climatechangedispatch--2020-08-10--The Australian Press Council’s Shameful Attack On Free Speech

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news On November 21 , 2019 , The Australian published an article on its opinion pages and online titled ; ‘ by Ian Plimer , Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide and author of numerous books… In the 1065 words published in The Australian , Plimer skewered climate alarmists with a machine-gun attack of facts , calling out “ ignorant activists , populist scaremongers , vote-chasing politicians and green rent-seekers ” for their deceptions and fraud .
However , as we have seen time after the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such inconvenient truths being discussed ; they want debate silenced and free speech extinguished .
For theirs is a cult where groupthink rules and independent thinking and alternate views are thought-crimes , so Plimer must be silenced , not debated .
Leading the attack was the noted shrill for climate alarmism , the taxpayer-funded ABC ’ s , which despite being one of the most expensively produced programs per broadcast minute of airtime on Australian television , was unable to come up with a single fact to dispute any of Plimer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was followed by confused warmists and indoctrinated climate cult members ( the majority of who live off the tit of the productive economy and have plenty of time to spare ) using the complaint ’ s process of Australian Press Council as a punishment , by bombarding the APC with complaints about Professor Plimer ’ s published opinion piece .
This tactic forced The Australian to spend time , money , and resources defending against these complaints .
And , as a commercial organization , this placed pressure on the management and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question if is it worth publishing the opinions of those who dare question the dogma of the warmist cult in the future if they are going to be burdened with the costs of defending such opinions .
This tactic is just another form of ‘ cancel culture ’ used by eco-fascists to suppress free speech and silence debate .
In adjudicating a complaint , the test for the APC is not if an opinion is right or wrong , the test if the opinion “ is not based on significantly inaccurate material.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one that values the cherished principles of free speech and open debate , should have quickly dismissed such complaints against Plimer ’ s opinion piece .
However , instead , it appears that the Press Council has decided it exists to rule on matters scientific , for the that Plimer ’ s opinion piece concluded that it breached the PC ’ s ‘ General Principles 1 and 3.
’ This is curious in the extreme ; a sell-out of free speech , a stitch-up job , and an adjudication more befitting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At its highest , of Plimer ’ s 1065 published words , the APC could find fault with just two ; the words ; ‘ fraudulent ’ and ‘ unsubstantiated ’ .
So let ’ s go through this disgraceful adjudication point by point .
Firstly , in its adjudication the APC states : But hang on , it ‘ is one of fact ’ that Plimer ’ s article makes no mention whatsoever concerning the Bureau of Meteorology .
His words were : The APC ’ s adjudication verbals Plimer and sets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerning the Bureau of Meteorology.
’ And then , the APC attacks this straw man argument , by spuriously defending the Bureau .
This is curious to conduct on behalf of the APC .
Any unbiased evaluation of Plimer ’ s published opinion that there has been ‘ ‘ fraudulent changing of past weather records ” would first look to determine if there is any evidence of ‘ changing of past weather records ’ .
And if so , based on the evidence , does Plimer have reasonable grounds for holding that opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an evaluation , they would have discovered that there are truckloads of evidence of changing past weather records .
Where does one start ?
From the deletion of many of Australia ’ s hottest ever recorded days from history ( for example Bourke ’ s 51.7C measured in 1909 ) , the repeated adjustments to long-term temperature records by the cooling of the past , the deletion of the Medieval Warming Period in the infamous and discredited ‘ Hockey Stick ’ graph , the Bureau ’ s changing of their ‘ very hot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of past and finding more hot days of recent times under their “ homogenization ” processes ) , the changes to Marble Bar ’ s recorded temperatures from the 1920s ( robbing it of the world ’ s longest heatwave ) the list goes on and on .
In any unbiased adjudication , the APC would have stated these facts upfront , acknowledging that weather records have been altered in the past , but they failed to so .
If the APC were making a fair adjudication , they might have started by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of so-called ‘ climate scientists ’ that were behind publishing global temperature records , were found to exchanged emails referring to “ hiding the decline ” and “ It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip ” referring hot temperature records of the 1940s .
And who can forget this one : “ I ’ ve just completed Mike ’ s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years ( i.e .
from 1981 onwards ) and from 1961 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Numerous books have been published about this scandal .
In Hiding the Decline : A History of the Climategate Affair , A.W Montford wrote ; The introduction to the book by Brian Sussman states ; The emails from the Climategate scandal have the stench of fraud all over them and although there have been attempts to whitewash them , these alone completely justify a person holding an opinion that there has been fraudulent changing of past weather records .
And that should be game , set , and match to Plimer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly discredited ‘ Hockey Stick ’ graph , which featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report .
The Hockey Stick changed past weather records , deleting both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age , by showing about 500 years of temperature stability , followed by a huge spike in global average temperatures in the 20th century .
Anyone who has followed the Hockey Stick scandal and the aborted defamation case would be justified in holding the opinion that there has been fraudulent changing of past weather records .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Penn State University filed an action on March 25 , 2011 , against Professor Tim Ball for Ball ’ s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “ belongs in the state pen , not Penn State ” and play on words insinuating that Mann ’ s belongs in jail , not a university for his alleged fraudulent changing past climate records in the Hockey Stick graph .
Ball ’ s legal team pursued , therefore the case boiled down to whether Ball ’ s words , after examining the key evidence , fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to compel the plaintiff [ Mann ] to show his full methodology to check if he knowingly and criminally misrepresented his claims by resorting to statistical fakery .
However , despite Ball ’ s best efforts over eight years , Mann refused to surrender to an open court his full methodology for the Hockey Stick graph .
Ultimately the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the defamation lawsuit and award full costs to Ball , the defendant in the case .
The final court ruling , in effect , vindicated Ball ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further justification for anyone to hold the opinion that there has been fraudulent changing of past weather records .
And that should have been game , set and match to Plimer .

Written by Craig Kelly on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On November 21, 2019, The Australian published an article on its opinion pages and online titled; ‘ Let’s Not Pollute minds with Carbon Fears’ by Ian Plimer, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide and author of numerous books…
In the 1065 words published in The Australian, Plimer skewered climate alarmists with a machine-gun attack of facts, calling out “ignorant activists, populist scaremongers, vote-chasing politicians and green rent-seekers” for their deceptions and fraud.
However, as we have seen time after the time, climate alarmists can’t stand such inconvenient truths being discussed; they want debate silenced and free speech extinguished.
For theirs is a cult where groupthink rules and independent thinking and alternate views are thought-crimes, so Plimer must be silenced, not debated.
Leading the attack was the noted shrill for climate alarmism, the taxpayer-funded ABC’s Media Watch , which despite being one of the most expensively produced programs per broadcast minute of airtime on Australian television, was unable to come up with a single fact to dispute any of Plimer’s words and could only resort to name-calling and rhetoric .
This was followed by confused warmists and indoctrinated climate cult members (the majority of who live off the tit of the productive economy and have plenty of time to spare) using the complaint’s process of Australian Press Council as a punishment, by bombarding the APC with complaints about Professor Plimer’s published opinion piece.
This tactic forced The Australian to spend time, money, and resources defending against these complaints.
And, as a commercial organization, this placed pressure on the management and editorial staff that could lead them to question if is it worth publishing the opinions of those who dare question the dogma of the warmist cult in the future if they are going to be burdened with the costs of defending such opinions.
This tactic is just another form of ‘cancel culture’ used by eco-fascists to suppress free speech and silence debate.
In adjudicating a complaint, the test for the APC is not if an opinion is right or wrong, the test if the opinion “is not based on significantly inaccurate material.”
Therefore a strong and independent Press Council, one that values the cherished principles of free speech and open debate, should have quickly dismissed such complaints against Plimer’s opinion piece.
However, instead, it appears that the Press Council has decided it exists to rule on matters scientific, for the Press Council’s adjudication that Plimer’s opinion piece concluded that it breached the PC’s ‘General Principles 1 and 3.’
This is curious in the extreme; a sell-out of free speech, a stitch-up job, and an adjudication more befitting a kangaroo court or Soviet political trial.
At its highest, of Plimer’s 1065 published words, the APC could find fault with just two; the words; ‘fraudulent’ and ‘unsubstantiated’. So let’s go through this disgraceful adjudication point by point.
Changing of past weather records?
Firstly, in its adjudication the APC states:
The Council considers that the statement concerning the Bureau of Meteorology fraudulently changing weather records is one of fact and implies an element of dishonesty or deception on its part.”
But hang on, it ‘is one of fact’ that Plimer’s article makes no mention whatsoever concerning the Bureau of Meteorology. His words were:
Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims. But then again, we should be used to this after the hysteria about the Great Barrier Reef bleaching that has really been occurring for hundreds of years, fraudulent changing of past weather records, the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated, and unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting. By ignoring history and geology, any claim of unusual weather can be made sensational.
