climatechangedispatch--2020-05-01--Stanford Prof. Blackballing ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Must Pay SLAPP Suit Fees

Written by Robert Bryce on .
Posted in Latest news Last week , anti-hydrocarbon activist and documentary maker Josh Fox — along with Stanford professor Mark Jacobson , Penn State climatologist Michael Mann , and several others — succeeded in briefly getting Michael Moore ’ s new documentary , Planet of the Humans , taken off of a website owned by a group called Films for Action .
Fox ’ s censorship effort was cheered by Eric Holthaus , a meteorologist and journalist who tweeted “ cheers to @ joshfoxfilm and everyone who worked hard and quickly to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DailyKos dutifully ran a story with the headline “ Distributor pulls Michael Moore ’ s ( @ MMFlint ’ s ) # PlanetOfTheHumans due to truthiness.
” But the “ dangerous film ” didn ’ t disappear .
Planet of the Humans , which was directed and narrated by Jeff Gibbs , was never removed from YouTube .
By Thursday afternoon , it had been viewed more than 4.6 million times .
Fox ’ s censorship campaign led Planet of the Humans to post a note on its website saying that it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any relationship with , an outfit called ‘ Films for Action , ’ ” and that any “ information disseminated to the contrary is false.
” I have plenty of criticisms of Planet of the Humans .
It ’ s an anti-human film that ignores our need for affordable and reliable energy to survive .
It ignores the need for nuclear energy to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions , and it completely ignores the scourge of energy poverty .
That ’ s an inexcusable omission given that about one billion people on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and another two billion or so are only using tiny amounts of juice .
But it ’ s also apparent that Planet of the Humans is an important film .
The fact that Moore — the most successful documentary-filmmaker in America as well as its most famous liberal who ’ s not a politician – would produce a film that attacks wind energy , solar energy , the Sierra Club , Al Gore , David Blood , Bill McKibben , and Vinod Khosla represents a rupture in left-leaning orthodoxy about energy and climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Moore and Gibbs are being branded as apostates .
To my ear , the outrage coming from Fox , McKibben , and others to Planet of the Humans sound like Greta Thunberg ’ s now-famous cri de coeur : “ How dare you !
” But the effort to gag Planet of the Humans reveals something more sinister : the refusal by leading climate activists and academics to have an honest discussion about the limits of renewable energy and why renewables alone can not save us from climate change or solve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend of mine put it , “ The climatocracy can ’ t tolerate debate or disagreement.
” Indeed , the belief that many high-profile climate activists and academics have in renewable energy borders on the cultish .
As Gibbs asks at one point in the film , “ Could we have a religion that we are unaware of ?
” Attempting to shut down debate and demonizing the opposition is one of the hallmarks of the all-renewable-energy tribe .
And there ’ s no small bit of irony in the fact that Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Humans was launched just two days after his ally , Jacobson , was reproached by a federal court for trying to intimidate one of his critics by filing a frivolous lawsuit against him .
On April 20 , Jacobson was ordered to pay the legal fees of Chris Clack , the Colorado mathematician who Jacobson sued in 2017 for $ 10 million on claims that Clack had defamed him .
Jacobson ’ s lawsuit , which also named the National Academy of Sciences , was a classic example of a SLAPP suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What was Clack ’ s sin ?
He , along with nearly two dozen other prominent scientists , debunked the claims that Jacobson was making about – what else ?
— renewable energy .
Before delving into the details of the SLAPP suit , it ’ s worthwhile to recall how Fox used Jacobson ’ s work to help justify his effort to censor Moore and Gibbs .
On April 22 , Fox , who directed the 2010 film Gasland , tweeted that Planet of the Humans “ disregards the # GreenNewDeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Stanford University…and the basic foundations of science upon which renewable energy policy and the power that the climate movement has built upon for the last 40 years.
” On April 24 , Fox again took to Twitter saying : “ Thank you to the early co-signers of the letter demanding an apology from @ mmflint.
” Among those Fox listed : @ michalemann , the Twitter handle for Michael Mann , the Penn State climate scientist who sued several of his critics for defamation in 2012 .
Another was @ mzjacobson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s important to note that Fox and his tribe didn ’ t want to debate Moore about renewables , they were demanding an apology from him .
Heretics mustn ’ t just repent , they must apologize .
In 2015 , Jacobson published a paper , co-written with Mark Delucchi , a research engineer at the University of California-Berkeley , in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
The paper , which claimed to offer “ a low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem ” with 100-percent renewables , went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an annual award handed out by the National Academy of Sciences .
A Stanford web site said that Jacobson ’ s paper was one of six chosen by “ the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from the more than 3,000 research articles published in the journal in 2015.
” Jacobson ’ s all-renewables-and-nothing-but-renewables energy scheme made him a darling of liberal politicians , environmental groups , and climate activists .
Funders of a group he founded , The Solutions Project , include the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Mary .
Bernie Sanders adopted Jacobson ’ s all-renewable plan as the energy platform for his 2016 presidential bid .
McKibben , who was prominently featured ( and skewered ) in Planet of the Humans , has repeatedly touted Jacobson ’ s all-renewable schemes .
In a 2016 story for The New Republic McKibben , one of America ’ s highest-profile climate activists , wrote that Jacobson ’ s work “ demonstrates conclusively ” that the U.S. could generate all of its energy needs from “ sun , wind , and water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article for In These Times , McKibben again lauded Jacobson , saying that his plans show “ how the United States could generate all its energy from the sun , the wind and the falling water that produces hydropower…the 100 percent target is becoming less an aspirational goal and more the obvious solution.
” But in June 2017 , Clack and 20 other top scientists published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that demolished Jacobson ’ s 2015 paper .
Clack and his co-authors — who included Dan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former EPA Science Advisory Board Chair Granger Morgan , and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson ’ s work contained “ numerous shortcomings and errors.
” They also said the paper used “ invalid modeling tools , contained modeling errors , and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.
” Those errors , “ render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost , technical reliability , or feasibility of a 100-percent wind , solar , and hydroelectric power system.
” Perhaps the most obvious flaw in Jacobson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of land his plan would require .
Jacobson ’ s all-renewable idea called for the installation of nearly 2.5 terawatts ( 2.5 trillion watts ) of wind energy capacity , with the majority of that amount onshore .
Clack and his colleagues found that accommodating all of the wind turbines needed to achieve Jacobson ’ s all-renewable vision would require “ nearly 500,000 square kilometers , which is roughly 6 percent of the continental United States and more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American.
” Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jacobson sued him for defamation .
He also sued the National Academy of Sciences for $ 10 million claiming breach of contract .
Then , in February 2018 , Jacobson suddenly withdrew his suit and the litigation was largely forgotten .
But on April 20 , ( as journalist James Temple first reported on Twitter ) , District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo issued a ruling that sided with Clack and the National Academy of Sciences and ordered Jacobson to pay their legal fees .
In her decision , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bench by President Barack Obama in 2015 ) noted that the District of Columbia ’ s Anti-SLAPP Act prohibits the filing of lawsuits aimed at limiting public participation .
She wrote that the statements made by Clack and his co-authors in their 2017 paper “ simply do not ” accuse Jacobson “ of any misconduct or impugn his integrity .
The Court has reviewed the Complaint , the motion and the related pleadings as well as the attachments thereto , and finds that the three asserted ‘ egregious errors ’ are statements reflecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacobson ’ s honesty or accuse him of misconduct.
” It goes on , saying that challenges to whether or not Jacobson ’ s methodology and conclusions are good or bad are “ a question best resolved in the scientific or academic forum , not the court.
” In her conclusion , Wingo wrote that the “ Anti-SLAPP Act was enacted to protect the right of advocacy on issues of public interest against lawsuits intended to punish or censor speech .
The safeguards provided by the Act including reasonable attorney ’ s fees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute that must serve its purpose and be upheld .
Defendants are entitled to recoup such fees… ” In an email , Clack told me “ I deeply appreciate the Court ’ s decision , which represents complete vindication for my position , that Courts are not the proper forum to resolve important scientific disagreements .
The Judge ’ s order provides helpful legal precedent that should allow scientists to express themselves responsibly on vital societal issues without having to be concerned with the prospect of economic reprisal in the form of retaliatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay for his SLAPP suit ?
When I asked Clack for an estimate , he replied that his lawyers are working to “ to recover all our legal costs and fees caused by this unwarranted litigation.
” Due to a large number of pleadings and complexity of the case , Clack ’ s legal fees could total as much as $ 500,000 .
That sounds like a lot .
But court filings show that Clack was represented by Drew Marrocco , a lawyer at Dentons , the world ’ s largest law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was represented by Evangeline Paschal , a lawyer at Hunton Andrews Kurth , another large law firm .
Thus , when counting the plaintiffs ’ costs and his own lawyer bills , Jacobson could be facing legal fees of $ 1 million or more for filing a SLAPP suit that should have never been filed in the first place .
The punchline here is that despite efforts by high-profile activists and academics to stifle debate , films like Planet of the Humans , aren ’ t going to be stopped .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ignited — shows how badly we need an honest discussion about how we are going to meet the demand for electricity , the world ’ s most important and fastest-growing form of energy .
Planet of the Humans will be remembered because it has sparked a long-overdue debate about the myriad problems with renewables , a list that includes land-use conflicts , intermittency , availability of rare-earth elements , mining , and the lethal toll that wind energy is having on birds and bats .
Sure , renewables will grow in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t enough , not by a long shot .
The sooner we accept that fact , the better .

