climatechangedispatch--2020-07-31--NY’s Offshore Wind Obsession Means Vastly Higher Power Prices

Written by Jonathan A .
Lesser on .
Posted in Latest news Offshore wind is the renewable-energy industry ’ s shiny new toy .
Led by New York , seven Atlantic-coast states have now imposed mandates to expand offshore wind use over the next decade , with the Empire State last week soliciting bids for an additional 2,500 megawatts of offshore power , on top of the 1,700 megawatts procured previously .
Advocates claim offshore wind will contribute to a low-carbon future , spur an economic renaissance , and create thousands of jobs .
Don ’ t buy it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will benefit a well-connected few , saddling everyone else with even higher power costs .
Consider Rhode Island ’ s 30-megawatt , six-turbine offshore wind project located off Block Island and operated by Deepwater Wind .
A decade ago , Rhode Island ’ s public utility commission rejected the project , concluding that the sky-high prices it would charge the local electric utility would adversely affect consumers .
Yet the Rhode Island legislature ignored consumer interests and forced the commission to approve a 20-year contract .
At the start , in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ megawatt-hour for the project ’ s electricity , with a guaranteed increase of 3.5 percent each year .
In 2035 , the last year of the contract , the price will be an eye-popping $ 470 per MWh .
By contrast , the average price of wholesale electricity in New England last year was about $ 31/MWh .
In New York , average prices ranged between $ 22 per MWh upstate to $ 51 per MWh in Gotham .
Elsewhere , the dozen offshore projects now under development have lower-priced contracts , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices .
In New York , the first-year prices for the 816 MW Empire Wind and 880 MW Sunrise Wind projects will be $ 99/MWh and $ 110/MWh , respectively .
And that ’ s cheap compared to electricity from some other wind projects in the Atlantic , which range from $ 77.76/MWh to $ 202/MWh .
Yet these prices , which are already high , are understated — because offshore wind projects have two dirty secrets .
First , a detailed analysis of similar European projects has shown that their output decreases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ( almost half after 10 years ) , with newer , larger turbines tending to suffer the most failures .
Operation and maintenance costs also have proved to be much higher than anticipated .
These operational realities lead to a second , even more , pernicious impact : The higher-than-expected operating costs mean that the projects are likely to be abandoned prematurely , creating a cascade of costs that consumers and taxpayers will absorb .
Although the offshore projects will be developed by large , international firms headquartered in Europe , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose only assets are the turbines themselves .
So when the projects are no longer profitable to operate , the owners of these LLCs can walk away , with virtually no financial consequences .
Offshore wind projects must be decommissioned at the end of their lives .
But unlike nuclear power plants , which have strict requirements to fund their eventual decommissioning , there are no such requirements for offshore wind facilities .
And those decommissioning costs will add up .
A 2017 decommissioning study in Britain pegged the cost at around $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aiming to build 9,500 MW of offshore wind projects , that translates into over $ 2 billion in eventual decommissioning costs .
All this is against a backdrop of staggering economic losses thanks to the lockdowns .
According to New York ’ s Division of the Budget , the budget shortfall for the fiscal year 2021 alone is expected to be north of $ 13 billion , and $ 61 billion through fiscal 2024 .
The state now wants to raise New Yorkers ’ electricity costs — already 50 percent above the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will have no measurable impact on world climate .
That will encourage even more businesses and jobs to flee .
The situation is akin to states that promise lavish pensions while failing to fund them .
When the bill ’ s due , there are only two options : renege on the promises or collect the money from someone else .
In the case of offshore wind , expect the result of higher-than-anticipated operating costs and premature abandonment to either be “ renegotiations ” with state regulators to raise contract prices — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Either way , the public will lose .

Written by Jonathan A. Lesser on Jul 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Offshore wind is the renewable-energy industry’s shiny new toy.
Led by New York, seven Atlantic-coast states have now imposed mandates to expand offshore wind use over the next decade, with the Empire State last week soliciting bids for an additional 2,500 megawatts of offshore power, on top of the 1,700 megawatts procured previously.
Advocates claim offshore wind will contribute to a low-carbon future, spur an economic renaissance, and create thousands of jobs. Don’t buy it.
The mandates are yet another boondoggle that will benefit a well-connected few, saddling everyone else with even higher power costs.
Consider Rhode Island’s 30-megawatt, six-turbine offshore wind project located off Block Island and operated by Deepwater Wind.
A decade ago, Rhode Island’s public utility commission rejected the project, concluding that the sky-high prices it would charge the local electric utility would adversely affect consumers.
Yet the Rhode Island legislature ignored consumer interests and forced the commission to approve a 20-year contract.
At the start, in 2016, the local utility paid $245 per megawatt-hour for the project’s electricity, with a guaranteed increase of 3.5 percent each year.
In 2035, the last year of the contract, the price will be an eye-popping $470 per MWh. By contrast, the average price of wholesale electricity in New England last year was about $31/MWh.
In New York, average prices ranged between $22 per MWh upstate to $51 per MWh in Gotham.
Elsewhere, the dozen offshore projects now under development have lower-priced contracts, but they are still far higher than market prices.
In New York, the first-year prices for the 816 MW Empire Wind and 880 MW Sunrise Wind projects will be $99/MWh and $110/MWh, respectively.
And that’s cheap compared to electricity from some other wind projects in the Atlantic, which range from $77.76/MWh to $202/MWh.
Yet these prices, which are already high, are understated — because offshore wind projects have two dirty secrets.
First, a detailed analysis of similar European projects has shown that their output decreases by an average of 4.5 percent a year (almost half after 10 years), with newer, larger turbines tending to suffer the most failures.
Operation and maintenance costs also have proved to be much higher than anticipated.
These operational realities lead to a second, even more, pernicious impact: The higher-than-expected operating costs mean that the projects are likely to be abandoned prematurely, creating a cascade of costs that consumers and taxpayers will absorb.
Although the offshore projects will be developed by large, international firms headquartered in Europe, they are structured as single-purpose, limited-liability companies whose only assets are the turbines themselves.
So when the projects are no longer profitable to operate, the owners of these LLCs can walk away, with virtually no financial consequences.
Offshore wind projects must be decommissioned at the end of their lives. But unlike nuclear power plants, which have strict requirements to fund their eventual decommissioning, there are no such requirements for offshore wind facilities.
And those decommissioning costs will add up. A 2017 decommissioning study in Britain pegged the cost at around $240,000 per MW.
With New York aiming to build 9,500 MW of offshore wind projects, that translates into over $2 billion in eventual decommissioning costs.
All this is against a backdrop of staggering economic losses thanks to the lockdowns.
According to New York’s Division of the Budget, the budget shortfall for the fiscal year 2021 alone is expected to be north of $13 billion, and $61 billion through fiscal 2024.
The state now wants to raise New Yorkers’ electricity costs — already 50 percent above the national average — to pursue a virtue-signaling policy that will have no measurable impact on world climate.
That will encourage even more businesses and jobs to flee.
The situation is akin to states that promise lavish pensions while failing to fund them. When the bill’s due, there are only two options: renege on the promises or collect the money from someone else.
In the case of offshore wind, expect the result of higher-than-anticipated operating costs and premature abandonment to either be “renegotiations” with state regulators to raise contract prices — or a green middle finger to taxpayers. Either way, the public will lose.
Read more at NY Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-31--Latest Crackpot Claim: Tropical Plants Harmed By Global Warming

Written by Michael Walsh on .
Posted in Latest news This just in : Further in the all-effects-of-climate-change-are-bad category , we hear that “ Tropical plants closer to the equator are most at risk from climate change because it is expected to become too hot for many species to germinate in the next 50 years , UNSW researchers have found.
” On the face of it , this conclusion is implausible .
Global warming should drive species from their current habitats to ones that used to be cooler , away from the Equator toward the poles , in which case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first ( say , those obstinately flourishing polar bears ) while things like orchids would be the last to go , migrating from Central America to Wisconsin and ultimately Baffin Island before going off the edge .
As even the Guardian admits , “ When left unattended , trees migrate toward more favorable conditions through a process known as seed dispersal , in which seeds are carried by the wind or birds to new places , taking root where the weather and water are right.
” But when it ’ s climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the range of things that like warmth .
How about that !
It ’ s almost as if Mother Nature reacts protectively during times of ( slow , gradual , perfectly normal climate evolution ) and takes steps to ensure her progeny ’ s welfare .
As the Guardian story cited above observes with wonder : There is an impressive array of pine species at the Nature Conservancy ’ s Plum Creek preserve in Maryland – loblolly , Virginia , shortleaf – creating a landscape that emits the smell of Christmas well into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the preserve has fueled an ethical debate about the role of conservationists in the age of climate change .
But longleaf is not native to Maryland , and many scientists believe they should not be planted at Plum Creek , or anywhere outside of their natural range .
These relatively young trees are part of an experiment to determine if human intervention could help the pines migrate north as climate change alters its natural range… Assisted migration has been accused of being expensive and risky , a case of humans playing God .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that even with the help of Scientists ( the new priest class of the atheist Left ) , neither gimpy old Gaia nor God himself won ’ t be able to move fast enough to save herself .
And a “ restoration ecologist ” named Deborah Landau blames — you guessed it — the coming of the white man for the retreat of the ugly , scrub longleaf pines .
Longleaf pine once blanketed 90 million acres of the American southeast , but today it inhabits only 3 % of its original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ practically knocking on the door ” of the Chesapeake Bay when Europeans showed up 400 years ago .
“ We truly feel it would have eventually arrived on its own , ” she says .
Instead , longleaf pine forests were decimated by logging and fire suppression , their growth fragmented by human development .
Climate change — is there anything it can ’ t do ?