The APC’s adjudication verbals Plimer and sets up a straw man argument ‘’concerning the Bureau of Meteorology.’ And then, the APC attacks this straw man argument, by spuriously defending the Bureau.
This is curious to conduct on behalf of the APC.
Any unbiased evaluation of Plimer’s published opinion that there has been ‘‘fraudulent changing of past weather records” would first look to determine if there is any evidence of ‘changing of past weather records’.
And if so, based on the evidence, does Plimer have reasonable grounds for holding that opinion?
If the APC had undertaken such an evaluation, they would have discovered that there are truckloads of evidence of changing past weather records.
Where does one start?
From the deletion of many of Australia’s hottest ever recorded days from history (for example Bourke’s 51.7C measured in 1909), the repeated adjustments to long-term temperature records by the cooling of the past, the deletion of the Medieval Warming Period in the infamous and discredited ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, the Bureau’s changing of their ‘very hot days’ graph (cunningly cooling days of past and finding more hot days of recent times under their “homogenization” processes), the changes to Marble Bar’s recorded temperatures from the 1920s (robbing it of the world’s longest heatwave) the list goes on and on.
In any unbiased adjudication, the APC would have stated these facts upfront, acknowledging that weather records have been altered in the past, but they failed to so.
Climategate Emails
If the APC were making a fair adjudication, they might have started by considering the Climategate emails , where a small cabal of so-called ‘climate scientists’ that were behind publishing global temperature records, were found to exchanged emails referring to “hiding the decline” and “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip” referring hot temperature records of the 1940s.
And who can forget this one: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Numerous books have been published about this scandal. In Hiding the Decline: A History of the Climategate Affair , A.W Montford wrote;
In November 2009, hundreds of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were released onto the internet. The messages, sent between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists revealed an extraordinary array of malpractice, with scientists manipulating data, breaching freedom of information laws and trying to crush dissenting views.
The introduction to the book Climategate : A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman states;
Those now notorious intercepted emails documenting leading scientists conspiring to squelch global-warming skeptics and falsifying data proved exactly what Brian Sussman has been saying for years.
The emails from the Climategate scandal have the stench of fraud all over them and although there have been attempts to whitewash them, these alone completely justify a person holding an opinion that there has been fraudulent changing of past weather records. And that should be game, set, and match to Plimer.
The Hockey Stick
Then there is the infamous and now highly discredited ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, which featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report.
The Hockey Stick changed past weather records, deleting both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, by showing about 500 years of temperature stability, followed by a huge spike in global average temperatures in the 20th century.
Mann v Ball
Anyone who has followed the Hockey Stick scandal and the aborted defamation case Mann v. Ball would be justified in holding the opinion that there has been fraudulent changing of past weather records.
In this case, the notorious Michael Mann of Penn State University filed an action on March 25, 2011, against Professor Tim Ball for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State” and play on words insinuating that Mann’s belongs in jail, not a university for his alleged fraudulent changing past climate records in the Hockey Stick graph.
Ball’s legal team pursued the ‘truth defense’ , therefore the case boiled down to whether Ball’s words, after examining the key evidence, fairly and accurately portrayed Mann.
The aim was to compel the plaintiff [Mann] to show his full methodology to check if he knowingly and criminally misrepresented his claims by resorting to statistical fakery.
However, despite Ball’s best efforts over eight years, Mann refused to surrender to an open court his full methodology for the Hockey Stick graph.
Ultimately the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the defamation lawsuit and award full costs to Ball, the defendant in the case. The final court ruling, in effect, vindicated Ball’s criticisms – and therefore provides yet further justification for anyone to hold the opinion that there has been fraudulent changing of past weather records.
And that should have been game, set and match to Plimer.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-10--Enviros, Dems Ignore Black Lives To Power Green Dreams

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Marathon Petroleum recently announced it will “ indefinitely idle ” its Martinez Refinery .
The decision will remove hundreds of jobs , billions of dollars , and nearly seven million gallons of gasoline , diesel , and other petroleum liquids per day from the energy-hungry California economy .
It will also send fuel prices even higher for minority and other poor families that already pay by far the highest gasoline prices in the continental United States : $ 1.32 more per gallon of regular than in Louisiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political interests don ’ t want drilling or fracking , pipelines , or nuclear , coal , or hydroelectric power plants – or mining for the materials needed to manufacture electric cars .
They prefer to have that work done somewhere else and just import energy , cars , and consumer goods .
They ’ ve long wanted a totally electric vehicle ( EV ) fleet , which they claim would be clean , ethical , climate-friendly , and sustainable .
Of course , those labels hold up only so long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within California state boundaries – and not where the mining , manufacturing , and electricity generation takes place .
That kind of “ life cycle ” analysis would totally disrupt their claims .
Consider copper .
A typical internal combustion engine uses about 50 pounds ( 23 kilograms ) of this vital everyday metal , the International Copper Association says .
A hybrid car requires almost 90 lb ( 40 kg ) ; a plug-in EV needs 132 lb ( 60 kg ) ; a big electric bus can use up to 812 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If all 15,000,000 California cars were EVs , they would need almost 1,000,000 tons of copper .
But copper ores average just 0.5 % metal by weight , notes energy analyst Mark Mills .
That means 200,000,000 tons of ore would have to be dug up , crushed , processed , and refined to get that much copper .
Almost every step in that process would require fossil fuels – and emit carbon dioxide and pollutants .
According to Cambridge University Emeritus Professor of Technology Michael Kelly , replacing all the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would require more than half the world ’ s annual production of copper ; twice its annual cobalt ; three-quarters of its yearly lithium carbonate output ; and nearly its entire annual production of neodymium .
Just one electric car or backup-power battery weighs 1,000 pounds and requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of various ores , Mills says .
The true costs of “ green ” energy are staggering .
Imagine replacing all of the USA ’ s nearly 300,000,000 cars , SUVs , pickup trucks , buses , trucks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Green New Deal – and then charging them daily .
The millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels , billions of backup-power batteries , thousands of miles of new transmission lines , grid upgrades , and the million or so fast-charging stations all across America would also require copper , concrete , all these other metals plus many more materials , in incomprehensible quantities .
Alaska ’ s Pebble Mine deposit has an estimated 35 million tons of high-grade copper ore and 3 million tons of molybdenum and other critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly two times the world ’ s 2019 output of that essential element .
Permits were blocked for years for questionable reasons .
But the US Army Corps of Engineers recently found that mining would not have a “ measurable effect ” on sockeye salmon numbers in the Bristol Bay watershed and should be allowed to proceed , under tough US pollution control , reclamation , wildlife protection , workplace safety , fair wages , and child labor laws .
Environmentalists intend to delay the Pebble Mine as long as possible – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why most mining and processing are done overseas , much of it in China and Mongolia or by Chinese companies in Africa , Asia , and Latin America , where none of these laws apply .
Most of the world ’ s rare earth ores are extracted near Baotou , Inner Mongolia by pumping acid into the ground , then processed using more acids and chemicals .
Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases , 2,600 cubic feet of acidic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waste .
The resulting black sludge is piped into a foul , lifeless lake .
Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases , children are born with soft bones , and cancer rates have soared .
Lithium comes largely from Tibet and arid highlands of the Argentina-Bolivia-Chile “ lithium triangle.
” Dead , toxic fish join carcasses of cows and yaks floating down Tibet ’ s Liqi River , which has been poisoned by the Ganzizhou Rongda mine .
Native people in the ABC triangle say lithium operations contaminate streams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and leave mountains of discarded salt .
The world ’ s top producer of cobalt is the Democratic Republic of Congo , where some 40,000 children as young as four toil with their parents for less than $ 2 a day up to 12 hours a day .
Many die in cave-ins , or more slowly from constant exposure to toxic , radioactive mud , dust , water , and air that puts dangerous levels of cobalt , lead , uranium and other heavy metals into their bodies .
The cobalt ore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese-owned Congo Dongfang International Mining Company .
That ’ s just to meet current raw material requirements .
Try to picture the raw material demands , Third World mining and child labor conditions , and ecological destruction , under the Green New Deal .
Liberals often say they support sustainable , ethical coffee , sneakers , handbags , and diamonds .
No child labor , sweatshops , or unsafe conditions tolerated .
But it ’ s a different story with green energy and EVs .
In 2019 , California Assembly Bill 735 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero-emission ” electric vehicles sold there are free of any materials or components that involve child labor .
Democrats voted it down .
The matter is complicated , they “ explained.
” It would be too hard to enforce , cost too much , and imperil state climate goals .
And besides , lots of other industries also use child labor .
( So shut up about it . )
Last month , the US House of Representatives had an opportunity to legislate a national certification that federally funded electric buses and charging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child labor .