Written by Robert Bryce on May 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Last week, anti-hydrocarbon activist and documentary maker Josh Fox — along with Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, and several others — succeeded in briefly getting Michael Moore’s new documentary, Planet of the Humans, taken off of a website owned by a group called Films for Action.
Fox’s censorship effort was cheered by Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist and journalist who tweeted “cheers to @joshfoxfilm and everyone who worked hard and quickly to make sure this dangerous film was retracted.”
The DailyKos dutifully ran a story with the headline “Distributor pulls Michael Moore’s (@MMFlint’s) #PlanetOfTheHumans due to truthiness.”
But the “dangerous film” didn’t disappear. Planet of the Humans, which was directed and narrated by Jeff Gibbs, was never removed from YouTube. By Thursday afternoon, it had been viewed more than 4.6 million times.
Fox’s censorship campaign led Planet of the Humans to post a note on its website saying that it does not “know of, or have any relationship with, an outfit called ‘Films for Action,’” and that any “information disseminated to the contrary is false.”
I have plenty of criticisms of Planet of the Humans. It’s an anti-human film that ignores our need for affordable and reliable energy to survive.
It ignores the need for nuclear energy to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it completely ignores the scourge of energy poverty.
That’s an inexcusable omission given that about one billion people on the planet today have no access to electricity and another two billion or so are only using tiny amounts of juice.
But it’s also apparent that Planet of the Humans is an important film. The fact that Moore — the most successful documentary-filmmaker in America as well as its most famous liberal who’s not a politician – would produce a film that attacks wind energy, solar energy, the Sierra Club, Al Gore, David Blood, Bill McKibben, and Vinod Khosla represents a rupture in left-leaning orthodoxy about energy and climate change.
For causing so much trouble, Moore and Gibbs are being branded as apostates. To my ear, the outrage coming from Fox, McKibben, and others to Planet of the Humans sound like Greta Thunberg’s now-famous cri de coeur: “How dare you!”
But the effort to gag Planet of the Humans reveals something more sinister: the refusal by leading climate activists and academics to have an honest discussion about the limits of renewable energy and why renewables alone cannot save us from climate change or solve the problem of energy poverty.
As a friend of mine put it, “The climatocracy can’t tolerate debate or disagreement.”
Indeed, the belief that many high-profile climate activists and academics have in renewable energy borders on the cultish. As Gibbs asks at one point in the film, “Could we have a religion that we are unaware of?”
Attempting to shut down debate and demonizing the opposition is one of the hallmarks of the all-renewable-energy tribe.
And there’s no small bit of irony in the fact that Fox’s effort to censor Planet of the Humans was launched just two days after his ally, Jacobson, was reproached by a federal court for trying to intimidate one of his critics by filing a frivolous lawsuit against him.
On April 20, Jacobson was ordered to pay the legal fees of Chris Clack, the Colorado mathematician who Jacobson sued in 2017 for $10 million on claims that Clack had defamed him.
Jacobson’s lawsuit, which also named the National Academy of Sciences, was a classic example of a SLAPP suit, or strategic litigation against public participation.
What was Clack’s sin? He, along with nearly two dozen other prominent scientists, debunked the claims that Jacobson was making about – what else? — renewable energy.
Before delving into the details of the SLAPP suit, it’s worthwhile to recall how Fox used Jacobson’s work to help justify his effort to censor Moore and Gibbs.
On April 22, Fox, who directed the 2010 film Gasland, tweeted that Planet of the Humans “disregards the #GreenNewDeal, the 100% renewable energy plans of Stanford University…and the basic foundations of science upon which renewable energy policy and the power that the climate movement has built upon for the last 40 years.”
On April 24, Fox again took to Twitter saying: “Thank you to the early co-signers of the letter demanding an apology from @mmflint.”
Among those Fox listed: @michalemann, the Twitter handle for Michael Mann, the Penn State climate scientist who sued several of his critics for defamation in 2012. Another was @mzjacobson, the Twitter handle for Jacobson.
It’s important to note that Fox and his tribe didn’t want to debate Moore about renewables, they were demanding an apology from him. Heretics mustn’t just repent, they must apologize.
In 2015, Jacobson published a paper, co-written with Mark Delucchi, a research engineer at the University of California-Berkeley, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The paper, which claimed to offer “a low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem” with 100-percent renewables, went on to win the Cozzarelli Prize, an annual award handed out by the National Academy of Sciences.
A Stanford web site said that Jacobson’s paper was one of six chosen by “the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from the more than 3,000 research articles published in the journal in 2015.”
Jacobson’s all-renewables-and-nothing-but-renewables energy scheme made him a darling of liberal politicians, environmental groups, and climate activists. Funders of a group he founded, The Solutions Project, include the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Bill Nye, and the Franciscan Sisters of Mary.
Bernie Sanders adopted Jacobson’s all-renewable plan as the energy platform for his 2016 presidential bid.
McKibben, who was prominently featured (and skewered) in Planet of the Humans, has repeatedly touted Jacobson’s all-renewable schemes.
In a 2016 story for The New Republic McKibben, one of America’s highest-profile climate activists, wrote that Jacobson’s work “demonstrates conclusively” that the U.S. could generate all of its energy needs from “sun, wind, and water” by 2050.
In a 2017 article for In These Times, McKibben again lauded Jacobson, saying that his plans show “how the United States could generate all its energy from the sun, the wind and the falling water that produces hydropower…the 100 percent target is becoming less an aspirational goal and more the obvious solution.”
But in June 2017, Clack and 20 other top scientists published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that demolished Jacobson’s 2015 paper.
Clack and his co-authors — who included Dan Kammen of the University of California-Berkeley, former EPA Science Advisory Board Chair Granger Morgan, and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson’s work contained “numerous shortcomings and errors.”
They also said the paper used “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.”
Those errors, “render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100-percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.”
Perhaps the most obvious flaw in Jacobson’s scheme involves the massive amount of land his plan would require.
Jacobson’s all-renewable idea called for the installation of nearly 2.5 terawatts (2.5 trillion watts) of wind energy capacity, with the majority of that amount onshore.
Clack and his colleagues found that accommodating all of the wind turbines needed to achieve Jacobson’s all-renewable vision would require “nearly 500,000 square kilometers, which is roughly 6 percent of the continental United States and more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American.”
Rather than engaging in a civil debate with Clack, Jacobson sued him for defamation. He also sued the National Academy of Sciences for $10 million claiming breach of contract.
Then, in February 2018, Jacobson suddenly withdrew his suit and the litigation was largely forgotten.
But on April 20, (as journalist James Temple first reported on Twitter), District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo issued a ruling that sided with Clack and the National Academy of Sciences and ordered Jacobson to pay their legal fees.
In her decision, Wingo (who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2015) noted that the District of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP Act prohibits the filing of lawsuits aimed at limiting public participation.
She wrote that the statements made by Clack and his co-authors in their 2017 paper “simply do not” accuse Jacobson “of any misconduct or impugn his integrity. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the motion and the related pleadings as well as the attachments thereto, and finds that the three asserted ‘egregious errors’ are statements reflecting scientific disagreements…they simply do not attack Dr. Jacobson’s honesty or accuse him of misconduct.”
It goes on, saying that challenges to whether or not Jacobson’s methodology and conclusions are good or bad are “a question best resolved in the scientific or academic forum, not the court.”
In her conclusion, Wingo wrote that the “Anti-SLAPP Act was enacted to protect the right of advocacy on issues of public interest against lawsuits intended to punish or censor speech. The safeguards provided by the Act including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs are critical parts of the statute that must serve its purpose and be upheld. Defendants are entitled to recoup such fees…”
(To view the filings in the SLAPP suit, use this link. Case Number: 2017 CA 006685 B)
In an email, Clack told me “I deeply appreciate the Court’s decision, which represents complete vindication for my position, that Courts are not the proper forum to resolve important scientific disagreements.
The Judge’s order provides helpful legal precedent that should allow scientists to express themselves responsibly on vital societal issues without having to be concerned with the prospect of economic reprisal in the form of retaliatory litigation.”
How much will Jacobson have to pay for his SLAPP suit? When I asked Clack for an estimate, he replied that his lawyers are working to “to recover all our legal costs and fees caused by this unwarranted litigation.”
Due to a large number of pleadings and complexity of the case, Clack’s legal fees could total as much as $500,000. That sounds like a lot.
But court filings show that Clack was represented by Drew Marrocco, a lawyer at Dentons, the world’s largest law firm.
The National Academy of Sciences was represented by Evangeline Paschal, a lawyer at Hunton Andrews Kurth, another large law firm.
Thus, when counting the plaintiffs’ costs and his own lawyer bills, Jacobson could be facing legal fees of $1 million or more for filing a SLAPP suit that should have never been filed in the first place.
The punchline here is that despite efforts by high-profile activists and academics to stifle debate, films like Planet of the Humans, aren’t going to be stopped.
Instead, the film — and the controversy it has ignited — shows how badly we need an honest discussion about how we are going to meet the demand for electricity, the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy.
Planet of the Humans will be remembered because it has sparked a long-overdue debate about the myriad problems with renewables, a list that includes land-use conflicts, intermittency, availability of rare-earth elements, mining, and the lethal toll that wind energy is having on birds and bats.
Sure, renewables will grow in the years ahead. But they aren’t enough, not by a long shot. The sooner we accept that fact, the better.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--Extinction Rebellion’s Plot ‘To Sabotage UK Economy’ Revealed