Written by Michael Walsh on Jul 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
This just in:
Further in the all-effects-of-climate-change-are-bad category, we hear that “Tropical plants closer to the equator are most at risk from climate change because it is expected to become too hot for many species to germinate in the next 50 years, UNSW researchers have found.”
On the face of it, this conclusion is implausible. Global warming should drive species from their current habitats to ones that used to be cooler, away from the Equator toward the poles, in which case cold-weather life forms would hit the wall first (say, those obstinately flourishing polar bears) while things like orchids would be the last to go, migrating from Central America to Wisconsin and ultimately Baffin Island before going off the edge.
As even the Guardian admits, “When left unattended, trees migrate toward more favorable conditions through a process known as seed dispersal, in which seeds are carried by the wind or birds to new places, taking root where the weather and water are right.” But when it’s climate change, warming can’t even expand the range of things that like warmth.
How about that! It’s almost as if Mother Nature reacts protectively during times of (slow, gradual, perfectly normal climate evolution) and takes steps to ensure her progeny’s welfare.
As the Guardian story cited above observes with wonder:
There is an impressive array of pine species at the Nature Conservancy’s Plum Creek preserve in Maryland – loblolly, Virginia, shortleaf – creating a landscape that emits the smell of Christmas well into the summer. But a newcomer to the preserve has fueled an ethical debate about the role of conservationists in the age of climate change.
But longleaf is not native to Maryland, and many scientists believe they should not be planted at Plum Creek, or anywhere outside of their natural range. These relatively young trees are part of an experiment to determine if human intervention could help the pines migrate north as climate change alters its natural range… Assisted migration has been accused of being expensive and risky, a case of humans playing God.
This being the Guardian, the worry is that even with the help of Scientists (the new priest class of the atheist Left), neither gimpy old Gaia nor God himself won’t be able to move fast enough to save herself.
And a “restoration ecologist” named Deborah Landau blames — you guessed it — the coming of the white man for the retreat of the ugly, scrub longleaf pines.
Longleaf pine once blanketed 90 million acres of the American southeast, but today it inhabits only 3% of its original range. According to Landau, longleaf was “practically knocking on the door” of the Chesapeake Bay when Europeans showed up 400 years ago.
“We truly feel it would have eventually arrived on its own,” she says. Instead, longleaf pine forests were decimated by logging and fire suppression, their growth fragmented by human development.
Climate change — is there anything it can’t do?
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-31--New Climate Report: Heatwaves Are LESS Frequent And Severe

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Heatwaves during recent decades remain far less frequent and severe than was the case during the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago , reports a new topical summary at the website Climate at a Glance .
When climate alarmists react to annual summer heatwaves by claiming they are being caused by global warming , people interested in the truth now have a concise , compelling source for rebuttal .
According to Climate at a Glance : U.S. Heatwaves , a majority of each state ’ s all-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of the 20th century – approximately 100 years of global warming ago .
Also , the most accurate nationwide temperature station network , implemented in 2005 , shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005 .
Heatwaves have always been a natural part of the American climate .
Global warming will not put an end to heatwaves .
However , global warming is not making heatwaves much worse , either , if at all .
That is because the lion ’ s share of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during winter , at night , and closer to the poles .
The graph below illustrates how heatwaves were much more frequent and severe during the 1930s .
Also , data show recent heatwaves are well within historically typical ranges .
Like all other aspects of the well-funded Climate Delusion , claims that global warming is causing more frequent and severe heatwaves wilt under the heat of scientific scrutiny .

Written by James Taylor on Jul 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Heatwaves during recent decades remain far less frequent and severe than was the case during the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago, reports a new topical summary at the website Climate at a Glance.
When climate alarmists react to annual summer heatwaves by claiming they are being caused by global warming, people interested in the truth now have a concise, compelling source for rebuttal.
According to Climate at a Glance: U.S. Heatwaves, a majority of each state’s all-time high-temperature records were set during the first half of the 20th century – approximately 100 years of global warming ago.
Also, the most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005.
Heatwaves have always been a natural part of the American climate. Global warming will not put an end to heatwaves. However, global warming is not making heatwaves much worse, either, if at all.
That is because the lion’s share of the Earth’s modest warming occurs during winter, at night, and closer to the poles.
The graph below illustrates how heatwaves were much more frequent and severe during the 1930s. Also, data show recent heatwaves are well within historically typical ranges.
Like all other aspects of the well-funded Climate Delusion, claims that global warming is causing more frequent and severe heatwaves wilt under the heat of scientific scrutiny.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-03--Supreme Court Tells Sierra Club That Border Wall Can Proceed

Written by John Solomon on .
Posted in Latest news The Supreme Court handed President Trump another victory on his signature immigration agenda Friday , refusing by a 5-4 vote to temporarily block construction of a wall at the southern border with Mexico .
Groups like the Sierra Club and the American Civil Liberties Union had asked the court for a temporary stoppage of construction while they argue their case that the administration illegally transferred $ 2.5 billion in funding to the project from the Pentagon .
But led by its conservative bloc , the high court refused the request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting construction could be far advanced before the legal issues were settled .
In all , the Trump administration has completed about 240 miles of wall construction and reconstruction .
In the latest phase , about 92 miles of a 129-mile section of wall the administration is seeking to build as a replacement for fencing is already complete as Trump rushes to complete one of his signature campaign promises from 2016 .
“ The Court ’ s decision to let construction continue nevertheless , I fear , may ‘ operate , in effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the dissent .
You can read the ruling here .
The Trump administration plans to continue construction while asking the court later in August to review an appeals court ruling this month that concluded the funding transfer was improper .
The decision Friday means the Supreme Court likely won ’ t decide the issue until well after November ’ s election .
The opposing groups vowed Friday to press on with the case , saying they will seek to tear down the wall if they win .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ question has ruled President Trump ’ s border wall illegal , and the Supreme Court ’ s temporary order does not decide the case .
We ’ ll be back before the Supreme Court soon to put a stop to Trump ’ s xenophobic border wall once and for all , ” said Dror Ladin , an ACLU staff attorney .
Read rest at Just The News

Written by John Solomon on Aug 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Supreme Court handed President Trump another victory on his signature immigration agenda Friday, refusing by a 5-4 vote to temporarily block construction of a wall at the southern border with Mexico.
Groups like the Sierra Club and the American Civil Liberties Union had asked the court for a temporary stoppage of construction while they argue their case that the administration illegally transferred $2.5 billion in funding to the project from the Pentagon.
But led by its conservative bloc, the high court refused the request.
The four liberal justices dissented, suggesting construction could be far advanced before the legal issues were settled. In all, the Trump administration has completed about 240 miles of wall construction and reconstruction.
In the latest phase, about 92 miles of a 129-mile section of wall the administration is seeking to build as a replacement for fencing is already complete as Trump rushes to complete one of his signature campaign promises from 2016.
“The Court’s decision to let construction continue nevertheless, I fear, may ‘operate, in effect, as a final judgment,’” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the dissent.
You can read the ruling here.
The Trump administration plans to continue construction while asking the court later in August to review an appeals court ruling this month that concluded the funding transfer was improper.
The decision Friday means the Supreme Court likely won’t decide the issue until well after November’s election.
The opposing groups vowed Friday to press on with the case, saying they will seek to tear down the wall if they win.
“Every lower court to consider the question has ruled President Trump’s border wall illegal, and the Supreme Court’s temporary order does not decide the case. We’ll be back before the Supreme Court soon to put a stop to Trump’s xenophobic border wall once and for all,” said Dror Ladin, an ACLU staff attorney.
Read rest at Just The News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-03--Why Radical Greens View People As A Scourge On The Planet

