he knew that he had been handed a big, flaming bag of dog poo.
The company consistently failed at tasks as basic as delivering plausible cost estimates, creating realistic construction schedules and being able to adapt to changes in the state’s program.
But despite all of this, the project continued to barrel forward even as the estimates of the final cost to California’s taxpayers ballooned.
SEE ALSO: Bait & Switch: Gov. Newsom Diverts Gas Tax Money For His Climate Goals
And according to multiple former employees, WSP let everyone know that they shouldn’t bring any bad news forward and they should paint a sunny face on things.
Styles eventually left the company for a new job in another state. Several of the other former employees quoted in the article have also moved on.
A WSP spokesperson denies all of this, simply saying, “We always work carefully with our client to evaluate the demands of each project and to prepare realistic and transparent recommendations regarding schedule and budget.”
Really? Lady, the cost of this project is going up by ten billion dollars when a new estimate is given. How on Earth can you stand there with a straight face and say that you always deliver realistic and transparent summaries of schedules and budgets?
In the end, however, the true blame can only be assigned to one entity and that’s not WSP. They may have fudged the books on some of their estimates, but it’s the government of California that agreed to all of the terms and accepted the deal.
They could have bailed out of this money sink years ago or at least engaged new contractors to do a more competent job. But they didn’t do that. They kept plowing ahead even as they plowed more and more money down a rat hole.
At this point, nobody knows if the project will ever be finished. It may simply run out of money and have to be abandoned before a single train ever travels the first mile on those tracks.
And if that happens, who will be held accountable for this undescribable boondoggle? Nobody. The culprits have been spread across multiple administrations and many of them have moved on by now.
And in the end, all they may wind up with is stretches of track and trestles littering the state, slowly rusting away as children a couple of generations from now ask their parents why there are never any choo-choos on them.
Read more at Hot Air
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-13--PBS’ Amanpour Finds Eco ‘Silver Lining’ In COVID-19 Outbreak

Written by Brad Wilmouth on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos On Monday ’ s Amanpour & Co. , PBS/CNN International host Christiane Amanpour echoed climate alarmists who have suggested that the Coronavirus has been good for the climate by depressing human activity as she suggested there has been a “ silver lining ” for the environment in China .
The show also gave an unchallenged forum to climate alarmist and author Christiana Figueres , an architect of the Paris climate accords , who made dire predictions about how difficult to inhabit the world will be in 2050 if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next decade .
After doing a segment to discuss the latest on the Coronavirus outbreak , Amanpour then segued : The PBS host then introduced the pre-recorded interview , conducted by contributor Sheelah Kolhatkar , by noting that Figueres is promoting her book , The Future We Choose .
Kolhatkar was then seen hyperbolically claiming that there is an “ environmental freefall ” and “ crisis ” as she began her interview : SHEELAH KOLHATKAR : So there ’ s a sense right now that we are in something of an environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good way of putting it .
Just at the moment when things seem really dire and urgent , it feels , at least from the outside , that policy decisions , global cooperation , all of that is sort of moving backwards .
What are the odds that we could turn things around in time ?
You ’ re never going to get skepticism on eco-doom from CNN ( who scared Americans in the 1990s with The People Bomb ) or PBS ( who in the same decade ran a ten-hour climate doom-fest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Back then , we had to act in a very short time !
After the two discussed the issue of the world allegedly needing to cut emissions by 2030 to prevent dire consequences that would around 2050 , Kolhatkar followed up : “ Could you describe a little bit what that world would look like if we just continued laissez-faire on the path that we ’ re on ?
” FIGUERES : So , in the year 2050 , if we do not do what we have to do by the human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our homes , and we will not be able to walk down the street without putting a mask on because the air is going to be so polluted that it will be life-threatening .
We will not be able — because of heat — we will not be able to exercise or play outside .
She went on to predict millions of people migrating to seek food and water , and democratic governments being overthrown by unrest .