Written by David Rose on .
Posted in Latest news Extinction Rebellion wants activists to stage rent strikes , halt tax payments , and take out bank loans they never intend to repay in protest at an economic system they claim is fuelling a climate catastrophe .
With Extinction Rebellion , the climate change activist group , currently unable to take to the streets to demonstrate in a traditional fashion under the coronavirus lockdown and social distancing measures , they are planning acts of financial sabotage to ‘ directly challenge the fundamental principles that govern our national and global economies.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday set out plans for a ‘ Money Rebellion ’ involving acts of financial sabotage to ‘ directly challenge the fundamental principles that govern our national and global economies.
’ Despite dire warnings that the coronavirus pandemic has plunged Britain into its worst recession for 300 years , the dossier details how the group – also known as XR – wants to launch a rent strike later this month .
It seeks to legitimize the protest by arguing that ‘ our economic system is causing cancer in our planet ’ .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lenders .
Some of us will legally dispute debts , others will refuse to pay debts.
’ Barclays Bank is named as a top target , with supporters encouraged to ‘ take out a personal loan or a credit card ’ and ‘ publicly declare that they will not repay the debt.
’ HSBC , NatWest , and Lloyds are also listed .
Activists are warned that in addition to being sued in the civil courts , they could face prosecution under the Fraud Act , but XR says the risk is outweighed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance sheets and share prices .
Organizers hope the protests will mobilize broader popular support , saying : ‘ Any negative publicity could have the same desired effect as any financial consequence of the rebellion.
’ The detailed documents suggest that while the pandemic has forced XR to ditch its campaign of street protests , the movement wants to exploit the crisis .
‘ Without pressure from activists , we won ’ t see the increasingly necessary shift to a green economy , ’ the dossier says .
‘ Just as we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new opportunity has opened up for us in a time when it is vital that we act.
’ It then outlines a desire to launch ‘ direct actions against the organizations acting in support of the cancer-causing system ( banks , accounting firms , investment bodies , regulatory bodies , legal firms , and so on ) ’ .
XR hopes at least 5,000 supporters will refuse to pay their rent , adding : ‘ Council tenants and private tenants alike can participate in the strike… on such a scale that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy.
’ According to the documents , it will be followed by a tax strike involving 10,000 people who will sign a conditional commitment to withhold £100 of income tax .

Written by David Rose on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Extinction Rebellion wants activists to stage rent strikes, halt tax payments, and take out bank loans they never intend to repay in protest at an economic system they claim is fuelling a climate catastrophe.
With Extinction Rebellion, the climate change activist group, currently unable to take to the streets to demonstrate in a traditional fashion under the coronavirus lockdown and social distancing measures, they are planning acts of financial sabotage to ‘directly challenge the fundamental principles that govern our national and global economies.’
Internal documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday set out plans for a ‘Money Rebellion’ involving acts of financial sabotage to ‘directly challenge the fundamental principles that govern our national and global economies.’
Despite dire warnings that the coronavirus pandemic has plunged Britain into its worst recession for 300 years, the dossier details how the group – also known as XR – wants to launch a rent strike later this month.
It seeks to legitimize the protest by arguing that ‘our economic system is causing cancer in our planet’. It adds: ‘We will resist irresponsible lenders. Some of us will legally dispute debts, others will refuse to pay debts.’
Barclays Bank is named as a top target, with supporters encouraged to ‘take out a personal loan or a credit card’ and ‘publicly declare that they will not repay the debt.’ HSBC, NatWest, and Lloyds are also listed.
Activists are warned that in addition to being sued in the civil courts, they could face prosecution under the Fraud Act, but XR says the risk is outweighed by the damage caused to banks’ balance sheets and share prices.
Organizers hope the protests will mobilize broader popular support, saying: ‘Any negative publicity could have the same desired effect as any financial consequence of the rebellion.’
The detailed documents suggest that while the pandemic has forced XR to ditch its campaign of street protests, the movement wants to exploit the crisis.
‘Without pressure from activists, we won’t see the increasingly necessary shift to a green economy,’ the dossier says. ‘Just as we have lost our usual means of rebelling, a new opportunity has opened up for us in a time when it is vital that we act.’
It then outlines a desire to launch ‘direct actions against the organizations acting in support of the cancer-causing system (banks, accounting firms, investment bodies, regulatory bodies, legal firms, and so on)’.
XR hopes at least 5,000 supporters will refuse to pay their rent, adding: ‘Council tenants and private tenants alike can participate in the strike… on such a scale that it forces a society-wide conversation about our misguided economy.’
According to the documents, it will be followed by a tax strike involving 10,000 people who will sign a conditional commitment to withhold £100 of income tax.
h/t John R.
Read rest at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--Michael Moore: Exiled From The Planet Of Progressives