Written by Dr. Jay Lehr on .
Posted in Latest news Most of the doomsaying elites are candid about their contempt for the value of human life and about their political endgame .
They are defined by the term misanthropes , “ people who dislike humankind.
” Liberal ideologues preach that an all-powerful central government on a global scale is necessary to save the planet .
It is also necessary to equitably distribute the world ’ s financial and physical resources .
Christina Figueres , former chief of the International Panel on Climate Change , called communism the optimal system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article in the Daily Caller on January 15 , 2014 .
A year later on February 3 , 2015 , at a European conference , she acknowledged that the UN ’ s climate program has provided the political and organizational wherewithal to replace the economic system that made modern economic growth possible .
She said : “ This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally , within a defined period of time , to change the economic development model that has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the Industrial Revolution.
” That is a “ frighteningly arrogant statement , ” said Steve Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White in their brilliant 2016 book , Fueling Freedom .
This requires central planning with an uncompromising faith in the power of government and an even stronger belief that personal freedom need not be present in society .
It actually describes all the groups battling against our current government .
Could they all be misanthropes ?
The economic development model that the UN climate czar has consigned to the dustbin of history allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hallmarks of that model , private property rights , a competitive market , and personal freedom are today intertwined with the availability and creative conversions of fossil fuels .
In the 1970s , when the politics of environmentalism emerged , the Club of Rome published a dystopian manifesto titled Limits To Growth predicting the end of growth and the need for a centrally controlled economy .
Mr. Biden is building on that plan in his platform for the nation .
In the Club of Rome ’ s 1991 publication The First Global Revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world view .
It said , “ The common enemy of humanity is man .
In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution , the threat of global warming , water shortages , famines and the like would fit the bill.
” Yes , you read that correctly .
Not to be outdone in misanthropy Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote in a report to The Federation of American Scientists in 1978 : “ Giving society cheap , abundant energy would be the equivalent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The Marxist founder of the United Nations Environment Program , the late Maurice Strong , contended that “ the only hope for the planet ” is the collapse of industrialized civilizations .
The planetary management advocated by these alarmists is to be carried out by those sanctioned by the elites rather than by the consent of the people .
Few Americans on either side of the political spectrum appear to be aware of this dark side of the global warming issue , and few public officials seem willing to risk the wrath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heretics .
Yet opinion polls consistently show that a strong majority of the U.S. citizens abhor the idea of global governance .
Europeans may be accustomed to their government ’ s social engineering .
We doubt that a critical mass of Americans are willing to surrender to green mandates that will limit the number of miles they drive until they purchase an electric car .
If our democratic form of government is to endure , energy policies must be made to satisfy the desires of the public .
This could well end Nov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any concern about climate change and the counterproductive consequences of climate policies , surely economic growth offers the best bet for adaptation to whatever change the Earth might experience .
America ’ s future may not offer a climate any different from today ’ s , but the future that the alarmists propose is a regression toward the preindustrial era devoid of the freedoms and prosperity afforded by plentiful energy .
Today , it would be hard to argue that no one other than George Soros is the world ’ s most powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a team of psychiatrists to figure out why a man with a billion dollars , who has made his home in America , would so despise this country as to devote decades and his few remaining years at 89 to destroying his adopted homeland .
Perhaps an undiagnosed brain tumor or premature dementia brought on this psychosis .
Why else would he finance people intent on undermining all this country has stood for ?
Why else would he help elect the politicians who allow thugs to run wild burning , looting and vandalizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are told that Soros is a socialist , but what is a socialist ’ s idea of a perfect socialist state : a dictatorship modeled on the old Soviet Union , China , Cuba , North Korea , or Venezuela ?
Or perhaps Nazi Germany , where though he was a Hungarian Jew , he cast his lot with the barbarians .
He identifies with them still .
Note : Portions of this article were excerpted directly from the book , Fueling Freedom , with permission from its authors Steve Moore and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the very best treatise on American energy yet to be written .

Written by Dr. Jay Lehr on Aug 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Most of the doomsaying elites are candid about their contempt for the value of human life and about their political endgame. They are defined by the term misanthropes, “people who dislike humankind.”
Liberal ideologues preach that an all-powerful central government on a global scale is necessary to save the planet. It is also necessary to equitably distribute the world’s financial and physical resources.
Christina Figueres, former chief of the International Panel on Climate Change, called communism the optimal system for avoiding dangerous global warming in an article in the Daily Caller on January 15, 2014.
A year later on February 3, 2015, at a European conference, she acknowledged that the UN’s climate program has provided the political and organizational wherewithal to replace the economic system that made modern economic growth possible.
She said: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
That is a “frighteningly arrogant statement,” said Steve Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White in their brilliant 2016 book, Fueling Freedom.
This requires central planning with an uncompromising faith in the power of government and an even stronger belief that personal freedom need not be present in society.
It actually describes all the groups battling against our current government. Could they all be misanthropes?
The economic development model that the UN climate czar has consigned to the dustbin of history allowed a middle class to flourish.
The hallmarks of that model, private property rights, a competitive market, and personal freedom are today intertwined with the availability and creative conversions of fossil fuels.
In the 1970s, when the politics of environmentalism emerged, the Club of Rome published a dystopian manifesto titled Limits To Growth predicting the end of growth and the need for a centrally controlled economy.
Mr. Biden is building on that plan in his platform for the nation.
In the Club of Rome’s 1991 publication The First Global Revolution, the organization unashamedly revealed their misanthropic world view.
It said, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famines and the like would fit the bill.” Yes, you read that correctly.
Not to be outdone in misanthropy Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote in a report to The Federation of American Scientists in 1978: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
The Marxist founder of the United Nations Environment Program, the late Maurice Strong, contended that “the only hope for the planet” is the collapse of industrialized civilizations.
The planetary management advocated by these alarmists is to be carried out by those sanctioned by the elites rather than by the consent of the people.
Few Americans on either side of the political spectrum appear to be aware of this dark side of the global warming issue, and few public officials seem willing to risk the wrath that the mainstream media reserves for climate heretics.
Yet opinion polls consistently show that a strong majority of the U.S. citizens abhor the idea of global governance.
Europeans may be accustomed to their government’s social engineering. We doubt that a critical mass of Americans are willing to surrender to green mandates that will limit the number of miles they drive until they purchase an electric car.
If our democratic form of government is to endure, energy policies must be made to satisfy the desires of the public. This could well end Nov 3.
Given the weakening evidence for any concern about climate change and the counterproductive consequences of climate policies, surely economic growth offers the best bet for adaptation to whatever change the Earth might experience.
America’s future may not offer a climate any different from today’s, but the future that the alarmists propose is a regression toward the preindustrial era devoid of the freedoms and prosperity afforded by plentiful energy.
Today, it would be hard to argue that no one other than George Soros is the world’s most powerful and effective misanthrope.
It would take a team of psychiatrists to figure out why a man with a billion dollars, who has made his home in America, would so despise this country as to devote decades and his few remaining years at 89 to destroying his adopted homeland.
Perhaps an undiagnosed brain tumor or premature dementia brought on this psychosis. Why else would he finance people intent on undermining all this country has stood for?
Why else would he help elect the politicians who allow thugs to run wild burning, looting and vandalizing to their heart’s content?
We are told that Soros is a socialist, but what is a socialist’s idea of a perfect socialist state: a dictatorship modeled on the old Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela?
Or perhaps Nazi Germany, where though he was a Hungarian Jew, he cast his lot with the barbarians. He identifies with them still.
Note: Portions of this article were excerpted directly from the book, Fueling Freedom, with permission from its authors Steve Moore and Kathleen White. The book is recommended as the very best treatise on American energy yet to be written.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-03--Trump Recovers Taxpayer Cash On Bankrupt Obama-Backed Solar Plant

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news The Department of Energy reached a settlement Thursday to recover $ 200 million in taxpayer funds from a loan the Obama administration distributed in 2011 to finance a $ 1 billion solar power plant that was deemed obsolete before it could officially go online .
The settlement between DOE and Tonopah Solar Energy must now be approved by a bankruptcy court , the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported .
The DOE provided a $ 737 million loan to Tonopah in September 2011 for the purposes of financing the $ 1.1 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The agency disbursed funds for the plant in 2011 and 2013 before the project experienced problems requiring improvements , rendering the Crescent Dunes obsolete by 2015 , Bloomberg reported in January .
Thursday ’ s settlement will allow the DOE to recoup a portion of the $ 424 million Tonopah owes .
The plant experienced an outage in 2016 , forcing a shutdown lasting from October 2016 to July 2017 , the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board reported in January .
Another outage occurred in April 2019 and is ongoing .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facility ’ s hot salt tanks , TheWSJ Editorial Board noted .
“ This project has consistently faced technical failures that have proven difficult to overcome .
The Department ’ s decision was made after years of exhausting options within our authority to get the project back on track , given the significant taxpayer investment the prior Administration committed to this project , ” Shaylyn Hynes told the DCNF .
DOE officials sent a default notice in September before Crescent ’ s only customer , NV Energy , terminated its purchase agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sued for the dissolution of Tonopah Solar Energy LLC .
The developer told a federal court in November that “ the plant is moribund—neither generating energy nor revenue ” and had a debt of more than $ 440 million with “ assets of much less value , ” TheWSJ Editorial Board reported .