Written by Brad Wilmouth on Mar 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
On Monday’s Amanpour & Co., PBS/CNN International host Christiane Amanpour echoed climate alarmists who have suggested that the Coronavirus has been good for the climate by depressing human activity as she suggested there has been a “silver lining” for the environment in China.
The show also gave an unchallenged forum to climate alarmist and author Christiana Figueres, an architect of the Paris climate accords, who made dire predictions about how difficult to inhabit the world will be in 2050 if carbon dioxide emissions are not cut in the next decade.
After doing a segment to discuss the latest on the Coronavirus outbreak, Amanpour then segued:
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So if there is a silver lining to this crisis, it’s visible in the skies above China. The dramatic slowdown in manufacturing and driving has caused a reduction in carbon emissions. We’ve all seen these NASA satellite images which show the improvement in China’s air quality.
The PBS host then introduced the pre-recorded interview, conducted by contributor Sheelah Kolhatkar, by noting that Figueres is promoting her book, The Future We Choose.
Kolhatkar was then seen hyperbolically claiming that there is an “environmental freefall” and “crisis” as she began her interview:
SHEELAH KOLHATKAR: So there’s a sense right now that we are in something of an environmental freefall — CHRISTIANA FIGUERES, AUTHOR: Crisis maybe. KOLHATKAR: Crisis is a good way of putting it. Just at the moment when things seem really dire and urgent, it feels, at least from the outside, that policy decisions, global cooperation, all of that is sort of moving backwards. What are the odds that we could turn things around in time?
You’re never going to get skepticism on eco-doom from CNN (who scared Americans in the 1990s with The People Bomb) or PBS (who in the same decade ran a ten-hour climate doom-fest called Race to Save the Planet). Back then, we had to act in a very short time!
After the two discussed the issue of the world allegedly needing to cut emissions by 2030 to prevent dire consequences that would around 2050, Kolhatkar followed up: “Could you describe a little bit what that world would look like if we just continued laissez-faire on the path that we’re on?”
Figueres began with doom and gloom predictions:
FIGUERES: So, in the year 2050, if we do not do what we have to do by the human race, we will walk out of our homes, and we will not be able to walk down the street without putting a mask on because the air is going to be so polluted that it will be life-threatening. We will not be able — because of heat — we will not be able to exercise or play outside.
She went on to predict millions of people migrating to seek food and water, and democratic governments being overthrown by unrest.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-13--Joe Biden To Fight Coronavirus…By Rejoining Paris Climate Accord?

Written by Sean Moran on .
Posted in Latest news Former Vice President Joe Biden proposed his plan to combat the coronavirus outbreak on Thursday by rejoining the Paris climate treaty , contending that there is a “ well-documented ” link between climate change and public health risks .
Biden released his plan to fight the Wuhan virus outbreak and “ prepare for future global health threats.
” He added that climate change is a “ driver of health threats.
” In his proposal , the former vice president promised to rejoin the Paris climate treaty “ on day one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets.
” However , it remains questionable how much good rejoining the Paris climate treaty will do ten months after the former vice president released his plan to combat the coronavirus outbreak .
“ The link between climate change and health security is well-documented and will create a growing threat to Americans , ” Biden wrote .
“ As President , Biden will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and global health security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease and migration challenges caused by a warming planet , ” he said .
The former vice president also said that they would advance the Global Health Security Agenda “ to respond to pandemic threats whether caused by natural causes and climate changes , bioterrorism , or laboratory accidents.
” Biden also promised to have health experts communicate with the public to combat alleged xenophobia that has followed since the coronavirus outbreak .
During Biden ’ s speech on Thursday , he attacked President Donald Trump for spreading “ xenophobia ” for describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
“ This communication is essential to combating the dangerous epidemic of fear , chaos , and stigmatization that can overtake communities faster than the virus , ” Biden said .
“ Acts of racism and xenophobia against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community must not be tolerated , ” he added .

Written by Sean Moran on Mar 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former Vice President Joe Biden proposed his plan to combat the coronavirus outbreak on Thursday by rejoining the Paris climate treaty, contending that there is a “well-documented” link between climate change and public health risks.
Biden released his plan to fight the Wuhan virus outbreak and “prepare for future global health threats.” He added that climate change is a “driver of health threats.”
In his proposal, the former vice president promised to rejoin the Paris climate treaty “on day one” of his presidential administration” and “lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets.”
However, it remains questionable how much good rejoining the Paris climate treaty will do ten months after the former vice president released his plan to combat the coronavirus outbreak.
“The link between climate change and health security is well-documented and will create a growing threat to Americans,” Biden wrote.
“As President, Biden will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and global health security strategies, and prioritize efforts to mitigate disease and migration challenges caused by a warming planet,” he said.
The former vice president also said that they would advance the Global Health Security Agenda “to respond to pandemic threats whether caused by natural causes and climate changes, bioterrorism, or laboratory accidents.”
Biden also promised to have health experts communicate with the public to combat alleged xenophobia that has followed since the coronavirus outbreak. During Biden’s speech on Thursday, he attacked President Donald Trump for spreading “xenophobia” for describing the coronavirus as a “foreign” virus.
“This communication is essential to combating the dangerous epidemic of fear, chaos, and stigmatization that can overtake communities faster than the virus,” Biden said.
“Acts of racism and xenophobia against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community must not be tolerated,” he added.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-12--Meteorologist: The Coronavirus Is Not A Climate Event