Written by ccdeditor on .
Posted in Latest news Michael Moore is a progressive ’ s progressive .
He is a container of every correct progressive idea .
He bludgeons capitalism .
He despises big corporations .
He wears a baseball cap .
Susan Sarandon admires him .
He hated George W. Bush .
He endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016 .
He despises Donald Trump .
He is an outsider who wins Academy Awards .
He is many times a millionaire .
He always champions the little guy .
Robert Redford used to love him .
…snip… Truth to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clever-cute , manipulative , and one-dimensional in his presentations .
His films , though labeled documentaries , were always more agitprop than analysis , more bent to making a persona for Moore , like that of a rotund disheveled Don Quixote for the forgotten workers of America , than any worthier goal .
This was an easy ambition in an America that endows Hollywood with the right to adjudicate worthiness , and which gave its tinsel Oscar to Al Gore for the tendentious and radically alarmist An Inconvenient Truth .
Even the eminences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a film it was a flop , a glorified slide show .
I tend to agree that the Oscar was a consolation prize to the man who lost to Bush .
Gore ’ s preachy epic , such as the power of consensus or herd-thinking , also won a Nobel Prize .
That award turned the world ’ s most distinguished medal to a trinket for poseurs .
However , there is nothing more unstable than fashion , unless it is fashionable beliefs .
Over the last week , Mr. Moore ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flexible perspective he has let his cameras loose on what is carelessly called renewables , arguing that renewables , wind and solar , are a scam .
They are emphatically not the answer to global warming they are held to be but distract from the only real solution , which is — naturally for a progressive — population control .
Planet of the Humans , as his latest work is called , argues that massive subsidies from governments are a precondition for their adoption , that they are always contingent on the fuels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they ruin landscapes , kill birds , and will never work .
This line of thought is a first-order heresy in the church of global warming .
He also , inexorably , links corporations with their success , insisting that green renewables are fattening the coffers of those dread institutions , that green leaders such as Bill McKibben , with his biomass delusion and other mischiefs , have been “ co-opted ” — the hardest epithet in the progressive lingo — by Big Oil .
Planet of the Humans has already hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vivid presence on the modern-day drum-telegraph of the Twitter feed .
Facebook abounds with postings on it .
Likewise the big media .
By far the most hilarious aspect of Moore ’ s departure from the velvet sofa of approved thought comes from his erstwhile worshippers .
The anathemas ring out from every crevice .
He is viewed now by one and all of them as a miscreant , a turncoat , a toy of the establishment , and a “ danger to the planet.
” Even harsher terms have been deployed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a sprocket .
Elizabeth May , our own queen of green , is fraught and distressed .
She sees the documentary as “ dangerous.
” Bill McKibben of 350.org , weeps and wails at length in Rolling Stone over Moore ’ s defection from climate truthery .
The Sanhedrin of the global warming establishment is of one mood .
Kill the movie .
Ostracize their erstwhile hero .
He is now a “ non ” -progressive .
There are famous people who would pay to shake his hand a couple of months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot he once walked by .
Can these things be ?
That Michael Moore , truth-teller of yesteryear , archangel of leftist correctness , knight of the anti-corporate establishment , honored presence at Democratic conventions , fan and supporter of Bernie Sanders , devastator of George ( chimpanzee ) Bush , and podcaster with guest Naomi Klein , is now to this same crowd , persona non grata , outcast , and deceiver .
As to the film itself , I see no reason to believe it is better or worse than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it , however , has been — let me summon the eloquence of the MasterCard commercial — priceless .

Written by Thomas Richard on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Michael Moore is a progressive’s progressive. He is a container of every correct progressive idea.
He bludgeons capitalism. He despises big corporations. He wears a baseball cap. Susan Sarandon admires him. He hated George W. Bush. He endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. He despises Donald Trump.
He is an outsider who wins Academy Awards. He is many times a millionaire. He always champions the little guy. Robert Redford used to love him. …snip…
Truth to tell, Moore has always been specious, clever-cute, manipulative, and one-dimensional in his presentations.
His films, though labeled documentaries, were always more agitprop than analysis, more bent to making a persona for Moore, like that of a rotund disheveled Don Quixote for the forgotten workers of America, than any worthier goal.
This was an easy ambition in an America that endows Hollywood with the right to adjudicate worthiness, and which gave its tinsel Oscar to Al Gore for the tendentious and radically alarmist An Inconvenient Truth.
Even the eminences of Hollywood must have known that as a film it was a flop, a glorified slide show. I tend to agree that the Oscar was a consolation prize to the man who lost to Bush.
Gore’s preachy epic, such as the power of consensus or herd-thinking, also won a Nobel Prize. That award turned the world’s most distinguished medal to a trinket for poseurs.
However, there is nothing more unstable than fashion, unless it is fashionable beliefs. Over the last week, Mr. Moore’s fame has peaked again.
Shifting his flexible perspective he has let his cameras loose on what is carelessly called renewables, arguing that renewables, wind and solar, are a scam.
They are emphatically not the answer to global warming they are held to be but distract from the only real solution, which is — naturally for a progressive — population control.
Planet of the Humans, as his latest work is called, argues that massive subsidies from governments are a precondition for their adoption, that they are always contingent on the fuels they are supposed to replace, and that they ruin landscapes, kill birds, and will never work.
This line of thought is a first-order heresy in the church of global warming.
He also, inexorably, links corporations with their success, insisting that green renewables are fattening the coffers of those dread institutions, that green leaders such as Bill McKibben, with his biomass delusion and other mischiefs, have been “co-opted” — the hardest epithet in the progressive lingo — by Big Oil.
Planet of the Humans has already hit near six million viewers and been a vivid presence on the modern-day drum-telegraph of the Twitter feed. Facebook abounds with postings on it. Likewise the big media.
By far the most hilarious aspect of Moore’s departure from the velvet sofa of approved thought comes from his erstwhile worshippers. The anathemas ring out from every crevice.
He is viewed now by one and all of them as a miscreant, a turncoat, a toy of the establishment, and a “danger to the planet.” Even harsher terms have been deployed. From icon to wretch at the turn of a sprocket.
Elizabeth May, our own queen of green, is fraught and distressed. She sees the documentary as “dangerous.” Bill McKibben of 350.org, weeps and wails at length in Rolling Stone over Moore’s defection from climate truthery.
The Sanhedrin of the global warming establishment is of one mood. Kill the movie. Ostracize their erstwhile hero. He is now a “non”-progressive.
There are famous people who would pay to shake his hand a couple of months ago who would now avoid a parking lot he once walked by.
Can these things be?
That Michael Moore, truth-teller of yesteryear, archangel of leftist correctness, knight of the anti-corporate establishment, honored presence at Democratic conventions, fan and supporter of Bernie Sanders, devastator of George (chimpanzee) Bush, and podcaster with guest Naomi Klein, is now to this same crowd, persona non grata, outcast, and deceiver.
It appears so.
As to the film itself, I see no reason to believe it is better or worse than any other he has done. The reaction to it, however, has been — let me summon the eloquence of the MasterCard commercial — priceless.
Read more at National Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--Wuhan Virus Puts Risk Of Death From ‘Bad Weather’ Into Perspective

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news Number three in Craig Kelly ’ s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists ’ coffin .
Climate Alarmists not only struggle with science , but most are mathematically challenged as well .
They think emotionally rather than with logic or reason , resulting in climate alarmists having great difficulty conceptualizing numbers and putting things in proportion and perspective .
Greta Thunberg ’ s apocalyptic message ‘ People are dying of climate change ’ , resonates with the young , naïve and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proportion , and are brainwashed into gluing themselves to roads and marching in streets carrying signs : ‘ You will die of old age , we will die of climate change ’ .
However , the Wuhan Flu outbreak has given those susceptible to being recruited into the climate cult an opportunity to have a greater understanding of proportion and the risk of death from climate change-induced bad weather .
At the time of writing , the number of deaths attributed to the virus ( and that includes those that have passed due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even a suspicion of having the virus ) is approaching 250,000 .
Alone this number is shocking , we are able to give it a sense of proportion by the fact that around 60 million people every year , including an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 that die annually from seasonal influenza-related illness , over 600,000 from Malaria , 950,000 from HIV/Aids , 1.2 million from road accidents .
3.9 million from respiratory diseases , 9.5 million from cancer , and 17.8 million from cardiovascular diseases .
Further , if we spread that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , since January 1 , approximately 20 million people have died of all causes around the world , therefore 98.75 % of deaths so far this year are from causes other than the Wuhan Flu .
See Also : RIP Climate Hysteria : 20 Ways The Pandemic Killed The Alarmists ’ Crusade Now going back to Greta ’ s hysteria , and ignoring the fact that there has been a 98 % decrease in deaths from natural disasters over the past 90 years ( that ’ s deaths from ; floods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cyclones , hurricanes , and tornadoes ) .
If , for the sake of an argument we accepted Greta ’ s prophecy ( after all how could she be wrong about predicting the future ) and there is a 100 % increase in deaths from natural disasters for those between 15 and 49 years of age ( an additional 4,500 deaths per annum — let ’ s call them deaths from climate change ) people in this 15 to 49 years age bracket would still be : • 18 times more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from ‘ climate change ’ • 21 times more likely to die from a drug overdose than from ‘ climate change ’ • 24 times more likely to die from malaria than from ‘ climate change ’ • 100 times more likely to die from self-harm than from ‘ climate change ’ • 148 times more like to die in a road accident than from ‘ climate change ’ • 150 times more likely to die from HIV/AIDS than from ‘ climate change ’ • 230 times more likely to die from cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hopefully , a greater sense of proportion resulting from the virus will help ensure that our limited resources are not wasted on virtue-signaling and environmentally damaging ‘ green energy ’ in the delusional belief that this will save people from bad weather when there are so many other more pressing issues in society that are likely to shorten a person ’ s life – putting another nail into the alarmists ’ coffin .