The Transportation Committee approved the amendment 43-19 ( all 19 nay votes were Democrats ) .
But Pete DeFazio ( D-OR ) quietly replaced the enforceable certification language with a meaningless statement that “ it is the policy of the United States ” that funds “ should not be used ” for items involving child labor .
DeFazio claimed certification is unnecessary because US trade agreements prohibit child labor .
But there is no agreement with Congo , and China has shown no interest in ending child labor in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter is complicated , hard to enforce and perilous for climate and Green New Deal goals . )
It ’ s easy for Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues to wear Kente cloth stoles in solidarity with Black Lives Matter .
And for Sierra Club staff to criticize the organization ’ s “ history and culture of white supremacy ” – what I call callous , deadly , and arguably racist eco-imperialism and carbon colonialism .
We need real reform and an end to the cancel culture that silences discussion about the horrors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many non-white areas of the United States and world .
The human and ecological realities of GND policies cry out for debate .
So do the violence and death that preceded and followed George Floyd ’ s inexcusable death .
Not just the 23 police killings of unarmed blacks all across America in 2019 that have become the narrow focus of Black Lives Matter , politicians , and rioters .
But also the murders of David Dorn , Patrick Underwood , and other police officers ; Mekhi James , LeGend Taliferro , Secoriea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by their fellow blacks ; and as many as 7,000 American black men , women , and children murdered by blacks every year .
In Chicago , over the July 4 weekend , police-reported 87 shootings and 17 deaths , and nearly a dozen of those shot were children caught in the crossfire , the New York Post despaired .
In fact , the black-on-black Windy City murder toll over almost any two recent successive weekends exceeds those 23 police killings .
“ Every single person who has been shot in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July , nearly 100 in total , has been a member of the minority community , ” NBC News reporter Tom Winter tweeted , “ and 97 % of shooting victims in June were members of the city ’ s minority community.
” The solution is defunding the police ?
ALL these African , Asian , Latin American , and minority American lives matter .
It ’ s time to talk about it honestly , figure out what ’ s really driving the inhumanity , and create a world we can be proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of books and articles on energy , environment , climate , and human rights issues .

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Marathon Petroleum recently announced it will “indefinitely idle” its Martinez Refinery.
The decision will remove hundreds of jobs, billions of dollars, and nearly seven million gallons of gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum liquids per day from the energy-hungry California economy.
It will also send fuel prices even higher for minority and other poor families that already pay by far the highest gasoline prices in the continental United States: $1.32 more per gallon of regular than in Louisiana and Texas.
California’s green and political interests don’t want drilling or fracking, pipelines, or nuclear, coal, or hydroelectric power plants – or mining for the materials needed to manufacture electric cars. They prefer to have that work done somewhere else and just import energy, cars, and consumer goods.
They’ve long wanted a totally electric vehicle (EV) fleet, which they claim would be clean, ethical, climate-friendly, and sustainable.
Of course, those labels hold up only so long as they look solely at activities and emissions within California state boundaries – and not where the mining, manufacturing, and electricity generation takes place. That kind of “life cycle” analysis would totally disrupt their claims.
Consider copper. A typical internal combustion engine uses about 50 pounds (23 kilograms) of this vital everyday metal, the International Copper Association says.
A hybrid car requires almost 90 lb (40 kg); a plug-in EV needs 132 lb (60 kg); a big electric bus can use up to 812 lb (369 kg) of copper. If all 15,000,000 California cars were EVs, they would need almost 1,000,000 tons of copper.
But copper ores average just 0.5% metal by weight, notes energy analyst Mark Mills. That means 200,000,000 tons of ore would have to be dug up, crushed, processed, and refined to get that much copper.
Almost every step in that process would require fossil fuels – and emit carbon dioxide and pollutants.
That’s just California.
According to Cambridge University Emeritus Professor of Technology Michael Kelly, replacing all the United Kingdom’s vehicles with next-generation EVs would require more than half the world’s annual production of copper; twice its annual cobalt; three-quarters of its yearly lithium carbonate output; and nearly its entire annual production of neodymium.
Just one electric car or backup-power battery weighs 1,000 pounds and requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of various ores, Mills says. The true costs of “green” energy are staggering.
Imagine replacing all of the USA’s nearly 300,000,000 cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, buses, trucks, and other vehicles with electric versions under the Green New Deal – and then charging them daily.
The millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of backup-power batteries, thousands of miles of new transmission lines, grid upgrades, and the million or so fast-charging stations all across America would also require copper, concrete, all these other metals plus many more materials, in incomprehensible quantities.
Alaska’s Pebble Mine deposit has an estimated 35 million tons of high-grade copper ore and 3 million tons of molybdenum and other critical GND ores.
The copper alone is nearly two times the world’s 2019 output of that essential element. Permits were blocked for years for questionable reasons.
But the US Army Corps of Engineers recently found that mining would not have a “measurable effect” on sockeye salmon numbers in the Bristol Bay watershed and should be allowed to proceed, under tough US pollution control, reclamation, wildlife protection, workplace safety, fair wages, and child labor laws.
Environmentalists intend to delay the Pebble Mine as long as possible – and block other US exploration and mining projects. That’s why most mining and processing are done overseas, much of it in China and Mongolia or by Chinese companies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where none of these laws apply.
Most of the world’s rare earth ores are extracted near Baotou, Inner Mongolia by pumping acid into the ground, then processed using more acids and chemicals.
Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and a ton of radioactive waste.
The resulting black sludge is piped into a foul, lifeless lake. Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases, children are born with soft bones, and cancer rates have soared.
Lithium comes largely from Tibet and arid highlands of the Argentina-Bolivia-Chile “lithium triangle.” Dead, toxic fish join carcasses of cows and yaks floating down Tibet’s Liqi River, which has been poisoned by the Ganzizhou Rongda mine.
Native people in the ABC triangle say lithium operations contaminate streams needed for humans, livestock and irrigation, and leave mountains of discarded salt.
The world’s top producer of cobalt is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some 40,000 children as young as four toil with their parents for less than $2 a day up to 12 hours a day.
Many die in cave-ins, or more slowly from constant exposure to toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water, and air that puts dangerous levels of cobalt, lead, uranium and other heavy metals into their bodies.
The cobalt ore is sent to China for processing by the Chinese-owned Congo Dongfang International Mining Company.
That’s just to meet current raw material requirements. Try to picture the raw material demands, Third World mining and child labor conditions, and ecological destruction, under the Green New Deal.
Liberals often say they support sustainable, ethical coffee, sneakers, handbags, and diamonds. No child labor, sweatshops, or unsafe conditions tolerated.
But it’s a different story with green energy and EVs. In 2019, California Assembly Bill 735 proposed that the state certify that “zero-emission” electric vehicles sold there are free of any materials or components that involve child labor.
Democrats voted it down. The matter is complicated, they “explained.” It would be too hard to enforce, cost too much, and imperil state climate goals. And besides, lots of other industries also use child labor. (So shut up about it.)
Last month, the US House of Representatives had an opportunity to legislate a national certification that federally funded electric buses and charging stations would not include minerals mined with child labor.
The Transportation Committee approved the amendment 43-19 (all 19 nay votes were Democrats).
But Pete DeFazio(D-OR) quietly replaced the enforceable certification language with a meaningless statement that “it is the policy of the United States” that funds “should not be used” for items involving child labor.
DeFazio claimed certification is unnecessary because US trade agreements prohibit child labor. But there is no agreement with Congo, and China has shown no interest in ending child labor in its supply chains. (Plus, the matter is complicated, hard to enforce and perilous for climate and Green New Deal goals.)
It’s easy for Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues to wear Kente cloth stoles in solidarity with Black Lives Matter.
And for Sierra Club staff to criticize the organization’s “history and culture of white supremacy” – what I call callous, deadly, and arguably racist eco-imperialism and carbon colonialism.
We need real reform and an end to the cancel culture that silences discussion about the horrors of what’s going on in too many non-white areas of the United States and world.
The human and ecological realities of GND policies cry out for debate. So do the violence and death that preceded and followed George Floyd’s inexcusable death.
Not just the 23 police killings of unarmed blacks all across America in 2019 that have become the narrow focus of Black Lives Matter, politicians, and rioters.
But also the murders of David Dorn, Patrick Underwood, and other police officers; Mekhi James, LeGend Taliferro, Secoriea Turner, and other black children gunned down by their fellow blacks; and as many as 7,000 American black men, women, and children murdered by blacks every year.
In Chicago, over the July 4 weekend, police-reported 87 shootings and 17 deaths, and nearly a dozen of those shot were children caught in the crossfire, the New York Post despaired. In fact, the black-on-black Windy City murder toll over almost any two recent successive weekends exceeds those 23 police killings.