Written by Joe Bastardi on .
Posted in Latest news As predictable as the morning sunrise , we are hearing that the spread of the Coronavirus is enhanced by “ climate change.
” No proof of that for one , and secondly , it runs counter to the fact that life THRIVED in warmer times .
You have seen this chart many times so here it is again : They are called optimums because life thrives more when it ’ s warmer .
One may argue that a virus is a living organism , but the point is that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was warmer , plant and animal life , which includes humans , thrived more .
Over the years , after studying all this , I have made no secret that I believe the climate change agenda is a smokescreen for other agendas .
One of them is driven by the idea that there are too many people on the planet , using too much of the resources of the planet .
This apparently flies in the face of the “ be fruitful and multiply , ” which of course does not say be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then again does not imply that there is a set limit on what man can do with free will and a head turned toward a higher calling , something beyond the state .
But when I look at some of the statements by prominent people that are on the climate change bandwagon , I realize there is a link to population control .
And there is that word , control , the idea that one person knows better than another person what is good for the society as a whole .
Like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all about equality for all but is a top-down form of government control where the vast majority of the people do not have a chance to rise into the upper echelon unless pledging loyalty to that doctrine .
In essence , the destruction of free will , which if you believe in God the way I do , runs counter to God ’ s gift of free will .
Basically it comes down to you can make the choice , vs someone else will make the choice for you But where is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few choice quotes will make my point How about this from none other than Ted Turner .
Quote by Ted Turner : “ A total population of 250-300 million people , a 95 % decline from present levels , would be ideal.
” Now here are some really nice ones : Quote by Paul Ehrlich , ( former ) professor , Stanford University : “ A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells ; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people .
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cancer.
” Quote by John Holdren , President Obama ’ s science czar : “ There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws , even including laws requiring compulsory abortion , could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
” Quote by Christopher Manes , a writer for Earth First !
journal : “ The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.
” How about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-founder of Earth First !
: “ My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide , destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness , with its full complement of species , returning throughout the world.
” Quote by David Brower , a founder of the Sierra Club : “ Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license .
All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals , the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ …the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.
” Quote by Susan Blakemore , a UK Guardian science journalist : “ For the planet ’ s sake , I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population because otherwise we ’ re doomed.
” A wish for the flu to reduce the population .
These are but a few choice ditties to make you aware that there is more than the increase of 1°C in the temperature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than meets the eye .
An exhaustive list of quotes that will scare the daylights out of any rational ( keyword rational ) human being can be found here .
I will end with the challenge I always do for people who have open minds and hearts .
Don ’ t believe me , if it is important to go look for yourself .
Don ’ t believe what you are told .
If it is important to you , you must do the research and come to your conclusion .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe me , given the nature of what we are seeing today , there may come a time when what you can look at will be out of your control “ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins , all of them imaginary .
… The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.
” Meteorologist Joe Bastardi is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is the author of “ The Climate Chronicles : Inconvenient Revelations You Won ’ t Hear From Al Gore ” ( Amazon ) .

Written by Joe Bastardi on Mar 12, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As predictable as the morning sunrise, we are hearing that the spread of the Coronavirus is enhanced by “climate change.”
No proof of that for one, and secondly, it runs counter to the fact that life THRIVED in warmer times.
You have seen this chart many times so here it is again:
They are called optimums because life thrives more when it’s warmer. One may argue that a virus is a living organism, but the point is that in previous times if viruses thrived when it was warmer, plant and animal life, which includes humans, thrived more.
Over the years, after studying all this, I have made no secret that I believe the climate change agenda is a smokescreen for other agendas.
One of them is driven by the idea that there are too many people on the planet, using too much of the resources of the planet.
This apparently flies in the face of the “be fruitful and multiply,” which of course does not say be stupid and trash the planet, but then again does not imply that there is a set limit on what man can do with free will and a head turned toward a higher calling, something beyond the state.
But when I look at some of the statements by prominent people that are on the climate change bandwagon, I realize there is a link to population control.
And there is that word, control, the idea that one person knows better than another person what is good for the society as a whole.
Like it or not, Socialism/Marxism is not at all about equality for all but is a top-down form of government control where the vast majority of the people do not have a chance to rise into the upper echelon unless pledging loyalty to that doctrine.
In essence, the destruction of free will, which if you believe in God the way I do, runs counter to God’s gift of free will.
Basically it comes down to you can make the choice, vs someone else will make the choice for you
But where is the evidence for this, I think a few choice quotes will make my point
How about this from none other than Ted Turner.
Quote by Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Now here are some really nice ones:
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, (former) professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.”
Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
How about these:
Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Quote by Club of Rome: “…the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.”
Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population because otherwise we’re doomed.”
A wish for the flu to reduce the population.
These are but a few choice ditties to make you aware that there is more than the increase of 1°C in the temperature of the planet, for whatever reason, than meets the eye.
An exhaustive list of quotes that will scare the daylights out of any rational ( keyword rational) human being can be found here.
I will end with the challenge I always do for people who have open minds and hearts. Don’t believe me, if it is important to go look for yourself.
Don’t believe what you are told. If it is important to you, you must do the research and come to your conclusion.
That is what freedom is all about. And believe me, given the nature of what we are seeing today, there may come a time when what you can look at will be out of your control
Remember the words of HL Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. … The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore” (Amazon).
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print