Written by Craig Kelly on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Number three in Craig Kelly’s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists’ coffin.
Climate Alarmists not only struggle with science, but most are mathematically challenged as well.
They think emotionally rather than with logic or reason, resulting in climate alarmists having great difficulty conceptualizing numbers and putting things in proportion and perspective.
Greta Thunberg’s apocalyptic message ‘People are dying of climate change’, resonates with the young, naïve and gullible who struggle to put things into proportion, and are brainwashed into gluing themselves to roads and marching in streets carrying signs: ‘You will die of old age, we will die of climate change’.
However, the Wuhan Flu outbreak has given those susceptible to being recruited into the climate cult an opportunity to have a greater understanding of proportion and the risk of death from climate change-induced bad weather.
At the time of writing, the number of deaths attributed to the virus (and that includes those that have passed due to the virus, with the virus and even a suspicion of having the virus) is approaching 250,000.
Alone this number is shocking, we are able to give it a sense of proportion by the fact that around 60 million people every year, including an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 that die annually from seasonal influenza-related illness, over 600,000 from Malaria, 950,000 from HIV/Aids, 1.2 million from road accidents. 3.9 million from respiratory diseases, 9.5 million from cancer, and 17.8 million from cardiovascular diseases.
Further, if we spread that 60 million annual deaths evenly throughout the year, since January 1, approximately 20 million people have died of all causes around the world, therefore 98.75% of deaths so far this year are from causes other than the Wuhan Flu.
See Also: RIP Climate Hysteria: 20 Ways The Pandemic Killed The Alarmists’ Crusade
Now going back to Greta’s hysteria, and ignoring the fact that there has been a 98% decrease in deaths from natural disasters over the past 90 years (that’s deaths from; floods, storms, wildfires, droughts, famines, cyclones, hurricanes, and tornadoes).
If, for the sake of an argument we accepted Greta’s prophecy (after all how could she be wrong about predicting the future) and there is a 100% increase in deaths from natural disasters for those between 15 and 49 years of age (an additional 4,500 deaths per annum — let’s call them deaths from climate change) people in this 15 to 49 years age bracket would still be:
18 times more likely to die from an alcohol disorder than from ‘climate change’
21 times more likely to die from a drug overdose than from ‘climate change’
24 times more likely to die from malaria than from ‘climate change’
100 times more likely to die from self-harm than from ‘climate change’
148 times more like to die in a road accident than from ‘climate change’
150 times more likely to die from HIV/AIDS than from ‘climate change’
230 times more likely to die from cancer than from ‘climate change’.
Hopefully, a greater sense of proportion resulting from the virus will help ensure that our limited resources are not wasted on virtue-signaling and environmentally damaging ‘green energy’ in the delusional belief that this will save people from bad weather when there are so many other more pressing issues in society that are likely to shorten a person’s life – putting another nail into the alarmists’ coffin.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--Alarmist Media Wrong Again: Facts Show More CO2 Benefits Crops, Yields

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news At the very top of Google News searches for “ climate change ” this week , an article in The Conversation falsely claims more atmospheric carbon dioxide will bring few if any benefits regarding plant life .
The article completely ignores many documented benefits of carbon dioxide for crops and plant life .
The article , “ Climate explained : why higher carbon dioxide levels aren ’ t good news , even if some plants grow faster , ” claims : “ At best , you might be mowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your plantation forests faster.
” The author , Sebastian Leuzinger , acknowledges in passing that increased carbon dioxide helps plants grow faster and larger , and even improves their use of water .
He attempts to dismiss this by putting the worst possible spin on it , suggesting that the primary result is people will have to more frequently engage in the unpleasant task of mowing our lawns .
Putting the worst possible spin on good climate news is a common tactic of climate activists .
Higher carbon dioxide levels and modest warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly every year .
This is much more impactful than mowing lawns more frequently , and an incredible benefit for human health and welfare .
Also , greater crop yields mean we can preserve more open spaces for the environment rather than farms .
Leuzinger also complains that more abundant , faster-growing plant life will not necessarily absorb more carbon from the atmosphere .
But we don ’ t want all or most of the atmosphere ’ s carbon dioxide to be locked away forever .
Rather we want plants to use it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for plant and animal life on land and in the oceans .
As documented in Climate Change Reconsidered : Biological Impacts ( CCRBI ) , carbon dioxide enriched plant growth has contributed to record crop yields , helping to bring about the largest decline in hunger , malnutrition , and starvation in human history .
So , regardless of what climate alarmists and their media sock puppets say , more abundant and faster-growing plant life is more than simply mowing our lawns more frequently .
More atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits crop production , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welfare .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
At the very top of Google News searches for “climate change” this week, an article in The Conversation falsely claims more atmospheric carbon dioxide will bring few if any benefits regarding plant life.
The article completely ignores many documented benefits of carbon dioxide for crops and plant life.
The article, “Climate explained: why higher carbon dioxide levels aren’t good news, even if some plants grow faster,” claims: “At best, you might be mowing your lawn twice as often or harvesting your plantation forests faster.”
The author, Sebastian Leuzinger, acknowledges in passing that increased carbon dioxide helps plants grow faster and larger, and even improves their use of water.
He attempts to dismiss this by putting the worst possible spin on it, suggesting that the primary result is people will have to more frequently engage in the unpleasant task of mowing our lawns.
Putting the worst possible spin on good climate news is a common tactic of climate activists.
Higher carbon dioxide levels and modest warming have resulted in crop yields setting records nearly every year. This is much more impactful than mowing lawns more frequently, and an incredible benefit for human health and welfare.
Also, greater crop yields mean we can preserve more open spaces for the environment rather than farms.
Leuzinger also complains that more abundant, faster-growing plant life will not necessarily absorb more carbon from the atmosphere.
But we don’t want all or most of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide to be locked away forever. Rather we want plants to use it to grow more abundantly, providing food for plant and animal life on land and in the oceans.
As documented in Climate Change Reconsidered: Biological Impacts (CCRBI), carbon dioxide enriched plant growth has contributed to record crop yields, helping to bring about the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history.
So, regardless of what climate alarmists and their media sock puppets say, more abundant and faster-growing plant life is more than simply mowing our lawns more frequently.
More atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits crop production, plant life, and human health and welfare.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--N. Hemisphere Had Second-Largest Two-Month Temp Drop In April

Written by Roy W. Spencer , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news In April 2020 , the Northern Hemisphere experienced its second-largest two-month drop in temperature in the 497-month satellite record .
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature ( LT ) anomaly for April 2020 was +0.38 deg .
C , down from the March 2020 value of +0.48 deg .
C. The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly fell from +0.96 deg .
C to 0.43 deg .
C from February to April , a 0.53 deg .
C drop that is the second-largest two-month drop in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop was -0.69 deg .
C from December 1987 to February 1988 .
The linear warming trend since January 1979 has now increased to +0.14 C/decade ( but remains statistically unchanged at +0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans , and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land ) .
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year ( 1981-2010 ) average for the last 16 months are : The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April 2020 should be available within the next week here .
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the next few days at the following locations :

Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
UPDATE: Changed emphasis from Northern Hemisphere extratropics to entire Northern Hemisphere (h/t John Christy)
In April 2020, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its second-largest two-month drop in temperature in the 497-month satellite record.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April 2020 was +0.38 deg. C, down from the March 2020 value of +0.48 deg. C.
The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly fell from +0.96 deg. C to 0.43 deg. C from February to April, a 0.53 deg. C drop that is the second-largest two-month drop in the 497-month satellite record. The largest two-month drop was -0.69 deg. C from December 1987 to February 1988.
The linear warming trend since January 1979 has now increased to +0.14 C/decade (but remains statistically unchanged at +0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15 2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.06 2019 03 +0.35 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.59 2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.92 +0.91 2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.39 2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35 2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.33 +0.87 2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24 2019 09 +0.62 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57 2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.28 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50 2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.38 2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94 2020 01 +0.57 +0.60 +0.53 +0.62 +0.73 +0.12 +0.66 2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30 2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.17 2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.34 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April 2020 should be available within the next week here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Read more at Dr. Roy’s Blog
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--How We’re Destroying US Forests So Europe Can Burn Wood