“Every single person who has been shot in New York City [so far] this July, nearly 100 in total, has been a member of the minority community,” NBC News reporter Tom Winter tweeted, “and 97% of shooting victims in June were members of the city’s minority community.” The solution is defunding the police?
ALL these African, Asian, Latin American, and minority American lives matter. It’s time to talk about it honestly, figure out what’s really driving the inhumanity, and create a world we can be proud to live in.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-11--The Tyranny Of Global Warmists Is Worse Than You Think

Written by David Solway on .
Posted in Latest news “ The more one has paid for a forgery , the more one defends it in the face of all the evidence to the contrary , ” writes John Le Carré in his novel about espionage and deception , Smiley ’ s People .
This certainly seems to be the case with the four major weather-tracking agencies : the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain , the Christy group at the University of Alabama , the Remote Sensing Systems Inc. in California , and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
In a previous article for The Pipeline , I examined the malfeasance of the influential Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich , where two major email dumps ( aka “ Climategate ” ) showed the outfit ’ s determined efforts to fudge the data , suppress unfavorable results and eliminate dissenting voices .
This should have put the “ global warming ” farce to bed once and for all , but the deception shows no sign of abating .
The reason seems obvious .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into perpetuating the racket by whatever means it can come up with , slandering its opponents , merchandising outright lies that would make Pinocchio blush ( “ Right and wrong ?
But how will I know ?
” ) , and inflating temperature data .
To take one example from myriads , the Goddard Institute , which feeds the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration , or NOAA , has no thermometers north of eighty degrees latitude and so extrapolated its readings from its more southerly apparatus to pump up the global average .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ high by as much as 4 degrees .
As Larry Bell , author of the richly informative Climate of Corruption : Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax , reports in Forbes that Goddard data is unreliable .
He quotes a certain Dr. Ruedy of GISS , who confessed in an email that data are not routinely kept up-to-date and that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis .
“ NASA ’ s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plus ça change .
It seems the so-called scientists working at such institutes just pull their figures out of a hat .
No wonder that the Goddard/NOAA bunch advertised for magicians—you read this right—to conduct seminars featuring “ magic tricks , puzzles , brainteasers , word games… designed to demonstrate how to… practice needed skills and competencies.
” This is an outright invitation to scientific fraud .
Former American Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth has gone on record justifying scientific fraud .
“ Even if the theory of global warming is wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be doing the right thing.
” How doing the right thing by perpetuating the wrong thing is a conundrum only a climate advocate can propound .
Frank Tipler , professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University , has diagnosed the problem clearly .
“ How did we ever come to this ?
” he asks , and answers : “ Government financing of scientific research caused it.
” The political establishment , in its quest to gain ever-increasing control of public and economic life , has seen to it that AGW ( “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the only ones with federal grants , ” and , moreover , that these malleable scientists “ are much more likely to get university jobs since universities are now almost wholly dependent on federal money… Soon there are none but true believers in the field : a consensus has been reached !
” Many of the major scientific journals have also been adulterated as a result .
William Gray , professor emeritus of the atmosphere department of Colorado State University , laments that “ fellow scientists are not speaking out against something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also know that they ’ d never get any grants if they spoke out.
” These scientists don ’ t seem to care that the climate hoax will cost the polity of the Western world a bundle , leading inevitably to economic catastrophe .
As Anthony O ’ Hear , editor of the journal Philosophy points out , global warming “ will bankrupt the developed nations of the West by driving fuel costs up unsustainably , reduc [ ing ] the influence and prosperity of nation-states in the face of a ‘ global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be lost in the developed world and the quality of life in the industrialized nations will sink to substandard levels .
Moreover , the Third World will be deprived of the minimal essentials , immunities , comforts , and amenities to which it aspires .
Fiona Kobusingye , the coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda , condemns in no uncertain terms the attempt to impose energy restrictions on African nations in the name of fighting global warming .
“ These policies kill , ” she writes .
As for Warmist-in-Chief Al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year.
” Her conclusion : “ Telling Africans they can ’ t have electricity—except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels—is immoral .
It is a crime against humanity.
” But too many people , corporations , and enterprises are raking in enormous profits from the climate boondoggle .
What Paul Driessen , author of Eco-Imperialism Green Power Black Death and co-author of Cracking Big Green , calls the Climate Industrial Complex is a $ 2 trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steady diet of false information and alarmism.
” Driessen shows how “ the growing gap between computer model predictions and satellite temperature measurements , as well as questions about data manipulation by scientists advocating the dangerous man-made climate change narrative ” are sufficient to scuttle the entire eco-globalist project .
The truth is that massive Green alternatives “ are not workable , affordable , green , renewable , ethical , ecological or sustainable , ” though they are obscenely lucrative for their proponents .
Climate alarmists will fight tooth and nail to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Climate Realism , Anthony Watts advises “ pushing against a group-think narrative and exposing the lies and real misinformation surrounding the climate scare.
” Climate alarmists retaliate against exposure by “ using dirty tricks like labeling [ their critics ] as if they were radical enemies of the state , worthy of imprisonment in the gulag.
” Indeed , a gaggle of “ University of Exeter professors , advocate [ s ] fines and imprisonment for people publishing ‘ climate misinformation ’ …It gets worse .
An ugly theatrical play , called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Australia about the issue.
” This is an old story by now .
James Hansen at the Goddard Institute employed the same scary , autocratic sentiment , urging that CEOs of fossil energy companies “ should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
” Similarly , British lawyer Polly Higgins , author of Eradicating Ecocide , petitions the United Nations to define “ ecocide ” as a punishable crime and to prosecute “ climate deniers ” for “ crimes against peace.
” Consider , too , the authoritarian looniness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , addressing the McGill University Business Conference on Sustainability on January 31 , 2008 , stated : “ What I would challenge you to do is put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there ’ s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they ’ re doing is a criminal act.
” The hypocrisy is staggering .
In Not for Greens , Ian Plimer uses the example of a stainless steel teaspoon to show that neither wind , solar nor biomass energy could have produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument from extrapolation : none of the technological , industrial and agricultural infrastructures , the safety measures , the medical advances , the devices and appliances we casually and indiscriminately use and rely on every moment of our lives would have been possible under a Green dispensation .
The Greenies were born with a stainless steel teaspoon in their mouths , which a moment of honest reflection would tell them they could not do without .
Rupert Darwall in Green Tyranny : Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex , reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the Red-Green coalition upped its institutional firepower ” by recruiting some of the world ’ s most influential energy agencies , banks , insurance groups , foundations , and even the Catholic Church under Pope Francis via the Pontifical Academy of Science .
He continues : “ The effect of wall-to-wall government-and-foundation-funded green propaganda is not so much to silence dissenting voices as to asphyxiate them.
” The complicity of high finance , as potently influential as it is entirely misguided , is well illustrated by the CEO of the $ 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who said , as The New York Times reports , “ BlackRock would begin to exit certain investments that ‘ present a high sustainability-related risk ’ … [ thus encouraging ] every company , not just energy firms , to rethink their carbon footprints.
” Fink went on to say , as if in emulation of Tim Wirth , that “ even if only a fraction of the science is right today , this is a much more structural , long-term crisis.
” The issue , however , has nothing to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly all of the accepted science is wrong today .
People like Fink are not solving a crisis , they are helping to create it .
One is sometimes hard put to decide whether our Global Warmists are shrewdly calculating or vastly ignorant .
The kindling of environmental fright has given these radical enthusiasts , corporate plutocrats , statist visionaries , Davos elitists , power-seekers , and global technocrats the “ green light ” to legislative domination of Western electorates and the projected reorganization of society along synodic or absolutist lines .
Writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antony P. Mueller warns that Under the auspices of the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) ) , global policymakers are advocating for a ‘ Great Reset ’ with the intent of creating a global technocracy [ whose ] agenda says that the completion of the current industrial revolution requires a thorough overhaul of the economy , politics , and society .
The new social contract instructs us , among other things , that “ climate change requires us ‘ to decarbonize the economy ’ and to bring human thinking and behavior ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points out that the ideology of the Great Reset “ includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.
” And it does .
As founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab writes , we are in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution , “ blurring the lines between the physical , digital , and biological spheres.
” This will affect “ our identity and all the issues associated with it… leading to a “ quantified ” self [ and assuring that ] “ governments will gain new technological powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on pervasive surveillance systems and the ability to control digital infrastructure.
” This is one of the main planks in the Democratic Party platform to reduce the United States to a command and control economy—in Joe Biden ’ s words , to “ create millions of good-paying union jobs ” —nota bene , union jobs—by financing a slew of projects and “ to meet the climate crisis.
” This is cartoon thinking .
As Heartland Institute editor Chris Talgo writes , Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion energy plan “ will implement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on the energy industry , ” resulting in monumental debt , hundreds of thousands of jobs lost , and an unaffordable as well as an unreliable power grid .