Written by Chris White on Aug 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Department of Energy reached a settlement Thursday to recover $200 million in taxpayer funds from a loan the Obama administration distributed in 2011 to finance a $1 billion solar power plant that was deemed obsolete before it could officially go online.
The settlement between DOE and Tonopah Solar Energy must now be approved by a bankruptcy court, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
The DOE provided a $737 million loan to Tonopah in September 2011 for the purposes of financing the $1.1 billion Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Nevada.
The agency disbursed funds for the plant in 2011 and 2013 before the project experienced problems requiring improvements, rendering the Crescent Dunes obsolete by 2015, Bloomberg reported in January.
Thursday’s settlement will allow the DOE to recoup a portion of the $424 million Tonopah owes.
The plant experienced an outage in 2016, forcing a shutdown lasting from October 2016 to July 2017, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board reported in January. Another outage occurred in April 2019 and is ongoing.
Both problems were a result of issues with the facility’s hot salt tanks, TheWSJ Editorial Board noted.
“This project has consistently faced technical failures that have proven difficult to overcome. The Department’s decision was made after years of exhausting options within our authority to get the project back on track, given the significant taxpayer investment the prior Administration committed to this project,” Shaylyn Hynes told the DCNF.
DOE officials sent a default notice in September before Crescent’s only customer, NV Energy, terminated its purchase agreement.
SolarReserve, the developer behind Crescent, sued for the dissolution of Tonopah Solar Energy LLC.
The developer told a federal court in November that “the plant is moribund—neither generating energy nor revenue” and had a debt of more than $440 million with “assets of much less value,” TheWSJ Editorial Board reported.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-03--Mines, Minerals, And ‘Green Energy’: A Reality Check

Written by Mark P. Mills on .
Posted in Latest news As policymakers have shifted focus from pandemic challenges to economic recovery , infrastructure plans are once more being actively discussed , including those relating to energy .
Green energy advocates are doubling down on pressure to continue , or even increase , the use of wind , solar power , and electric cars .
Left out of the discussion is any serious consideration of the broad environmental and supply-chain implications of renewable energy .
As I explored in a previous paper , “ The New Energy Economy : An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ] many enthusiasts believe things that are not possible when it comes to the physics of fueling society , not least the magical belief that “ clean-tech ” energy can echo the velocity of the progress of digital technologies .
It can not .
This paper turns to a different reality : all energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth .
No energy system , in short , is actually “ renewable , ” since all machines require the continual mining and processing of millions of tons of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that inevitably wears out .
Compared with hydrocarbons , green machines entail , on average , a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy .
This means that any significant expansion of today ’ s modest level of green energy—currently less than 4 % of the country ’ s total consumption ( versus 56 % from oil and gas ) —will create an unprecedented increase in global mining for needed minerals , radically exacerbate existing environmental and labor challenges in emerging markets ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dramatically increase U.S. imports and the vulnerability of America ’ s energy supply chain .
As recently as 1990 , the U.S. was the world ’ s number-one producer of minerals .
Today , it is in seventh place .
Even though the nation has vast mineral reserves worth trillions of dollars , America is now 100 % dependent on imports for some 17 key minerals , and , for another 29 , over half of domestic needs are imported .
Among the material realities of green energy : • Building wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles , requires , on average , more than 10 times the quantity of materials , compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society .
• A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries ; the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than five million smartphones ; a solar array that can power one data center uses more glass than 50 million phones .
• Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines under current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world .
For example , a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials .
Averaged over a battery ’ s life , each mile of driving an electric car “ consumes ” five pounds of earth .
Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile .
• Oil , natural gas , and coal are needed to produce the concrete , steel , plastics , and purified minerals used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil .
• By 2050 , with current plans , the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today ’ s global plastic waste , along with over three million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades .
By 2030 , more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage .

Written by Mark P. Mills on Aug 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As policymakers have shifted focus from pandemic challenges to economic recovery, infrastructure plans are once more being actively discussed, including those relating to energy.
Green energy advocates are doubling down on pressure to continue, or even increase, the use of wind, solar power, and electric cars.
Left out of the discussion is any serious consideration of the broad environmental and supply-chain implications of renewable energy.
As I explored in a previous paper, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,”[1] many enthusiasts believe things that are not possible when it comes to the physics of fueling society, not least the magical belief that “clean-tech” energy can echo the velocity of the progress of digital technologies. It cannot.
This paper turns to a different reality: all energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth.
No energy system, in short, is actually “renewable,” since all machines require the continual mining and processing of millions of tons of primary materials and the disposal of hardware that inevitably wears out.
Compared with hydrocarbons, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy.
This means that any significant expansion of today’s modest level of green energy—currently less than 4% of the country’s total consumption (versus 56% from oil and gas)—will create an unprecedented increase in global mining for needed minerals, radically exacerbate existing environmental and labor challenges in emerging markets (where many mines are located), and dramatically increase U.S. imports and the vulnerability of America’s energy supply chain.
As recently as 1990, the U.S. was the world’s number-one producer of minerals. Today, it is in seventh place.
Even though the nation has vast mineral reserves worth trillions of dollars, America is now 100% dependent on imports for some 17 key minerals, and, for another 29, over half of domestic needs are imported.
Among the material realities of green energy:
Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.
A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries; the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than five million smartphones; a solar array that can power one data center uses more glass than 50 million phones.
Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines under current plans—never mind aspirations for far greater expansion—will vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world. For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.
By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over three million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.
Download PDF
Read rest at Manhattan Institute
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-03--Texas Megadroughts? Only By Using A Discredited Climate Model

Written by Anthony Watts on .
Posted in Latest news An article in the Texas Tribune , appearing among the top Google News searches this week for “ climate change , ” claims Texas ranchers are bracing for a megadrought brought on by climate change .
The article claims , “ A new study from the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A & M University warns that droughts in the latter part of this century could be the worst on record.
” The science , however , shows no unusual threat of megadrought , but a Texas-sized threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Texas Tribune article is a study and press release from a Texas A & M scientist saying conditions several decades from now “ could ” be drier than previous periods .
In the press release from Texas A & M , state climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon wrote : “ Our study shows that the drier conditions expected in the latter half of the 21st century could be drier than any of those megadroughts , depending on how you measure dryness.
” Gosh , it sure sounds bad .
It also makes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t tell you in the media articles is the study makes use of a computer model to predict the future of drought in Texas , and they used the worst-case climate model , RCP8.5 , which has been discredited and has been labeled as “ unrealistic ” by other peer-reviewed studies .
That particular model has been a favorite of climate alarmists because it predicts a roasting hot future while completely ignoring actual data and present-day trends .
Even the IPCC admits RCP8.5 is exceedingly unlikely to occur , saying RCP8.5 had only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time IPCC evaluated it .
More recent estimates place RCP8.5 ’ s chance of occurring at less than 3 % .
Literally , you could pick any spot on the planet , and climate model RCP8.5 would tell you the future is bleak , so there ’ s really no surprise in this outcome .
What is a surprise is that Texas A & M didn ’ t get the memo about the unreliability of climate model RCP8.5 .
When looking at drought , it ’ s often important to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is actually measured data , rather than an uncertain mathematical projection with data-input biases .
The study itself looks at “ megadroughts ” in the past , and from the press release they say : “ In the past thousand years , there have been multiple decades of extended drought periods called “ megadroughts ” — something Texas will likely see through the end of the century.
” And , the study notes , “ The drought of the 1950s is still considered the “ drought of record ” and remains the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years.
” Now , wait a minute .
A “ megadrought ” of the 1950s happened well before carbon dioxide in the atmosphere became a science-turned-political cause .
At that time , according to data , carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) levels in Earth ’ s atmosphere were well below what they are today .
If increased CO2 levels in the future drive “ climate change ” and that drives droughts , how is it that the “ drought of record ” in Texas happened way back then ?
How is it that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” happened without the aid of increased CO2 in our atmosphere ?
How is it with CO2 levels now being over 415PPM , Texas hasn ’ t seen a drought worse than the “ drought of record ” ?
The answer is natural variation .
The Earth naturally produces periods of drought .
In fact , studies show we ’ ve seen 200-year periods of drought in the western United States well before “ climate change ” became a cause , as you can clearly see in Figure 1 below .
Ironically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotter and drier future , the state of Pennsylvania says their future will be “ warmer and wetter ” .
That ’ s apparently bad , too .
Drier is worse , and wetter is worse , so climate activists admit our past 100 years of modest global warming has placed our present-day climate in perfect conditions !
When it comes to predicting the future of climate , almost any deviation from the Goldilocks period of “ just right ” temperature and rainfall is seen as being driven by the universal boogeyman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the use of fossil fuels producing more CO2 in our atmosphere .
Almost every prediction is coupled with an “ act now ” message that says you are personally responsible for the future of the planet and you need to change your lifestyle .
In reality , as seen in figure 1 above , the planet has never lacked climate variation , and in the past , it has produced some pretty ugly climate situations without any help from mankind at all .
We ’ ve been very lucky over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My best advice is to stop believing we can maintain the Goldilocks period of “ just right ” temperature and rainfall and start planning for what mother nature will inevitably throw at us due to natural variation .