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Burned – in the name of climate protection – How the US is destroying its forests and environment A documentary from 2015 , “ Burned ” ( free of charge , 30 min .
online version here ) , goes very well with the oft-mentioned documentary “ Planet Of The Humans.
” Is wood the USA ’ s new coal ?
You can almost get that impression after watching the two films .
The United States has decided to consider wood burning as green energy .
You simply assume that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their growth , so it is a zero-sum game when you burn them later .
This is a very interesting consideration because it ignores the slow growth of the trees .
A tree that is burned in a short period of time can only be replaced by a new tree in a much longer period of time .
So the calculation is unfortunately very much misleading , and not to mention other positive aspects of trees and forests , which also disappear with deforestation .
Burning wood is pretty much the dirtiest way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below shows the difference compared to other fossil fuels .
And it doesn ’ t matter how big the efforts are to minimize the pollutants when burning wood , even the best values are far away from gas or even oil .
Burned shows in a frightening way how more and more wood chip factories have set up in the USA .
They are all located near coasts , mainly in the east of the country and therefore near ports .
These ports are important because there are massive exports to Europe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU has also decided to give the energy blessing to wood-burning .
As a result , the forests in the eastern part of the United States have also been massively destroyed since 2000 .
At the same time , highly subsidized wood-fired power plants are being built in the USA , where they are operated under the label of “ biomass ” .
Even former coal-fired power plants can be heated with wood without any problems .
Burned shows examples from the UK , where it is done in exactly the same way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unpleasant truths .
For example , the operators are allowed to burn old car tires or poison-soaked , disused railway ties as well .
Poisons have been banned in the USA for some time .
Looking at houses , cars , and plants near such power plants , which are covered with a sticky layer of soot every day , one wonders not only what the environmental standards are like in the USA but also how brazen the investors of such plants are .
After all , massive environmental destruction and pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of climate protection .
Forests are excellent carbon sinks , but they are much more .
In old , mainly natural forests there is a wide diversity of plants and animals .
In newly planted plantations , as compensation for the deforested old forests , this diversity is not present .
It takes a long time for such systems to form and function .
All these thoughts do not seem to be taken into consideration in the USA .
The idea of burning wood instead of coal was also supported for a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Future ( FFF ) : 350.org .
Its founder and activist Bill McKibben also has his say in the film : Evolution has given man a large brain for thinking .
Using it can never hurt because then even an activist like McKibben would have to realize what a bad idea the US interpretation of “ biomass ” is .
Meanwhile , McKibben seems to have come to the realization that it ’ s not so good to follow the former philosophy “ From brown to green ” – after being confronted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of The Humans ” .
But of course , the hundreds of wood power plants built at his behest are still running .
The EU has given the green light to burning wood .
It gets even better .
Organizations like the German Environmental Aid ( DUH ) promote pellet stoves as clean heat .
The table above shows just how clean it really is .
Yet , one can also get a completely different view if one looks at the development of pollutants in times of corona and strongly decreased traffic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ here to get communities in behind it because the values do not decrease even with strongly reduced traffic ?
In any case , there seem to be very big differences between environmental activists in the US and those in Europe .
While here in Germany , every tree in the Hambach Forest gets defended tooth and nail so that it does not have to give way to coal mining , environmentalists in the USA celebrate the destruction of the environment while American taxpayers give millions in subsidies for its pyrrhic success .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these films so that all facets of the energy revolution are really shown .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Burned – in the name of climate protection – How the US is destroying its forests and environment
By Die kalte Sonne (Text translated by P Gosselin)
A documentary from 2015, “Burned” (free of charge, 30 min. online version here), goes very well with the oft-mentioned documentary “Planet Of The Humans.”
Is wood the USA’s new coal?
You can almost get that impression after watching the two films. The United States has decided to consider wood burning as green energy.
You simply assume that trees have converted CO2 into biomass during their growth, so it is a zero-sum game when you burn them later.
This is a very interesting consideration because it ignores the slow growth of the trees. A tree that is burned in a short period of time can only be replaced by a new tree in a much longer period of time.
So the calculation is unfortunately very much misleading, and not to mention other positive aspects of trees and forests, which also disappear with deforestation.
Burning wood is pretty much the dirtiest way to generate heat energy. The table below shows the difference compared to other fossil fuels.
And it doesn’t matter how big the efforts are to minimize the pollutants when burning wood, even the best values are far away from gas or even oil.
Burned shows in a frightening way how more and more wood chip factories have set up in the USA.
They are all located near coasts, mainly in the east of the country and therefore near ports. These ports are important because there are massive exports to Europe, among others.
After all, the EU has also decided to give the energy blessing to wood-burning. As a result, the forests in the eastern part of the United States have also been massively destroyed since 2000.
At the same time, highly subsidized wood-fired power plants are being built in the USA, where they are operated under the label of “biomass”.
Even former coal-fired power plants can be heated with wood without any problems. Burned shows examples from the UK, where it is done in exactly the same way.
Biomass and car tires
The film also reveals quite different, unpleasant truths. For example, the operators are allowed to burn old car tires or poison-soaked, disused railway ties as well. Poisons have been banned in the USA for some time.
Brazen investors
Looking at houses, cars, and plants near such power plants, which are covered with a sticky layer of soot every day, one wonders not only what the environmental standards are like in the USA but also how brazen the investors of such plants are.
After all, massive environmental destruction and pollution are being carried out under the label of climate protection.
Takes decades to regenerate a forest
Forests are excellent carbon sinks, but they are much more. In old, mainly natural forests there is a wide diversity of plants and animals.
In newly planted plantations, as compensation for the deforested old forests, this diversity is not present.
It takes a long time for such systems to form and function. All these thoughts do not seem to be taken into consideration in the USA.
The idea of burning wood instead of coal was also supported for a long time by the US counterpart to Fridays For Future (FFF): 350.org.
Its founder and activist Bill McKibben also has his say in the film:
“It seems to me like climate change is a kind of final exam for our species. We’ll find out if the big brain was in fact a good idea or not. Maybe if it’s connected to a big enough heart to make a difference. We’ve been given ample warning by the world’s scientists. Now the question is whether we’ll heed it or not.”
Evolution has given man a large brain for thinking. Using it can never hurt because then even an activist like McKibben would have to realize what a bad idea the US interpretation of “biomass” is.
Meanwhile, McKibben seems to have come to the realization that it’s not so good to follow the former philosophy “From brown to green” – after being confronted with a first version of “Planet Of The Humans”.
But of course, the hundreds of wood power plants built at his behest are still running.
What role does Europe play?
The EU has given the green light to burning wood. It gets even better. Organizations like the German Environmental Aid (DUH) promote pellet stoves as clean heat. The table above shows just how clean it really is.
Yet, one can also get a completely different view if one looks at the development of pollutants in times of corona and strongly decreased traffic.
Does the DUH create its own basis here to get communities in behind it because the values do not decrease even with strongly reduced traffic?
In any case, there seem to be very big differences between environmental activists in the US and those in Europe.
While here in Germany, every tree in the Hambach Forest gets defended tooth and nail so that it does not have to give way to coal mining, environmentalists in the USA celebrate the destruction of the environment while American taxpayers give millions in subsidies for its pyrrhic success.
We’d like to see more of these films so that all facets of the energy revolution are really shown.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--Jane Fonda Demands Relief Money Be Spent Fighting Climate Change