Canada , of course , is wholly and officially on board with the climate hysteria syndrome wreaking havoc on an energy industry that accounts for a fifth of Canada ’ s exports and further intensifying the country ’ s economic miseries .
Bill C-69 , known as the pipeline killer , looks set to drive investment out of the country .
Pipeline construction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pipeline builders like TC Energy Corp. , Kinder Morgan Inc. , Keystone XL , and Enbridge Inc. are being put to sleep , energy companies like Encana and others are moving away to more hospitable climes , the Alberta oil sands , in Trudeau ’ s own words , will be gradually “ phased out ” of operation , and Trudeau has signed on to the crippling Paris Climate Agreement from that the U.S. , under Donald Trump , has wisely withdrawn .
Indeed , major energy producers like China and India have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writes of our feckless prime minister , “ you can choose Paris , or you can choose Calgary .
And up to now , it ’ s been Paris all the way.
” Conrad Black also points to a PM who “ wages war on Alberta and the oil and gas industries for spurious climatic reasons , ” who leads “ the derelict hulk of contemporary liberal ( and Liberal ) pseudo-virtuous tokenism , ” and who ensures that we continue “ failing to make our way in a Darwinian world.
” Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies and developments prohibitive , but they also consort with the Liberal agenda to bring the country ’ s economic sector under increased government sway in accord with the socialist project to place competitive and prosperous free-market societies under hegemonic state control .
“ Global warming ” is a totalitarian ’ s dream come true , eventuating in a renewed primitivism for the majority of the population .
The masters will prosper but the servants , those who elect them , have forgotten the old joke : What did the socialists use before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warmist brethren accuse skeptics and so-called “ deniers ” of being oblivious to the health of the environment , but once again they are egregiously wrong .
No one opposes reduced impact-logging and sustainable forest management , measures for reducing air pollution , or the practice of cleaning up our rivers , all agreed-upon initiatives that have nothing to do with “ climate change.
” Rich Trzupek justly points to the “ distinctions that separate healthy environmental protection from irrational ecological puritanism.
” The confusion between environment and climate , whether ignorant or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Warmist quiver .
The three defining characteristics of the “ climate change ” movement should by this time have become obvious : “ Cancel culture ” was a staple of the Climate-Industrial Complex long before it became a Leftist issue of the day .
One might add a fourth feature : fantasticality .
A serious conviction has been largely replaced by earnest frivolity .
The eco-celebrants are a fervid congregation of believers , do-gooders , talking heads , Leftist apparatchiks , academic elitists , cynical exploiters , eco-fascists , petty despots and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of climate warming .

Written by David Solway on Aug 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
“The more one has paid for a forgery, the more one defends it in the face of all the evidence to the contrary,” writes John Le Carré in his novel about espionage and deception, Smiley’s People.
This certainly seems to be the case with the four major weather-tracking agencies: the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, the Remote Sensing Systems Inc. in California, and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York (NASA GISS).
In a previous article for The Pipeline, I examined the malfeasance of the influential Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, where two major email dumps (aka “Climategate”) showed the outfit’s determined efforts to fudge the data, suppress unfavorable results and eliminate dissenting voices.
This should have put the “global warming” farce to bed once and for all, but the deception shows no sign of abating.
The reason seems obvious. The entire climate consortium has invested its resources into perpetuating the racket by whatever means it can come up with, slandering its opponents, merchandising outright lies that would make Pinocchio blush (“Right and wrong? But how will I know?”), and inflating temperature data.
To take one example from myriads, the Goddard Institute, which feeds the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, has no thermometers north of eighty degrees latitude and so extrapolated its readings from its more southerly apparatus to pump up the global average.
In fact, GISS Arctic anomalies are high by as much as 4 degrees.
As Larry Bell, author of the richly informative Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax, reports in Forbes that Goddard data is unreliable.
He quotes a certain Dr. Ruedy of GISS, who confessed in an email that data are not routinely kept up-to-date and that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis.
“NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct,” Ruedy said. Plus ça change.
It seems the so-called scientists working at such institutes just pull their figures out of a hat. No wonder that the Goddard/NOAA bunch advertised for magicians—you read this right—to conduct seminars featuring “magic tricks, puzzles, brainteasers, word games… designed to demonstrate how to… practice needed skills and competencies.”
This is an outright invitation to scientific fraud.
Former American Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth has gone on record justifying scientific fraud. “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,” he said, “we will be doing the right thing.”
How doing the right thing by perpetuating the wrong thing is a conundrum only a climate advocate can propound.
Frank Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, has diagnosed the problem clearly.
“How did we ever come to this?” he asks, and answers: “Government financing of scientific research caused it.”
The political establishment, in its quest to gain ever-increasing control of public and economic life, has seen to it that AGW (“anthropogenic global warming”) scientists are “the only ones with federal grants,” and, moreover, that these malleable scientists “are much more likely to get university jobs since universities are now almost wholly dependent on federal money… Soon there are none but true believers in the field: a consensus has been reached!”
Many of the major scientific journals have also been adulterated as a result. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmosphere department of Colorado State University, laments that “fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out.”
These scientists don’t seem to care that the climate hoax will cost the polity of the Western world a bundle, leading inevitably to economic catastrophe.
As Anthony O’Hear, editor of the journal Philosophy points out, global warming “will bankrupt the developed nations of the West by driving fuel costs up unsustainably, reduc[ing] the influence and prosperity of nation-states in the face of a ‘global’ threat.”
Millions of jobs will be lost in the developed world and the quality of life in the industrialized nations will sink to substandard levels.
Moreover, the Third World will be deprived of the minimal essentials, immunities, comforts, and amenities to which it aspires.
Fiona Kobusingye, the coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda, condemns in no uncertain terms the attempt to impose energy restrictions on African nations in the name of fighting global warming.
“These policies kill,” she writes. As for Warmist-in-Chief Al Gore, he “uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year.”
Her conclusion: “Telling Africans they can’t have electricity—except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels—is immoral. It is a crime against humanity.”
But too many people, corporations, and enterprises are raking in enormous profits from the climate boondoggle.
What Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism Green Power Black Death and co-author of Cracking Big Green, calls the Climate Industrial Complex is a $2 trillion per year business based on a “steady diet of false information and alarmism.”
Driessen shows how “the growing gap between computer model predictions and satellite temperature measurements, as well as questions about data manipulation by scientists advocating the dangerous man-made climate change narrative” are sufficient to scuttle the entire eco-globalist project.
The truth is that massive Green alternatives “are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable,” though they are obscenely lucrative for their proponents.
Climate alarmists will fight tooth and nail to keep the truth from getting out. Writing in Climate Realism, Anthony Watts advises “pushing against a group-think narrative and exposing the lies and real misinformation surrounding the climate scare.”
Climate alarmists retaliate against exposure by “using dirty tricks like labeling [their critics] as if they were radical enemies of the state, worthy of imprisonment in the gulag.”
Indeed, a gaggle of “University of Exeter professors, advocate[s] fines and imprisonment for people publishing ‘climate misinformation’…It gets worse. An ugly theatrical play, called Kill Climate Deniers, was even created in Australia about the issue.”
This is an old story by now. James Hansen at the Goddard Institute employed the same scary, autocratic sentiment, urging that CEOs of fossil energy companies “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Similarly, British lawyer Polly Higgins, author of Eradicating Ecocide, petitions the United Nations to define “ecocide” as a punishable crime and to prosecute “climate deniers” for “crimes against peace.”
Consider, too, the authoritarian looniness of Canada’s own David Suzuki who, addressing the McGill University Business Conference on Sustainability on January 31, 2008, stated:
“What I would challenge you to do is put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”
The hypocrisy is staggering. In Not for Greens, Ian Plimer uses the example of a stainless steel teaspoon to show that neither wind, solar nor biomass energy could have produced such an artifact.
This is the argument from extrapolation: none of the technological, industrial and agricultural infrastructures, the safety measures, the medical advances, the devices and appliances we casually and indiscriminately use and rely on every moment of our lives would have been possible under a Green dispensation.
The Greenies were born with a stainless steel teaspoon in their mouths, which a moment of honest reflection would tell them they could not do without.
Rupert Darwall in Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, reveals how in pursuing its repressive agenda, “the Red-Green coalition upped its institutional firepower” by recruiting some of the world’s most influential energy agencies, banks, insurance groups, foundations, and even the Catholic Church under Pope Francis via the Pontifical Academy of Science.
He continues: “The effect of wall-to-wall government-and-foundation-funded green propaganda is not so much to silence dissenting voices as to asphyxiate them.”
The complicity of high finance, as potently influential as it is entirely misguided, is well illustrated by the CEO of the $7 trillion BlackRock asset manager firm David Fink, who said, as The New York Times reports, “BlackRock would begin to exit certain investments that ‘present a high sustainability-related risk’… [thus encouraging] every company, not just energy firms, to rethink their carbon footprints.”