Written by Anthony Watts on Aug 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
An article in the Texas Tribune, appearing among the top Google News searches this week for “climate change,” claims Texas ranchers are bracing for a megadrought brought on by climate change.
The article claims, “A new study from the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University warns that droughts in the latter part of this century could be the worst on record.”
The science, however, shows no unusual threat of megadrought, but a Texas-sized threat of climate alarmism.
The basis of the Texas Tribune article is a study and press release from a Texas A&M scientist saying conditions several decades from now “could” be drier than previous periods.
In the press release from Texas A&M, state climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon wrote: “Our study shows that the drier conditions expected in the latter half of the 21st century could be drier than any of those megadroughts, depending on how you measure dryness.”
Gosh, it sure sounds bad. It also makes for good clickbait.
What they don’t tell you in the media articles is the study makes use of a computer model to predict the future of drought in Texas, and they used the worst-case climate model, RCP8.5, which has been discredited and has been labeled as “unrealistic” by other peer-reviewed studies.
That particular model has been a favorite of climate alarmists because it predicts a roasting hot future while completely ignoring actual data and present-day trends.
Even the IPCC admits RCP8.5 is exceedingly unlikely to occur, saying RCP8.5 had only a 10% chance of becoming reality at the time IPCC evaluated it. More recent estimates place RCP8.5’s chance of occurring at less than 3%.
Literally, you could pick any spot on the planet, and climate model RCP8.5 would tell you the future is bleak, so there’s really no surprise in this outcome. What is a surprise is that Texas A&M didn’t get the memo about the unreliability of climate model RCP8.5.
When looking at drought, it’s often important to look at the past, because the past is actually measured data, rather than an uncertain mathematical projection with data-input biases.
The study itself looks at “megadroughts” in the past, and from the press release they say: “In the past thousand years, there have been multiple decades of extended drought periods called “megadroughts” — something Texas will likely see through the end of the century.”
And, the study notes, “The drought of the 1950s is still considered the “drought of record” and remains the most severe in Texas in the past 125 years.”
Now, wait a minute. A “megadrought” of the 1950s happened well before carbon dioxide in the atmosphere became a science-turned-political cause.
At that time, according to data, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in Earth’s atmosphere were well below what they are today.
If increased CO2 levels in the future drive “climate change” and that drives droughts, how is it that the “drought of record” in Texas happened way back then?
How is it that “multiple decades of extended drought periods” happened without the aid of increased CO2 in our atmosphere? How is it with CO2 levels now being over 415PPM, Texas hasn’t seen a drought worse than the “drought of record”?
The answer is natural variation. The Earth naturally produces periods of drought. In fact, studies show we’ve seen 200-year periods of drought in the western United States well before “climate change” became a cause, as you can clearly see in Figure 1 below.
Ironically, while Texas activist scientists are predicting a hotter and drier future, the state of Pennsylvania says their future will be “warmer and wetter”. That’s apparently bad, too.
Drier is worse, and wetter is worse, so climate activists admit our past 100 years of modest global warming has placed our present-day climate in perfect conditions!
When it comes to predicting the future of climate, almost any deviation from the Goldilocks period of “just right” temperature and rainfall is seen as being driven by the universal boogeyman of climate change, in turn, driven by the use of fossil fuels producing more CO2 in our atmosphere.
Almost every prediction is coupled with an “act now” message that says you are personally responsible for the future of the planet and you need to change your lifestyle.
In reality, as seen in figure 1 above, the planet has never lacked climate variation, and in the past, it has produced some pretty ugly climate situations without any help from mankind at all.
We’ve been very lucky over the past 500 years to not have 200-year-long droughts.
My best advice is to stop believing we can maintain the Goldilocks period of “just right” temperature and rainfall and start planning for what mother nature will inevitably throw at us due to natural variation.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-03--Climate Activist James Murdoch Steps Down From News Corp

Written by Karen Ruiz on .
Posted in Latest news James Murdoch has announced he is stepping down from the board of News Corp , citing editorial differences over the content published by its media platforms , which include The Wall Street Journal , The New York Post and News UK .
‘ My resignation is due to disagreements over certain editorial content published by the Company ’ s news outlets and certain other strategic decisions , ’ he said in a statement on Friday .
James , 47 , the younger son of Australian-born media mogul and News Corp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the board of directors since 2013 .
He did not go into detail about his differences with the media company however , James , who is the more liberal member of the Murdoch family , has been publicly critical of its news platforms in the past .
… James has spoken out against his father ’ s company on a number of occasions , with him and his wife Kathryn slamming the family business for promoting climate change ‘ denials ’ during the Australian bushfire crisis in January .
The pair released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ by the coverage of the fires by Fox News and other News Corp outlets .
‘ Kathryn and James ’ s views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known .
‘ They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary , ’ their statement read .
The ‘ denials ’ were about allegations arsonists and not climate change was to blame for the destructive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ unprecedented ’ and sparked speculation of a feud within the family since he rarely speaks publicly about his role in the business .
… He found himself out of work when Fox merged with Disney early last year , but also $ 2billion richer thanks to his shares in the company .
This seems to have caused some friction between father and son and when asked if he had recently spoken to his former boss , James said : ‘ There are periods of time when we do not.
’ He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever watched Succession , the HBO show that is loosely based on his family ’ s empire .
‘ Not even a peek .
Why would I ?
’ asked Murdoch .
He did note things were great post-Fox , saying : ‘ I just feel very lucky to have the opportunity at this point to make a clean break , and literally have an empty slate .
James is known as the more liberal Murdoch brother , while older brother Lachlan ’ s views seem to be more aligned with those of @ @ @ @

Written by Karen Ruiz on Aug 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
James Murdoch has announced he is stepping down from the board of News Corp, citing editorial differences over the content published by its media platforms, which include The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and News UK.
‘My resignation is due to disagreements over certain editorial content published by the Company’s news outlets and certain other strategic decisions,’ he said in a statement on Friday.
James, 47, the younger son of Australian-born media mogul and News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch, had been on the board of directors since 2013.
He did not go into detail about his differences with the media company however, James, who is the more liberal member of the Murdoch family, has been publicly critical of its news platforms in the past. …
James has spoken out against his father’s company on a number of occasions, with him and his wife Kathryn slamming the family business for promoting climate change ‘denials’ during the Australian bushfire crisis in January.
The pair released a statement saying they were ‘disappointed’ by the coverage of the fires by Fox News and other News Corp outlets.
‘Kathryn and James’s views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known.
‘They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary,’ their statement read.
The ‘denials’ were about allegations arsonists and not climate change was to blame for the destructive wildfires.
His comments were perceived as ‘unprecedented’ and sparked speculation of a feud within the family since he rarely speaks publicly about his role in the business. …
He found himself out of work when Fox merged with Disney early last year, but also $2billion richer thanks to his shares in the company.
This seems to have caused some friction between father and son and when asked if he had recently spoken to his former boss, James said: ‘There are periods of time when we do not.’
He was similarly laconic when asked if he had ever watched Succession, the HBO show that is loosely based on his family’s empire. ‘Not even a peek. Why would I?’ asked Murdoch.
He did note things were great post-Fox, saying: ‘I just feel very lucky to have the opportunity at this point to make a clean break, and literally have an empty slate.
James is known as the more liberal Murdoch brother, while older brother Lachlan’s views seem to be more aligned with those of his conservative father.
Read more at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-03--First Time In 70 Years No Pacific Typhoon Formed In July