Written by David Ng on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Actress and environmental activist Jane Fonda used May Day to renew calls to end fossil fuels and protect worker rights while she urged against corporate bailouts during the coronavirus pandemic , especially for oil and drilling companies .
Instead , the actress is demanding that the government allot recovery money to green or sustainable energy as well as to efforts to create a “ level playing field ” for workers .
“ These historic sums of stimulus money aren ’ t going to happen again , maybe even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go and how they are spent will determine so much about what kind of future we have , ” Fonda said Friday during her monthly “ Fire Drill Friday ” climate change rally , which was held online .
“ So while we insist on more funding to heal the effects of this pandemic , we must also insist that the money is used to lay the foundation for a clean , sustainable energy future as well as justice and dignity and a level playing field for all workers.
” For months , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Los Angeles , Jane Fonda , and her fellow activists have been pushing for a “ just transition ” — their call for the protection of workers whose jobs will be impacted by the move away from fossil fuels .
On Friday , the two-time Oscar-winning actress was joined virtually by labor activist Dolores Huerta , as well as union leaders representing migrant farmworkers , healthcare workers , and flight attendants .
Fonda began the virtual rally by accusing President Donald Trump of stiffing ordinary Americans during the Chinese coronavirus pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ram through bailouts for the already privileged and the powerful.
” She then praised Democrats who , she claims , “ have fought to include financial aid for workers and small businesses , hospitals… but more , much more needs to be done.
” In reality , Congressional Democrats recently blocked aid for small businesses — a Republican-backed measure that would have created $ 250 billion in coronavirus-related small-business loans .
Fonda also used the virtual rally to renew her assault on oil and drilling companies and their leaders .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailouts for corporate executives and oil billionaires and ‘ yes ’ to immediately protecting the most vulnerable among us , ” she said .
“ Fossil fuel executives don ’ t give a fuzzy rat ’ s ass about workers or communities ’ well being.
” Fonda also demanded free COVID-19 testing and free medical care for workers diagnosed with the disease .
“ Now ’ s the time to invest in economic relief and stimulus measures that put all workers and families first , not big corporations .
”

Written by David Ng on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Actress and environmental activist Jane Fonda used May Day to renew calls to end fossil fuels and protect worker rights while she urged against corporate bailouts during the coronavirus pandemic, especially for oil and drilling companies.
Instead, the actress is demanding that the government allot recovery money to green or sustainable energy as well as to efforts to create a “level playing field” for workers.
“These historic sums of stimulus money aren’t going to happen again, maybe even during our lifetimes. And where they go and how they are spent will determine so much about what kind of future we have,” Fonda said Friday during her monthly “Fire Drill Friday” climate change rally, which was held online.
“So while we insist on more funding to heal the effects of this pandemic, we must also insist that the money is used to lay the foundation for a clean, sustainable energy future as well as justice and dignity and a level playing field for all workers.”
For months, during her rallies in Washington D.C., and Los Angeles, Jane Fonda, and her fellow activists have been pushing for a “just transition” — their call for the protection of workers whose jobs will be impacted by the move away from fossil fuels.
On Friday, the two-time Oscar-winning actress was joined virtually by labor activist Dolores Huerta, as well as union leaders representing migrant farmworkers, healthcare workers, and flight attendants.
Fonda began the virtual rally by accusing President Donald Trump of stiffing ordinary Americans during the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, saying that his administration is trying “to ram through bailouts for the already privileged and the powerful.”
She then praised Democrats who, she claims, “have fought to include financial aid for workers and small businesses, hospitals… but more, much more needs to be done.”
In reality, Congressional Democrats recently blocked aid for small businesses — a Republican-backed measure that would have created $250 billion in coronavirus-related small-business loans.
Fonda also used the virtual rally to renew her assault on oil and drilling companies and their leaders.
“We have to say ‘no’ to bailouts for corporate executives and oil billionaires and ‘yes’ to immediately protecting the most vulnerable among us,” she said. “Fossil fuel executives don’t give a fuzzy rat’s ass about workers or communities’ well being.”
Fonda also demanded free COVID-19 testing and free medical care for workers diagnosed with the disease.
“Now’s the time to invest in economic relief and stimulus measures that put all workers and families first, not big corporations.”
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-04--Researchers, Lawmakers Cry Foul After Harvard Stealth-Edits Pollution/COVID-19 Study

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland is asking the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) to conduct a rigorous review of a Harvard University study associating high pollution levels to an increase in coronavirus deaths as researchers criticize the researchers ’ findings .
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler should conduct an investigation into the study , which suggests a link between pollution and higher rates of coronavirus deaths , Harris wrote to Wheeler on Saturday in a letter obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Harris addressed the letter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Alex Azar as well .
Harris ’ s letter refers to a Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health study , published April 4 , concluding that an increase in long-term exposure to particulate matter leads to an 8 % increase in the coronavirus death rate .
Areas with elevated levels of pollution are likely to experience higher death rates during the pandemic , the research claimed .
The study initially claimed that people in areas with high levels of pollution are 15 % more likely to die but added an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have revised our finding as that an increase of 1 μg/m3 in PM is associated with an 8 % increase in the COVID-19 death rate.
” The revision noted that the study changed after researchers included “ confounding factors ” impacting the virus .
Harvard ’ s research received extensive media attention with The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Guardian , and the Los Angeles Times publishing articles highlighting the study ’ s original claims .
The outlets have not yet updated their reporting to reflect the April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s website .
“ It is incumbent on you to accurately communicate the best available scientific understanding of the virus and the factors that may influence patient outcomes , not only to ensure American citizens are not misinformed but also to enable proper allocation of resources , ” Harris wrote in the letter to Wheeler .
Researchers have come out of the woodwork to criticize the study .
The study , which has yet to be peer-reviewed , relies on a “ statistical model that has not been tested and verified as yielding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who chairs the EPA ’ s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee , told the DCNF .
He and other researchers say spikes in deaths in certain areas were more likely a reflection of where those regions were on the virus curve rather than pollution .
Cities also have higher levels of air pollution , not to mention they have higher death rates from COVID-19 for reasons unrelated to pollution .
There are other factors that contribute to the virus ’ s spread .
States and counties have adopted different social distancing guidelines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while California adopted strict mitigation policies .
Harvard ’ s school of public health has not responded to the DCNF ’ s request for comment about the clarification added to the study or the criticisms leveled against the research .
The study only notes an association between pollution and the virus , which originated in China , according to Stanley Young , a member of the EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board .
“ This is the proverbial butterfly in China causing a tornado in Alabama , and generally the world doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a statistician , told the Washington Examiner .
“ The paper is written in a way that strongly implies cause and effect , ” he said before saying the study ’ s authors “ could have been a lot more circumspect than that.
” EPA spokeswoman Andrea Woods told the DCNF that the agency is looking into Harris ’ s letter and is preparing to respond “ through proper channels .
”

Written by Chris White on May 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland is asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a rigorous review of a Harvard University study associating high pollution levels to an increase in coronavirus deaths as researchers criticize the researchers’ findings.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler should conduct an investigation into the study, which suggests a link between pollution and higher rates of coronavirus deaths, Harris wrote to Wheeler on Saturday in a letter obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Harris addressed the letter to the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar as well.
Harris’s letter refers to a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study, published April 4, concluding that an increase in long-term exposure to particulate matter leads to an 8% increase in the coronavirus death rate.
Areas with elevated levels of pollution are likely to experience higher death rates during the pandemic, the research claimed.
The study initially claimed that people in areas with high levels of pollution are 15% more likely to die but added an April 24 clarification that reads: “We have revised our finding as that an increase of 1 μg/m3 in PM 2.5 is associated with an 8% increase in the COVID-19 death rate.”
The revision noted that the study changed after researchers included “confounding factors” impacting the virus.
Harvard’s research received extensive media attention with The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times publishing articles highlighting the study’s original claims.
The outlets have not yet updated their reporting to reflect the April 24 clarification posted on the school’s website.
“It is incumbent on you to accurately communicate the best available scientific understanding of the virus and the factors that may influence patient outcomes, not only to ensure American citizens are not misinformed but also to enable proper allocation of resources,” Harris wrote in the letter to Wheeler. Researchers have come out of the woodwork to criticize the study.
The study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, relies on a “statistical model that has not been tested and verified as yielding accurate predictions,” Tony Cox, who chairs the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, told the DCNF.
He and other researchers say spikes in deaths in certain areas were more likely a reflection of where those regions were on the virus curve rather than pollution.
Cities also have higher levels of air pollution, not to mention they have higher death rates from COVID-19 for reasons unrelated to pollution.
There are other factors that contribute to the virus’s spread. States and counties have adopted different social distancing guidelines, with states like Georgia adopting lax efforts while California adopted strict mitigation policies.
Harvard’s school of public health has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment about the clarification added to the study or the criticisms leveled against the research.
The study only notes an association between pollution and the virus, which originated in China, according to Stanley Young, a member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
“This is the proverbial butterfly in China causing a tornado in Alabama, and generally the world doesn’t work that way,” Young, a statistician, told the Washington Examiner.
“The paper is written in a way that strongly implies cause and effect,” he said before saying the study’s authors “could have been a lot more circumspect than that.” EPA spokeswoman Andrea Woods told the DCNF that the agency is looking into Harris’s letter and is preparing to respond “through proper channels.”
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-05--New Sham Study Means Greek, Roman, Egyptian Empires Never Existed