Fink went on to say, as if in emulation of Tim Wirth, that “even if only a fraction of the science is right today, this is a much more structural, long-term crisis.”
The issue, however, has nothing to do with fractions; the problem is that nearly all of the accepted science is wrong today. People like Fink are not solving a crisis, they are helping to create it.
One is sometimes hard put to decide whether our Global Warmists are shrewdly calculating or vastly ignorant.
The kindling of environmental fright has given these radical enthusiasts, corporate plutocrats, statist visionaries, Davos elitists, power-seekers, and global technocrats the “green light” to legislative domination of Western electorates and the projected reorganization of society along synodic or absolutist lines.
Writing for the Mises Institute, economics professor Antony P. Mueller warns that
Under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF)), global policymakers are advocating for a ‘Great Reset’ with the intent of creating a global technocracy [whose] agenda says that the completion of the current industrial revolution requires a thorough overhaul of the economy, politics, and society.
The new social contract instructs us, among other things, that “climate change requires us ‘to decarbonize the economy’ and to bring human thinking and behavior ‘into harmony with nature.’”
Mueller points out that the ideology of the Great Reset “includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.”
And it does. As founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab writes, we are in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, “blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”
This will affect “our identity and all the issues associated with it… leading to a “quantified” self [and assuring that] “governments will gain new technological powers to increase their control over populations, based on pervasive surveillance systems and the ability to control digital infrastructure.”
This is one of the main planks in the Democratic Party platform to reduce the United States to a command and control economy—in Joe Biden’s words, to “create millions of good-paying union jobs”—nota bene, union jobs—by financing a slew of projects and “to meet the climate crisis.”
This is cartoon thinking. As Heartland Institute editor Chris Talgo writes, Biden’s $2 trillion energy plan “will implement social justice via a convoluted and nonsensical attack on the energy industry,” resulting in monumental debt, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and an unaffordable as well as an unreliable power grid.
Canada, of course, is wholly and officially on board with the climate hysteria syndrome wreaking havoc on an energy industry that accounts for a fifth of Canada’s exports and further intensifying the country’s economic miseries.
Bill C-69, known as the pipeline killer, looks set to drive investment out of the country. Pipeline construction to tidewater is a dead letter.
Pipeline builders like TC Energy Corp., Kinder Morgan Inc., Keystone XL, and Enbridge Inc. are being put to sleep, energy companies like Encana and others are moving away to more hospitable climes, the Alberta oil sands, in Trudeau’s own words, will be gradually “phased out” of operation, and Trudeau has signed on to the crippling Paris Climate Agreement from that the U.S., under Donald Trump, has wisely withdrawn.
Indeed, major energy producers like China and India have also opted out.
As Rex Murphy writes of our feckless prime minister, “you can choose Paris, or you can choose Calgary. And up to now, it’s been Paris all the way.”
Conrad Black also points to a PM who “wages war on Alberta and the oil and gas industries for spurious climatic reasons,” who leads “the derelict hulk of contemporary liberal (and Liberal) pseudo-virtuous tokenism,” and who ensures that we continue “failing to make our way in a Darwinian world.”
Not only is the price tag for these policies and developments prohibitive, but they also consort with the Liberal agenda to bring the country’s economic sector under increased government sway in accord with the socialist project to place competitive and prosperous free-market societies under hegemonic state control.
“Global warming” is a totalitarian’s dream come true, eventuating in a renewed primitivism for the majority of the population.
The masters will prosper but the servants, those who elect them, have forgotten the old joke: What did the socialists use before candles? Electricity.
Eco-fanatics and their Warmist brethren accuse skeptics and so-called “deniers” of being oblivious to the health of the environment, but once again they are egregiously wrong.
No one opposes reduced impact-logging and sustainable forest management, measures for reducing air pollution, or the practice of cleaning up our rivers, all agreed-upon initiatives that have nothing to do with “climate change.”
Rich Trzupek justly points to the “distinctions that separate healthy environmental protection from irrational ecological puritanism.” The confusion between environment and climate, whether ignorant or deliberate, is but another arrow in the Warmist quiver.
The three defining characteristics of the “climate change” movement should by this time have become obvious:
Data falsification Profit Ostracism of dissenting voices
“Cancel culture” was a staple of the Climate-Industrial Complex long before it became a Leftist issue of the day.
One might add a fourth feature: fantasticality. A serious conviction has been largely replaced by earnest frivolity. The eco-celebrants are a fervid congregation of believers, do-gooders, talking heads, Leftist apparatchiks, academic elitists, cynical exploiters, eco-fascists, petty despots and saints-in-the-making, all chanting the holy mantra of climate warming.
Read rest at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-11--Teen Activist Accuses Greta Thunberg Of ‘Spilling Out Propaganda’

Written by Clive Hammond on .
Posted in Latest news Naomi Seibt ( pictured ) , the German dubbed the ‘ anti-Greta Thunberg ’ of climate change , targeted Ms. Thunberg for “ not knowing any more than a random teenager ” after the Swedish teenager waded into a row over coronavirus .
Fury erupted earlier this year after Ms. Thunberg had been chosen on a panel of so-called experts to discuss the world ’ s handling of the coronavirus .
Attacks were aimed towards broadcaster CNN for Ms. Thunberg ’ s inclusion , including Ms. Seibt , who claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the topic as “ anyone who reads mainstream news ” in an exclusive chat with Express.co.uk .
Ms. Seibt likened Ms. Thunberg ’ s alleged “ expertise ” to herself , by playfully saying she could be a doctor because she “ once sewed my teddy bear ’ s arm back on ” .
But it wasn ’ t just the space made for Ms. Thunberg on the panel that riled Ms. Seibt .
She accused CNN of offering a platform to the activist to spout her views on the discussion , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ It ’ s obviously absolutely ridiculous , especially in the case of the coronavirus because at least she was a climate activist in some sense .
“ And at least she said we need to listen to the experts , although in terms of climate change she never names who those experts are .
“ But in the case of the coronavirus , she doesn ’ t have a clue about what is going on and who knows the most about the coronavirus and what we should do .
“ So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so supposed to talk about.
” She added : “ Greta doesn ’ t know any more than any random teenage girl who reads the mainstream news .
“ I was actually shocked that she was invited on that panel as an expert .
I think she was even called an expert on that panel.
” Although condemned on social media , CNN and Ms. Thunberg herself defended her inclusion on the panel by claiming she was not on there as an expert .
Taking to Twitter , Ms. Thunberg explained : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was going to be on an expert panel , which of course has never been the case .
“ I am not an expert .
I am an activist .
“ The only people claiming that I ’ m an ‘ expert ’ are those who are trying to ridicule me.
” Ms. Seibt – who does not like the comparison to Ms. Thunberg , who she says has left youngsters around the globe “ panicked when they should have hope ” – and her anger at the teen arose after she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
Ms. Seibt agrees that carbon dioxide – which is a byproduct of the use of fossil fuels – does affect the climate , but she argues that how bad it is for the environment is constantly blown out of proportion by the likes of Ms. Thunberg .
Ms. Thunberg and her army of supporters refer to research from 2013 that claims 97 percent of scientists argued that human activities are behind climate change .
Previously , Ms. Seibt has said that that research was “ way too vague ” , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European Union to listen to both sides of the debate in order to reach a more fair consensus on how to tackle the decline of the world ’ s environment .

Written by Clive Hammond on Aug 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Naomi Seibt (pictured), the German dubbed the ‘anti-Greta Thunberg’ of climate change, targeted Ms. Thunberg for “not knowing any more than a random teenager” after the Swedish teenager waded into a row over coronavirus.
Fury erupted earlier this year after Ms. Thunberg had been chosen on a panel of so-called experts to discuss the world’s handling of the coronavirus.
Attacks were aimed towards broadcaster CNN for Ms. Thunberg’s inclusion, including Ms. Seibt, who claimed her rival had as much knowledge of the topic as “anyone who reads mainstream news” in an exclusive chat with Express.co.uk.
Ms. Seibt likened Ms. Thunberg’s alleged “expertise” to herself, by playfully saying she could be a doctor because she “once sewed my teddy bear’s arm back on”.
But it wasn’t just the space made for Ms. Thunberg on the panel that riled Ms. Seibt.
She accused CNN of offering a platform to the activist to spout her views on the discussion, and inevitably climate change.
Ms. Seibt said: “It’s obviously absolutely ridiculous, especially in the case of the coronavirus because at least she was a climate activist in some sense.
“And at least she said we need to listen to the experts, although in terms of climate change she never names who those experts are.
“But in the case of the coronavirus, she doesn’t have a clue about what is going on and who knows the most about the coronavirus and what we should do.