Written by Kirye and Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Global warming alarmists like to claim that tropical storms will intensify and become more frequent unless people stop using fossil fuels .
And recently these alarmists have had our attention steered to the Atlantic basin , where tropical storms this year have seen quite an active season thus far .
Another reason the focus has been on the Atlantic is that very little has been happening in terms of Pacific typhoons , and the alarmists don ’ t want to talk about that .
In fact , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen no typhoons formed in the Pacific at all since statistics on this began in 1951 , according to the data from the Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA ) .
Normally between 3 to 4 typhoons form in the Pacific in July .
Up to 8 have formed in the past , e.g .
on 2017 and 1971 .
But this year July failed to see a single typhoon form – the first time this has occurred since 1951 .
But one year does not make a trend .
Global warming alarmists say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent , and stronger .
So let ’ s look at the data here as well .
The following chart shows the number of typhoons formed in the Pacific each year from January to July , since 1951 : Contrary to what global warming alarmists say , the trend has been downward !
The year 2020 has been the second quietest on record – so far .
Now we look at the total number of typhoons formed each entire year : Once again the global warming alarmists are shown to be wrong .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other way around : A warmer planet leads to less storm activity .
But this is not the message the purveyors of fear want us to hear .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kirye and Pierre Gosselin on Aug 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
By Kirye and Pierre Gosselin
Global warming alarmists like to claim that tropical storms will intensify and become more frequent unless people stop using fossil fuels.
And recently these alarmists have had our attention steered to the Atlantic basin, where tropical storms this year have seen quite an active season thus far.
Another reason the focus has been on the Atlantic is that very little has been happening in terms of Pacific typhoons, and the alarmists don’t want to talk about that.
In fact, this July is the first July to have seen no typhoons formed in the Pacific at all since statistics on this began in 1951, according to the data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA).
Normally between 3 to 4 typhoons form in the Pacific in July. Up to 8 have formed in the past, e.g. on 2017 and 1971. But this year July failed to see a single typhoon form – the first time this has occurred since 1951.
Trend contradicts the forecasts of climate scientists
But one year does not make a trend. Global warming alarmists say storms are getting and will be more frequent, and stronger. So let’s look at the data here as well.
The following chart shows the number of typhoons formed in the Pacific each year from January to July, since 1951:
Contrary to what global warming alarmists say, the trend has been downward! The year 2020 has been the second quietest on record – so far.
A warmer world is tamer?
Now we look at the total number of typhoons formed each entire year:
Once again the global warming alarmists are shown to be wrong. In fact, it’s probably the other way around: A warmer planet leads to less storm activity. But this is not the message the purveyors of fear want us to hear.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-04--More Bad Energy News For California

More Bad Energy News For California

Written by Ronald Stein on .
Posted in Latest news California just experienced a catastrophic loss from the COVID-19 impact on the economy , as one of its major refineries , Marathon Martinez , has just announced it will be idled indefinitely .
With airlines and cruise ships virtually shut down , and vehicle transportation at an all-time low , the demand for fuels and petroleum-derivative products is at an all-time low .
The Northern California refinery , one of the largest in the state has just become a COVID victim .
We have all seen the photos of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coast of California .
This , as the refineries had no use to manufacture products that were in limited demand .
With in-state crude oil production at an all-time low and going lower with pressure from the Governor , California ’ s dependency on other suppliers has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption .
The imported crude oil costs California more than $ 60 million dollars a day , yes , every day , being paid to oil-rich foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careers , and business opportunities .
The future looks very bleak for ALL 40 million residents of the state as the economy starts to recover back to near-normal fuel demands for the 5th largest economy in the world .
The near-normal daily energy use for California ’ s 145 airports ( inclusive of 33 military airports , 10 major airports , and more than 100 general aviation ) was 13 million gallons of aviation fuel or one-fifth of the nation ’ s jet fuel consumption .
California ’ s 31 million registered vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of diesel and 42 million gallons a day of gasoline .
Collectively , that is about 65 million gallons of various fuels needed daily to run the CA economy , but now with Marathon Martinez out of business , the future supply may not be able to meet the demand .
The immediate impact on the California economy will ONLY be 1,000 ’ s of jobs , most of Marathon ’ s 700 employees , and those of the companies that have been providing products and services to support the refinery .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state will not be impacted immediately , but later .
As we recover from the pandemic , the economic demands for fuels will not be readily available .
With the state being an energy island and an energy hog , California is heavily dependent on in-state manufacturing for its fuel demands .
California is an “ energy island ” situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Arizona/Nevada Stateline , with no existing pipelines over the Sierra Nevada Mountains .
The state is inhabited by roughly 40 million citizens and is an energy hog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of various transportation fuels daily from suppliers to drive ( no pun intended ) the fifth-largest economy in the world .
Californians already pay almost $ 1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country due to a ) the state sales tax per gallon , which are some of the highest in the country ; b ) refinery reformatting costs per gallon ; c ) cap and trade program compliance costs per gallon ; d ) low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs per gallon ; and e ) renewable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With the future supply unlikely to meet the state ’ s demands , fuel prices will most likely rise further , just for the 40 million residents of the state .
Over the years , we have all seen the impact on California fuel prices when one of the few refinery manufacturers goes down for maintenance , or what the industry refers to as a ’ turnaround ’ .
Gas prices spike during these temporary outages , but with Marathon going idle indefinitely , the outage will NOT be temporary , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the bizarre laws and regulation from the AQMD , or the union labor agreements , or the other business-unfriendly regulations , but COVID-19 that will impact the state for the foreseeable future .
Hispanics and African Americans that represent 45 % of the 40 million residents of California are some of the folks that can least afford more expensive energy in perpetuity and make California ’ s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging .

Written by Ronald Stein on Aug 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California just experienced a catastrophic loss from the COVID-19 impact on the economy, as one of its major refineries, Marathon Martinez, has just announced it will be idled indefinitely.
With airlines and cruise ships virtually shut down, and vehicle transportation at an all-time low, the demand for fuels and petroleum-derivative products is at an all-time low. The Northern California refinery, one of the largest in the state has just become a COVID victim.
We have all seen the photos of those foreign tankers with crude oil parked off the coast of California. This, as the refineries had no use to manufacture products that were in limited demand.
With in-state crude oil production at an all-time low and going lower with pressure from the Governor, California’s dependency on other suppliers has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption.
The imported crude oil costs California more than $60 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs, careers, and business opportunities.
The future looks very bleak for ALL 40 million residents of the state as the economy starts to recover back to near-normal fuel demands for the 5th largest economy in the world.
The near-normal daily energy use for California’s 145 airports (inclusive of 33 military airports, 10 major airports, and more than 100 general aviation) was 13 million gallons of aviation fuel or one-fifth of the nation’s jet fuel consumption.
California’s 31 million registered vehicles were consuming 10 million gallons a day of diesel and 42 million gallons a day of gasoline.
Collectively, that is about 65 million gallons of various fuels needed daily to run the CA economy, but now with Marathon Martinez out of business, the future supply may not be able to meet the demand.
The immediate impact on the California economy will ONLY be 1,000’s of jobs, most of Marathon’s 700 employees, and those of the companies that have been providing products and services to support the refinery.
Most of the 40 million residents of the state will not be impacted immediately, but later. As we recover from the pandemic, the economic demands for fuels will not be readily available.
With the state being an energy island and an energy hog, California is heavily dependent on in-state manufacturing for its fuel demands.
California is an “energy island” situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Arizona/Nevada Stateline, with no existing pipelines over the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The state is inhabited by roughly 40 million citizens and is an energy hog, demanding more than 65 million gallons of various transportation fuels daily from suppliers to drive (no pun intended) the fifth-largest economy in the world.
Californians already pay almost $1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country due to a) the state sales tax per gallon, which are some of the highest in the country; b) refinery reformatting costs per gallon; c) cap and trade program compliance costs per gallon; d) low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs per gallon; and e) renewable fuels standard program compliance costs per gallon.
With the future supply unlikely to meet the state’s demands, fuel prices will most likely rise further, just for the 40 million residents of the state.
Over the years, we have all seen the impact on California fuel prices when one of the few refinery manufacturers goes down for maintenance, or what the industry refers to as a ’turnaround’.
Gas prices spike during these temporary outages, but with Marathon going idle indefinitely, the outage will NOT be temporary, but permanent.
Ironically, it wasn’t the bizarre laws and regulation from the AQMD, or the union labor agreements, or the other business-unfriendly regulations, but COVID-19 that will impact the state for the foreseeable future.
Hispanics and African Americans that represent 45% of the 40 million residents of California are some of the folks that can least afford more expensive energy in perpetuity and make California’s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-04--The Future Of Academic Freedom Rests With Australia’s High Court