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Seemingly all of the major news media are breathlessly reporting today on a study claiming up to 3 billion people will live in “ nearly unlivable ” hot conditions by the year 2070 .
A look at the sham study , however , shows that if the study ’ s claims were correct , none of the Egyptian , Babylonian , Greek , or Roman empires could have existed .
Instead , publicity-seeking pseudo-scientists realize that the easiest path to fame , glory , and media adulation is to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to real-world climate or history .
USA Today summarizes the “ study ” , published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS ) : If global warming continues unchecked , the heat that ’ s coming later this century in some parts of the world will bring “ nearly unlivable ” conditions for up to 3 billion people , a study released Monday said .
The authors predict that by 2070 , much of the world ’ s population is likely to live in climate conditions that are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life to flourish.
” The study warned that unless greenhouse gas emissions are curtailed , average annual temperatures will rise beyond the climate “ niche ” in which humans have thrived for 6,000 years .
That “ niche ” is equivalent to average yearly temperatures of roughly 52 to 59 Fahrenheit .
The researchers found that people , despite all forms of innovations and migrations , have mostly lived in these climate conditions for several thousand years .
Serious glaring errors are immediately apparent .
Scientists estimate the present average temperature of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including scientists who published the very first UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) report , have long known that most of the past 6,000 years were warmer than today ( see the IPCC chart below , found at pg .
202 , here ) .
So , according to the new study , any city that currently experiences temperatures above 59 degrees would similarly be “ nearly unlivable ” during earlier times .
In fact , such cities would be even less livable in earlier times .
Rome , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 59.4 degrees .
According to the new study , it , therefore , must be “ nearly unlivable ” and “ warmer than conditions suitable for human life to flourish.
” Tell that to the people in Rome , and the people from all over the world who vacation there , in part due to its ideal climate .
If Rome has always been nearly unlivable and almost impossible for human life to flourish , how did the city of Rome form , grow , prosper , and support an entire empire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an average temperature of 63.7 degrees .
This is well above the upper limit of temperatures the new study says is livable and suitable for human life to flourish .
If Athens has always been nearly unlivable and almost impossible for human life to flourish , how did the city of Athens form , grow , prosper , and flourish as the heart of an entire empire ?
Cairo , Egypt , currently has an average temperature of 71.2 degrees .
This is more than 12 degrees above the upper limit of temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suitable for human life to flourish .
If Cairo has always been nearly unlivable and almost impossible for human life to flourish , how did Egypt form , grow , prosper , and support an entire empire ?
Baghdad , Iraq , near the ancient city of Babylon , currently has an average temperature of 73.2 degrees .
This is more than 14 degrees above the upper limit of temperatures the new study says is livable and suitable for human life to flourish .
If Baghdad/Babylon has always been nearly unlivable and almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how did the city of Babylon form , grow , prosper , and flourish as the heart of an entire empire ?
Here are some American cities , and their present average temperatures , for comparison : All of the above cities are considered to have a highly desirable climate .
All but San Francisco have average temperatures well above 59 degrees .
Even notoriously cool San Francisco is very close to being an “ unlivable ” hot city , according to the study .
Obviously , most people would not consider San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live in .
Let ’ s take this a step further .
Do the millions of people who choose to live in Phoenix , Arizona – many precisely because of its desirable climate – feel that its 75.1-degree average temperature is 16 degrees hotter than what is considered “ livable ” ?
How about Ft. Lauderdale , Florida , where millions of Americans dream of retiring ?
Is Ft. Lauderdale ’ s 76.5-degree average temperature unlivable ?
The temperatures of cities that forged ancient empires and the temperatures of cities that today are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the new PNAS study is complete garbage .
Media outlets that breathlessly and uncritically report on such a garbage study – including USA Today , the Washington Post , BBC News , and Yahoo News – are equally useless .
Ancient empires did exist , and their people flourished in temperatures much warmer than today .
CCD Editor : The study also used worst-case climate scenarios that most climatologists say are looking more and more unlikely to happen .

Written by James Taylor on May 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Seemingly all of the major news media are breathlessly reporting today on a study claiming up to 3 billion people will live in “nearly unlivable” hot conditions by the year 2070.
A look at the sham study, however, shows that if the study’s claims were correct, none of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, or Roman empires could have existed.
Instead, publicity-seeking pseudo-scientists realize that the easiest path to fame, glory, and media adulation is to make outrageous climate claims that bear no semblance to real-world climate or history.
USA Today summarizes the “study”, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):
If global warming continues unchecked, the heat that’s coming later this century in some parts of the world will bring “nearly unlivable” conditions for up to 3 billion people, a study released Monday said.
The authors predict that by 2070, much of the world’s population is likely to live in climate conditions that are “warmer than conditions deemed suitable for human life to flourish.”
The study warned that unless greenhouse gas emissions are curtailed, average annual temperatures will rise beyond the climate “niche” in which humans have thrived for 6,000 years.
That “niche” is equivalent to average yearly temperatures of roughly 52 to 59 Fahrenheit. The researchers found that people, despite all forms of innovations and migrations, have mostly lived in these climate conditions for several thousand years.
Serious glaring errors are immediately apparent. Scientists estimate the present average temperature of the Earth is 59 degrees Fahrenheit.
Scientists, including scientists who published the very first UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, have long known that most of the past 6,000 years were warmer than today (see the IPCC chart below, found at pg. 202, here).
So, according to the new study, any city that currently experiences temperatures above 59 degrees would similarly be “nearly unlivable” during earlier times. In fact, such cities would be even less livable in earlier times.
Rome, Italy, currently has an average temperature of 59.4 degrees. According to the new study, it, therefore, must be “nearly unlivable” and “warmer than conditions suitable for human life to flourish.”
Tell that to the people in Rome, and the people from all over the world who vacation there, in part due to its ideal climate.
If Rome has always been nearly unlivable and almost impossible for human life to flourish, how did the city of Rome form, grow, prosper, and support an entire empire?
Athens, Greece, currently has an average temperature of 63.7 degrees. This is well above the upper limit of temperatures the new study says is livable and suitable for human life to flourish.
If Athens has always been nearly unlivable and almost impossible for human life to flourish, how did the city of Athens form, grow, prosper, and flourish as the heart of an entire empire?
Cairo, Egypt, currently has an average temperature of 71.2 degrees. This is more than 12 degrees above the upper limit of temperatures the new study says is livable and suitable for human life to flourish.
If Cairo has always been nearly unlivable and almost impossible for human life to flourish, how did Egypt form, grow, prosper, and support an entire empire?
Baghdad, Iraq, near the ancient city of Babylon, currently has an average temperature of 73.2 degrees. This is more than 14 degrees above the upper limit of temperatures the new study says is livable and suitable for human life to flourish.
If Baghdad/Babylon has always been nearly unlivable and almost impossible for human life to flourish, how did the city of Babylon form, grow, prosper, and flourish as the heart of an entire empire?
Here are some American cities, and their present average temperatures, for comparison:
San Francisco, California: 57.3 degrees
Los Angeles, California: 65.4 degrees
San Diego, California: 65.5 degrees
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina: 66 degrees
All of the above cities are considered to have a highly desirable climate. All but San Francisco have average temperatures well above 59 degrees.
Even notoriously cool San Francisco is very close to being an “unlivable” hot city, according to the study. Obviously, most people would not consider San Francisco to be borderline too hot to live in.
Let’s take this a step further. Do the millions of people who choose to live in Phoenix, Arizona – many precisely because of its desirable climate – feel that its 75.1-degree average temperature is 16 degrees hotter than what is considered “livable”?
How about Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where millions of Americans dream of retiring? Is Ft. Lauderdale’s 76.5-degree average temperature unlivable?
The temperatures of cities that forged ancient empires and the temperatures of cities that today are considered to have an ideal climate show that the new PNAS study is complete garbage.
Media outlets that breathlessly and uncritically report on such a garbage study – including USA Today, the Washington Post, BBC News, and Yahoo News – are equally useless.
Ancient empires did exist, and their people flourished in temperatures much warmer than today.
CCD Editor: The study also used worst-case climate scenarios that most climatologists say are looking more and more unlikely to happen.
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