“So she just spills the propaganda that she is so supposed to talk about.”
She added: “Greta doesn’t know any more than any random teenage girl who reads the mainstream news.
“I was actually shocked that she was invited on that panel as an expert. I think she was even called an expert on that panel.”
Although condemned on social media, CNN and Ms. Thunberg herself defended her inclusion on the panel by claiming she was not on there as an expert.
Taking to Twitter, Ms. Thunberg explained: “It seems some people thought I was going to be on an expert panel, which of course has never been the case.
“I am not an expert. I am an activist.
“The only people claiming that I’m an ‘expert’ are those who are trying to ridicule me.”
Ms. Seibt – who does not like the comparison to Ms. Thunberg, who she says has left youngsters around the globe “panicked when they should have hope” – and her anger at the teen arose after she was unable to discuss varying opinions on climate change.
Ms. Seibt agrees that carbon dioxide – which is a byproduct of the use of fossil fuels – does affect the climate, but she argues that how bad it is for the environment is constantly blown out of proportion by the likes of Ms. Thunberg.
Ms. Thunberg and her army of supporters refer to research from 2013 that claims 97 percent of scientists argued that human activities are behind climate change.
Previously, Ms. Seibt has said that that research was “way too vague”, and has called on institutions such as the European Union to listen to both sides of the debate in order to reach a more fair consensus on how to tackle the decline of the world’s environment.
Read more at Daily Express
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-11--‘Cheap’ Offshore Wind Power Is An Expensive Green Delusion

Written by Andrew Montford , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Back in 2017 , there was great excitement among environmentalists and the media , when it was announced that two offshore windfarms had bid remarkably low prices into the government ’ s Contracts for Difference auction , offering to supply electricity to the grid for around half the price that had been seen in earlier auctions .
How had this remarkable change in the economics of offshore wind power been achieved ?
Nobody really knew for sure , although eco-minded correspondents in the mainstream media were insistent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper published shortly afterward , Gordon Hughes et al .
pointed out that there was little evidence that the costs of offshore wind farms were falling at all .
Indeed , they were generally rising , as developers moved into deeper waters in search of more reliable wind speeds .
Even discounting factors like this , like-for-like costs seemed to be only falling slightly .
There was absolutely no sign of revolutionary change .
Defenders of the green orthodoxy argued that the Hughes analysis was backward-looking , and couldn ’ t take into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said clearly what these were ) .
In contrast , Hughes ’ theory , outlined in a later paper , is that the low CfD bids are in essence a gamble on future electricity prices .
He thinks that the developers are hoping that electricity prices will be so high by the time the windfarms come on stream in 2022 that they will be able to walk away from their CfDs and take the market price instead .
There would be only small contractual penalties for doing so .
Hughes et al .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of offshore wind power remains very high to this day .
Recently , some more hard evidence appeared showing that Hughes is correct .
One of the low-bidding windfarms published its latest financial accounts , and these allow us to get a feel for whether the cost reductions are real .
Moray East is a 100-turbine , 950MW behemoth that is currently under development off the Scottish coast .
The developers have said that it will cost £2.6 billion to build , although this figure comes with caveats .
It almost certainly doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the company has to build and the sell back to the grid .
Moreover , announced costs for wind farms are invariably understated .
Hughes thinks that the ultimate cost will be somewhere around £3.8 billion .
If the wind farm is to make a profit at around £60/MWh , its costs need to be less than half that level ( on an optimistic assumption about how much electricity it will generate ) and more realistically a third of it .
As at the year-end ( 31 December 2019 ) , Moray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of development .
The foundations were not quite complete , and the transmission assets were under construction , but far from finished .
Ducting for some of the cables had been completed .
How much would we expect the company to have spent thus far ?
I used the cost breakdown analysis published here to work out the percentage of total cost represented by each of the main components .
I then applied these , and a guesstimate of how complete each component was , together with Hughes ’ £3.8 billion total to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer : just over £1 billion .
And the actual spending so far ?
£1.2 billion .
It seems almost unarguable therefore that this is a £3.8 billion wind farm , not a £1.9 million one ( which is what it would have to be profitable under the CfD , even making the most generous assumptions about the capacity factor that it might achieve ) .
It could be argued that my guesstimates are wildly wrong , but think about it in another way .
To make a profit at £60/MWh , Moray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well below £1.9 billion .
The only way it can do this is to complete the rest of the capital works – including the turbines themselves – for £0.7 billion .
This isn ’ t going to happen .
Electricity is either going to become very , very expensive , or certain investors in the offshore wind business are going to lose their shirts .
Read more at The GWPF

Written by Andrew Montford, Ph.D. on Aug 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Back in 2017, there was great excitement among environmentalists and the media, when it was announced that two offshore windfarms had bid remarkably low prices into the government’s Contracts for Difference auction, offering to supply electricity to the grid for around half the price that had been seen in earlier auctions.
How had this remarkable change in the economics of offshore wind power been achieved? Nobody really knew for sure, although eco-minded correspondents in the mainstream media were insistent that the change was real.
In a paper published shortly afterward, Gordon Hughes et al. pointed out that there was little evidence that the costs of offshore wind farms were falling at all.
Indeed, they were generally rising, as developers moved into deeper waters in search of more reliable wind speeds. Even discounting factors like this, like-for-like costs seemed to be only falling slightly.
There was absolutely no sign of revolutionary change. Defenders of the green orthodoxy argued that the Hughes analysis was backward-looking, and couldn’t take into account technological advances (although they never said clearly what these were).
In contrast, Hughes’ theory, outlined in a later paper, is that the low CfD bids are in essence a gamble on future electricity prices.
He thinks that the developers are hoping that electricity prices will be so high by the time the windfarms come on stream in 2022 that they will be able to walk away from their CfDs and take the market price instead.
There would be only small contractual penalties for doing so. Hughes et al. have continued to argue that the cost of offshore wind power remains very high to this day.
Recently, some more hard evidence appeared showing that Hughes is correct. One of the low-bidding windfarms published its latest financial accounts, and these allow us to get a feel for whether the cost reductions are real.
Moray East is a 100-turbine, 950MW behemoth that is currently under development off the Scottish coast. The developers have said that it will cost £2.6 billion to build, although this figure comes with caveats.
It almost certainly doesn’t include the offshore transmission assets that the company has to build and the sell back to the grid. Moreover, announced costs for wind farms are invariably understated.
Hughes thinks that the ultimate cost will be somewhere around £3.8 billion. If the wind farm is to make a profit at around £60/MWh, its costs need to be less than half that level (on an optimistic assumption about how much electricity it will generate) and more realistically a third of it.
As at the year-end (31 December 2019), Moray East was still in the early phases of development. The foundations were not quite complete, and the transmission assets were under construction, but far from finished.
Ducting for some of the cables had been completed. How much would we expect the company to have spent thus far?
I used the cost breakdown analysis published here to work out the percentage of total cost represented by each of the main components.
I then applied these, and a guesstimate of how complete each component was, together with Hughes’ £3.8 billion total to come up with an expectation.
The answer: just over £1 billion.
And the actual spending so far? £1.2 billion.
It seems almost unarguable therefore that this is a £3.8 billion wind farm, not a £1.9 million one (which is what it would have to be profitable under the CfD, even making the most generous assumptions about the capacity factor that it might achieve).
It could be argued that my guesstimates are wildly wrong, but think about it in another way. To make a profit at £60/MWh, Moray East’s capital cost must be well below £1.9 billion.
The only way it can do this is to complete the rest of the capital works – including the turbines themselves – for £0.7 billion. This isn’t going to happen.
Electricity is either going to become very, very expensive, or certain investors in the offshore wind business are going to lose their shirts.
Paper: WHO’S THE PATSY? Offshore wind’s high-stakes poker game
Read more at The GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-11--Harris Poll: Americans No Longer Care About Climate Change (Sorry Greta)

Written by Will Johnson on .
Posted in Latest news We asked a panel of U.S. adults a series of questions about today ’ s most crucial issues , environmental policy options , and their own behavior .
In all three categories , I was personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging .
In a survey we at the Harris Poll conducted last December , American adults said climate change was the number one issue facing society .
Today , it comes in second to last on a list of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among Gen X men , in fact , more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant .
COVID-19 and the recession have , of course , reordered priorities around the world .
Still , the coronavirus didn ’ t elbow aside other issues as muscularly as it did climate change .
( Incidentally , global warming is a bigger concern to retirement-age women than any other age group except millennial men . )
Additionally , we asked about policies the government could adopt to fight global warming or help the environment generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of nine initiatives , with 51 % endorsing tax credits or rebates for greater energy efficiency in buildings .
Moreover , 13 % of all respondents say the government should do nothing to improve the environment , a stance that rises to nearly one in five of all survey takers in the South .
More telling is what we are doing—or should I say , what we no longer are doing .