Written by Augusto Zimmermann on .
Posted in Latest news Scott Morrison once stated that he was unconcerned about ongoing attacks on free speech because he thought that free speech “ does not create a single job.
” Well , prime minister , it is now patently clear that people can lose their job for the “ crime ” of daring to express an opinion that challenges the dogmatic assumptions of the country ’ s academic elite .
On May 2 , 2018 , Professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University .
The first alleged misconduct started when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falsely claiming healthy inshore coral reefs were dead from climate change and deteriorating water quality .
Ignoring this first instance of administrative censure , he went on television in August 2017 to explain why so much of what is said about the Great Barrier Reef , including by scientists at the Australian Institute of Marine Science ( “ AIMS ” ) , is untrustworthy .
Never mind the truth .
The problem is that someone may dare to speak the truth about these matters in a post-modern world .
It is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It appears very much alive .
What seems really dead in this country is actually academic freedom .
Despite his stellar career and undeniable contribution to the scientific debate , Ridd has , therefore , become a pariah for daring to question a rigidly enforced orthodoxy .
In doing so , he upset some inflated egos and delicate feelings of academics who rely on taxpayer funds to propagate their political agenda and/or pursue a non-existing problem .
The first decision , handed down by Judge Salvatore Vasta back in April last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense of academic freedom .
Judge Vasta then ordered that the 17 findings made by the University , including two speech directions , five confidentiality directions , and the final censure given to him , were all unlawful .
This was a significant victory for academic freedom and the right to ignore administrative measures that prevent academics from expressing their findings on areas of their scientific knowledge .
James Cook University did not accept that decision by the Federal Circuit Court .
Instead , using our taxpayer dollars it appealed that decision from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 , the university ’ s appeal was upheld on the basis that Ridd had been “ un-collegial ” in stating that JCU and the AIMS are “ untrustworthy ” because of “ systematic deficiencies in their quality assurance processes.
” In the judgment , the majority of the appeal court went further and even portrayed academic freedom as being only Ridd ’ s “ personal opinion.
” In other words , there was no attempt on the part of these appeal judges to define these terms , which is precisely what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No less important , the decision ought to be reviewed because it ignored the determination of the federal law ( and its concomitant regulations ) that universities must have a special regard for matters of academic freedom and free intellectual inquiry .
Because Australian universities are established by legislation , built on public property , and funded by government grants and state-subsidized loans , they are legally obliged to protect freedom of speech and free intellectual inquiry .
They are legislatively bound to meet a range of criteria in exchange for federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal regulation – Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency ( TEQSA ) – which enforces the relevant legislation , the Higher Education Support Act 2003 , and the Higher Education Standards ( HES ) Framework 2015 .
For example , the Commonwealth ’ s High Education Support Act requires every university that receives government funding to “ have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning , teaching , and research.
” Similarly , the HES Framework requires a commitment on the part of these universities to “ free intellectual inquiry.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a clearly articulated higher education purpose that includes a commitment to and support for free intellectual inquiry in its academic endeavors , ” the Framework says .
Finally , the university primary regulation , TEQSA , in its 2017 ‘ Diversity and Equity ’ guidance note , declared : “ Measures taken to accommodate diversity should not contravene the pursuit of intellectual inquiry , and more generally , freedom of expression ” .
Unfortunately , none of these requirements are properly applied .
The ‘ Free Speech on Campus Audit ’ concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Australia ’ s 42 universities have a policy complying with the legal obligation to pursue intellectual inquiry , as mandated by the Higher Education Support Act .
According to this systematic analysis of Australia ’ s 42 universities , 81 percent of them effectively stifle academic inquiry and intellectual debate by creating policies that encourage students and academics to avoid expressing “ controversial ” ideas .
As noted by then IPA research fellow Matthew Lesh : In reviewing the instances in which universities have sought to specify what “ intellectual freedom ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is disturbing to note the majority of the Federal Court stated , without further elaboration and rather dismissively , that “ there is no common understanding ” about these principles , “ nor any such freedoms should be set.
” This statement contradicts the best principles of legal hermeneutics , which says that providing for such definitions is precisely what one ought to expect the courts to do .
However , as Henry Ergas commented in his excellent column last week , “ providing any sort of definition is precisely what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analytical guardrails , it , therefore , lacked a rational basis for judging whether Ridd ’ s conduct was an exercise of ‘ intellectual freedom , ’ instead seems to rely on what one might describe as ‘ the vibe of the thing ’ .
” Above all , it is disturbingly apparent that the JCU has decided to punish Ridd precisely for daring to speak an inconvenient truth , which undoubtedly upset a few powerful elements within the academic establishment .
This can be revealed , among other things , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrepute , ” somewhat an ironic statement in light of the outcome of further stifling academic freedom .
The irony , therefore , is that it is precisely the actions of that university , in relentlessly pursuing Professor Ridd , which has effectively brought that institution into disrepute .
Of course , Ridd is not the first victim of that university .
Others include the outstanding historian Mervyn Bendle and the internationally acclaimed geologist Bob Carter .
Both of these respected academics have also been removed from that university for daring to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of academic expertise , including Professor Carter ’ s compelling scientific evidence that unfortunately for him did not entirely fit with the preferred narrative of the university .
Once the hotbed of free inquiry and challenging thinking , Australia ’ s universities have become bastions of left-wing indoctrination and enforced compliance .
As law professor James Allan points out , these universities have become illiberal environments where a handful of bureaucrats and union officials now impose their own restrictions on what should normally be ‘ the full-blooded , vigorous , satirical exchange of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these universities can not and will not be bastions of free speech and free intellectual inquiry , how indeed can they be places of higher learning and scientific discovery ?
According to Greg Craven , the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University , the problem is that those outside the narrow academic circles ‘ increasingly suspect universities are more interested in their public image , and not upsetting their Departments of Woke , then protecting fundamental academic freedom.
’ After reminding us that at the heart of academic freedom is ‘ the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues disagree , ’ Professor Craven then goes on to authoritatively inform ( he is a vice-chancellor after all ) that particularly in the fields of law , history and political or environmental science , ‘ it can be very dangerous to be a dissenter ’ and work in an Australian university .
Should the appeal proceed to the High Court , one would expect that the Morrison government not only has a moral but also the legal obligation to intervene firmly and effectively on intellectual freedom ’ s behalf .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because , as mentioned above , the prime minister once shrugged off any concerns about free speech as being of little importance for him .
At every opportunity , his so-called “ Liberal ” government has most illiberally squibbed any of its commitment to freedom of speech .
As The Spectator Australia has correctly editorialized : With the majority of the Federal Court effectively neglecting to uphold the legal requirement of protecting ‘ free intellectual inquiry , ’ it is now the High Court ’ s responsibility to uphold , on a solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly free and democratic society .
As also noted by The Spectator Australia , if a nation ceases to uphold the principle of academic freedom as a fundamental cornerstone of its intellectual and cultural life , ‘ then it assigns itself and its citizenry to permanent vassals status , where the mandarins of the state dictate what is acceptable learning and what are permissible opinions.
’ I wholeheartedly agree .
This is why the decision on whether or not to give leave to Professor Ridd is so important .
As for myself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right thing by upholding the statutory requirements requiring Australian universities to uphold free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning , teaching , and research .
As a constitutional law academic , I can confidently testify that the final outcome this special leave constitutes one of the most critical decisions in our nation ’ s history .
The future of Australia depends on this .