We know from this survey , conducted on July 24 , that American adults are burning less fuel than they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-COVID-19 America , 77 % of adults said they used to drive .
Today , with more people working from home , or not working at all , just 61 % say they are using their cars to get around .
Similarly , only 14 % of adults say they are still flying , down from 21 % last winter .
That ’ s an environmental plus since it means we ’ re pumping less greenhouse gas into the air .
But we are also reverting back to a society that throws too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular , are ordering more takeout food , packed in single-use plastic bags and disposable boxes , often with those plastic straws scorned for littering the landscape and polluting waterways .
We are toting reusable bags less often on errands .
Probably because more of us are home , we also are consuming more energy to keep our homes cooler in the summer and warmer in chilly months than we used to .
And when the pandemic ends—or at least is suitably controlled—American adults say they ’ ll behave in ways that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our survey , we ’ ll drive as much as we did before , take public transportation less , bicycle or walk less , buy more clothes , and have more stuff packaged up and shipped to our homes .
And most of us plan to jack up the home AC and heat even more than we already have .

Written by Will Johnson on Aug 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
We asked a panel of U.S. adults a series of questions about today’s most crucial issues, environmental policy options, and their own behavior.
In all three categories, I was personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging.
In a survey we at the Harris Poll conducted last December, American adults said climate change was the number one issue facing society.
Today, it comes in second to last on a list of a dozen options, ahead of only overpopulation. Among Gen X men, in fact, more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant.
COVID-19 and the recession have, of course, reordered priorities around the world. Still, the coronavirus didn’t elbow aside other issues as muscularly as it did climate change. (Incidentally, global warming is a bigger concern to retirement-age women than any other age group except millennial men.)
Additionally, we asked about policies the government could adopt to fight global warming or help the environment generally.
There was majority support for only one of nine initiatives, with 51% endorsing tax credits or rebates for greater energy efficiency in buildings.
Moreover, 13% of all respondents say the government should do nothing to improve the environment, a stance that rises to nearly one in five of all survey takers in the South.
More telling is what we are doing—or should I say, what we no longer are doing.
We know from this survey, conducted on July 24, that American adults are burning less fuel than they did before the pandemic hit.
In pre-COVID-19 America, 77% of adults said they used to drive. Today, with more people working from home, or not working at all, just 61% say they are using their cars to get around.
Similarly, only 14% of adults say they are still flying, down from 21% last winter. That’s an environmental plus since it means we’re pumping less greenhouse gas into the air.
But we are also reverting back to a society that throws too much away. Younger men, in particular, are ordering more takeout food, packed in single-use plastic bags and disposable boxes, often with those plastic straws scorned for littering the landscape and polluting waterways.
We are toting reusable bags less often on errands. Probably because more of us are home, we also are consuming more energy to keep our homes cooler in the summer and warmer in chilly months than we used to.
And when the pandemic ends—or at least is suitably controlled—American adults say they’ll behave in ways that would increase their carbon footprint.
According to our survey, we’ll drive as much as we did before, take public transportation less, bicycle or walk less, buy more clothes, and have more stuff packaged up and shipped to our homes.
And most of us plan to jack up the home AC and heat even more than we already have.
Read rest at Fortune
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-11--Despite Record Crops, Media Falsely Claim Ethiopian ‘Climate Crisis’

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Among the top Google News search results today for “ climate change , ” an article at Insider.com claims “ food insecurity from climate change ” is “ pushing millions of people into cities.
” In reality , Ethiopian crop yields are enjoying consistent , impressive gains , and are setting new records virtually every year .
Also , Ethiopia ’ s rural population is growing , not shrinking , as higher crop yields support more farmers and more food production .
The Insider.com article being promoted by Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims made by proponents of the Climate Delusion .
The Insider.com article , titled , “ Climate change is pushing millions of people into cities like Addis Ababa .
Here ’ s what rapid urbanization looks like in the Ethiopian capital , ” asserts that World Health Organization predictions of a growing Ethiopian urban population prove that climate change is devastating crop production and driving people into cities .
But that is faulty logic that defies objective reality .
In reality , Ethiopia is benefiting from increasing food production and rapid economic growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not forcing people away from the farms , but rather enticing many Ethiopians into cities with better-paying jobs and the cultural and social attractions of urban life .
Data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) , charted below , show remarkable growth in Ethiopian crop yields as the Earth continues its modest warming .
Crop yields per acre are currently 80 percent higher than just a decade ago , and double what they were in the year 2000 .
Moreover , the FAO reports that fully half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year 2000 , while less than 20 percent of the population is undernourished today .
It is amazing that a “ news ” article at Insider.com can paint this spectacular crop growth and beneficial improvement in nutrition as “ food insecurity from climate change.
” About the only thing that is true in the Insider.com article is that Ethiopia is experiencing dramatic urban population growth .
However , it is a lie that urban growth is being caused by climate change destabilizing food production , and forcing people into cities .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas have added 13 million people since the year 2000 .
However , Ethiopia ’ s rural areas have added 28 million people since the year 2000 .
Ethiopia ’ s urban and rural areas are gaining population – with rural areas experiencing the largest growth – as increasing crop yields sustain more population and bring more wealth to the nation ’ s people .
World Bank economic data illustrate this .
Per the World Bank : “ Ethiopia ’ s economy experienced strong , broad-based growth averaging 9.9 percent a year from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regional average of 5.4 % .
… Industry , mainly construction , and services accounted for most of the growth .
… Higher economic growth brought with it positive trends in poverty reduction in both urban and rural areas .
The share of the population living below the national poverty line decreased from 30 % in 2011 to 24 % in 2016.
” In summary , Ethiopia is enjoying spectacular gains in crop yields that are supporting a rapidly growing population and dramatic growth in both urban and rural populations .
The growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly and inarguably a result of spectacular increases in food production and a wealthier population rather than mythical food insecurity .
But the easily discernible and reassuring truth doesn ’ t promote climate alarmism .
Therefore , the media lie and invent a false narrative .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Among the top Google News search results today for “climate change,” an article at Insider.com claims “food insecurity from climate change” is “pushing millions of people into cities.”
In reality, Ethiopian crop yields are enjoying consistent, impressive gains, and are setting new records virtually every year.
Also, Ethiopia’s rural population is growing, not shrinking, as higher crop yields support more farmers and more food production.
The Insider.com article being promoted by Google is a perfect example of the dishonest claims made by proponents of the Climate Delusion.
The Insider.com article, titled, “Climate change is pushing millions of people into cities like Addis Ababa. Here’s what rapid urbanization looks like in the Ethiopian capital,” asserts that World Health Organization predictions of a growing Ethiopian urban population prove that climate change is devastating crop production and driving people into cities.
But that is faulty logic that defies objective reality. In reality, Ethiopia is benefiting from increasing food production and rapid economic growth in its cities.
This economic growth is not forcing people away from the farms, but rather enticing many Ethiopians into cities with better-paying jobs and the cultural and social attractions of urban life.
Data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), charted below, show remarkable growth in Ethiopian crop yields as the Earth continues its modest warming.
Crop yields per acre are currently 80 percent higher than just a decade ago, and double what they were in the year 2000.
Moreover, the FAO reports that fully half the Ethiopian population was undernourished in the year 2000, while less than 20 percent of the population is undernourished today.
It is amazing that a “news” article at Insider.com can paint this spectacular crop growth and beneficial improvement in nutrition as “food insecurity from climate change.”
About the only thing that is true in the Insider.com article is that Ethiopia is experiencing dramatic urban population growth.
However, it is a lie that urban growth is being caused by climate change destabilizing food production, and forcing people into cities.
According to the FAO, Ethiopia’s urban areas have added 13 million people since the year 2000. However, Ethiopia’s rural areas have added 28 million people since the year 2000.
Ethiopia’s urban and rural areas are gaining population – with rural areas experiencing the largest growth – as increasing crop yields sustain more population and bring more wealth to the nation’s people.
World Bank economic data illustrate this. Per the World Bank:
“Ethiopia’s economy experienced strong, broad-based growth averaging 9.9 percent a year from 2007/08 to 2017/18, compared to a regional average of 5.4%. … Industry, mainly construction, and services accounted for most of the growth. … Higher economic growth brought with it positive trends in poverty reduction in both urban and rural areas. The share of the population living below the national poverty line decreased from 30% in 2011 to 24% in 2016.”
In summary, Ethiopia is enjoying spectacular gains in crop yields that are supporting a rapidly growing population and dramatic growth in both urban and rural populations.
The growth in Ethiopia’s urban population is clearly and inarguably a result of spectacular increases in food production and a wealthier population rather than mythical food insecurity.
But the easily discernible and reassuring truth doesn’t promote climate alarmism. Therefore, the media lie and invent a false narrative.
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