Written by Augusto Zimmermann on Aug 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Scott Morrison once stated that he was unconcerned about ongoing attacks on free speech because he thought that free speech “does not create a single job.”
Well, prime minister, it is now patently clear that people can lose their job for the “crime” of daring to express an opinion that challenges the dogmatic assumptions of the country’s academic elite.
On May 2, 2018, Professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University. The first alleged misconduct started when he called-out one of his colleagues for falsely claiming healthy inshore coral reefs were dead from climate change and deteriorating water quality.
Ignoring this first instance of administrative censure, he went on television in August 2017 to explain why so much of what is said about the Great Barrier Reef, including by scientists at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (“AIMS”), is untrustworthy.
Never mind the truth. The problem is that someone may dare to speak the truth about these matters in a post-modern world.
It is not the Great Barrier Reef that is dead. It appears very much alive. What seems really dead in this country is actually academic freedom.
Despite his stellar career and undeniable contribution to the scientific debate, Ridd has, therefore, become a pariah for daring to question a rigidly enforced orthodoxy.
In doing so, he upset some inflated egos and delicate feelings of academics who rely on taxpayer funds to propagate their political agenda and/or pursue a non-existing problem.
The first decision, handed down by Judge Salvatore Vasta back in April last year, found in favor of Ridd’s defense of academic freedom.
Judge Vasta then ordered that the 17 findings made by the University, including two speech directions, five confidentiality directions, and the final censure given to him, were all unlawful.
This was a significant victory for academic freedom and the right to ignore administrative measures that prevent academics from expressing their findings on areas of their scientific knowledge.
James Cook University did not accept that decision by the Federal Circuit Court. Instead, using our taxpayer dollars it appealed that decision from the Federal Court.
On July 22, 2020, the university’s appeal was upheld on the basis that Ridd had been “un-collegial” in stating that JCU and the AIMS are “untrustworthy” because of “systematic deficiencies in their quality assurance processes.”
In the judgment, the majority of the appeal court went further and even portrayed academic freedom as being only Ridd’s “personal opinion.”
In other words, there was no attempt on the part of these appeal judges to define these terms, which is precisely what we expect a decent court to do.
No less important, the decision ought to be reviewed because it ignored the determination of the federal law (and its concomitant regulations) that universities must have a special regard for matters of academic freedom and free intellectual inquiry.
Because Australian universities are established by legislation, built on public property, and funded by government grants and state-subsidized loans, they are legally obliged to protect freedom of speech and free intellectual inquiry.
They are legislatively bound to meet a range of criteria in exchange for federal funding, and are responsible to the federal regulation – Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) – which enforces the relevant legislation, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, and the Higher Education Standards (HES) Framework 2015.
For example, the Commonwealth’s High Education Support Act requires every university that receives government funding to “have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching, and research.”
Similarly, the HES Framework requires a commitment on the part of these universities to “free intellectual inquiry.”
“The higher education provider must have a clearly articulated higher education purpose that includes a commitment to and support for free intellectual inquiry in its academic endeavors,” the Framework says.
Finally, the university primary regulation, TEQSA, in its 2017 ‘Diversity and Equity’ guidance note, declared: “Measures taken to accommodate diversity should not contravene the pursuit of intellectual inquiry, and more generally, freedom of expression”.
Unfortunately, none of these requirements are properly applied.
The ‘Free Speech on Campus Audit’ concluded that only eight (19 percent) of Australia’s 42 universities have a policy complying with the legal obligation to pursue intellectual inquiry, as mandated by the Higher Education Support Act.
According to this systematic analysis of Australia’s 42 universities, 81 percent of them effectively stifle academic inquiry and intellectual debate by creating policies that encourage students and academics to avoid expressing “controversial” ideas.
As noted by then IPA research fellow Matthew Lesh:
This failure to protect free speech is seriously imperiling the discovery of truth, the core purpose of Australia’s universities; student development, which requires debate and challenge; and the future of Australian society, which depends on a tolerance and openness to debate.
In reviewing the instances in which universities have sought to specify what “intellectual freedom” and “academic freedom” entail, it is disturbing to note the majority of the Federal Court stated, without further elaboration and rather dismissively, that “there is no common understanding” about these principles, “nor any such freedoms should be set.”
This statement contradicts the best principles of legal hermeneutics, which says that providing for such definitions is precisely what one ought to expect the courts to do.
However, as Henry Ergas commented in his excellent column last week, “providing any sort of definition is precisely what the majority declined to do. Shorn of analytical guardrails, it, therefore, lacked a rational basis for judging whether Ridd’s conduct was an exercise of ‘intellectual freedom,’ instead seems to rely on what one might describe as ‘the vibe of the thing’.”
Above all, it is disturbingly apparent that the JCU has decided to punish Ridd precisely for daring to speak an inconvenient truth, which undoubtedly upset a few powerful elements within the academic establishment.
This can be revealed, among other things, in the charge of “bringing the university into disrepute,” somewhat an ironic statement in light of the outcome of further stifling academic freedom.
The irony, therefore, is that it is precisely the actions of that university, in relentlessly pursuing Professor Ridd, which has effectively brought that institution into disrepute.
Of course, Ridd is not the first victim of that university. Others include the outstanding historian Mervyn Bendle and the internationally acclaimed geologist Bob Carter.
Both of these respected academics have also been removed from that university for daring to make eminently sensible comments in their respective areas of academic expertise, including Professor Carter’s compelling scientific evidence that unfortunately for him did not entirely fit with the preferred narrative of the university.
Once the hotbed of free inquiry and challenging thinking, Australia’s universities have become bastions of left-wing indoctrination and enforced compliance.
As law professor James Allan points out, these universities have become illiberal environments where a handful of bureaucrats and union officials now impose their own restrictions on what should normally be ‘the full-blooded, vigorous, satirical exchange of (academic) ideas.’
But if these universities cannot and will not be bastions of free speech and free intellectual inquiry, how indeed can they be places of higher learning and scientific discovery?
According to Greg Craven, the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, the problem is that those outside the narrow academic circles ‘increasingly suspect universities are more interested in their public image, and not upsetting their Departments of Woke, then protecting fundamental academic freedom.’
After reminding us that at the heart of academic freedom is ‘the right to take a view with which your colleagues disagree,’ Professor Craven then goes on to authoritatively inform (he is a vice-chancellor after all) that particularly in the fields of law, history and political or environmental science, ‘it can be very dangerous to be a dissenter’ and work in an Australian university.
Should the appeal proceed to the High Court, one would expect that the Morrison government not only has a moral but also the legal obligation to intervene firmly and effectively on intellectual freedom’s behalf.
Unfortunately, you should not hold your breath, because, as mentioned above, the prime minister once shrugged off any concerns about free speech as being of little importance for him.
At every opportunity, his so-called “Liberal” government has most illiberally squibbed any of its commitment to freedom of speech.
As The Spectator Australia has correctly editorialized:
The war on free speech has been prosecuted mercilessly (and successfully) by the Left for many years, despite Labor rarely being in government. The Coalition has, as they say, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to fight back.
With the majority of the Federal Court effectively neglecting to uphold the legal requirement of protecting ‘free intellectual inquiry,’ it is now the High Court’s responsibility to uphold, on a solid foundation, this vital element of every truly free and democratic society.
As also noted by The Spectator Australia, if a nation ceases to uphold the principle of academic freedom as a fundamental cornerstone of its intellectual and cultural life, ‘then it assigns itself and its citizenry to permanent vassals status, where the mandarins of the state dictate what is acceptable learning and what are permissible opinions.’
I wholeheartedly agree. This is why the decision on whether or not to give leave to Professor Ridd is so important.
As for myself, I expect the High Court to do the right thing by upholding the statutory requirements requiring Australian universities to uphold free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching, and research.
As a constitutional law academic, I can confidently testify that the final outcome this special leave constitutes one of the most critical decisions in our nation’s history.
The future of Australia depends on this.
Read rest at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-04--New Climate Report: Meat, Livestock Have Little Climate Impact

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news American ranchers and U.S. meat consumption have virtually no impact @ @ @ @ @ climate , reports a compelling new climate summary .
The new climate summary , “ @ @ @ @ @ Livestock and Methane , ” documents that cattle and beef account for just 2 % @ @ @ @ @ .
All livestock combined account for less than 4 % of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions @ @ @ @ @ of whom are vegans for other reasons , often claim that ranchers , livestock , @ @ @ @ @ leading cause of rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change .
Yet , EPA data @ @ @ @ @ more greenhouse gas emissions than total livestock production .
The Climate at a Glance portal @ @ @ @ @ concise , compelling summaries of topics related to climate change .
Bullet-points at the top @ @ @ @ @ easily understandable summary of the topic .
A Short Summary section under the bullet-points provides @ @ @ @ @ with links to scientific evidence .

Written by James Taylor on Aug 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
American ranchers and U.S. meat consumption have virtually no impact on greenhouse gas emissions or climate, reports a compelling new climate summary.
The new climate summary, “Climate at a Glance: Livestock and Methane,” documents that cattle and beef account for just 2% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
All livestock combined account for less than 4% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate activists, many of whom are vegans for other reasons, often claim that ranchers, livestock, and meat production are a leading cause of rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Yet, EPA data show crop production accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than total livestock production.
The Climate at a Glance portal provides more than two dozen concise, compelling summaries of topics related to climate change.
Bullet-points at the top of each summary provide an easily understandable summary of the topic.
A Short Summary section under the bullet-points provides a concise, supporting explanation with links to scientific evidence.
Most summaries also include a compelling visual graphic.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print