climatechangedispatch--2020-06-29--Renowned Green Activist Apologizes For The Climate Scare

Written by Michael Shellenberger on .
Posted in Latest news The following is a mea culpa from prominent climate activist and environmental leader Michael Shellenberger , a Time Magazine ‘ Hero of the Environment ’ ( pictured ) .
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere , I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years .
Climate change is happening .
It ’ s just not the end of the world .
It ’ s not even our most serious environmental problem .
I may seem like a strange person to be saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30 .
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony , and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) to serve as an Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report , I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public .
Here are some facts few people know : • The Amazon is not “ the lungs of the world ” • Fires have declined 25 % around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of land we use for meat — humankind ’ s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests , not climate change , explain why there are more , and more dangerous , fires in Australia and California • Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain , Germany , and France in the mid-seventies • Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “ industrial ” agriculture I know that the above facts will sound like “ climate denialism ” to many people .
But that just shows the power of climate alarmism .
In reality , the above facts come from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by or accepted by the IPCC , the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ) , the International Union for the Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) and other leading scientific bodies .
Some people will , when they read this imagine that I ’ m some right-wing anti-environmentalist .
I ’ m not .
At 17 , I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution .
At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women ’ s cooperatives .
In my early 20s , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small farmers fighting land invasions .
At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia .
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network .
At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California .
In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $ 90 billion into them .
Over the last few years , I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoided speaking out against the climate scare .
Partly that ’ s because I was embarrassed .
After all , I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist .
For years , I referred to climate change as an “ existential ” threat to human civilization , and called it a “ crisis.
” But mostly I was scared .
I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding .
The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public .
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist , good man , and friend of mine , Roger Pielke , Jr. , a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations .
Why did they do that ?
Because his research proves natural disasters aren ’ t getting worse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiraled out of control .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said , “ The world is going to end in twelve years if we don ’ t address climate change.
” Britain ’ s most high-profile environmental group claimed : “ Climate Change Kills Children.
” The world ’ s most influential green journalist , Bill McKibben , called climate change the “ greatest challenge humans have ever faced ” and said it would “ wipe out civilizations.
” Mainstream journalists reported , repeatedly , that the Amazon was “ the lungs of the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear bomb going off .
As a result , half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct .
And in January , one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change .
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is .
I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter .
After we talked about the science she was reassured .
But her friends are deeply misinformed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus decided I had to speak out .
I knew that writing a few articles wouldn ’ t be enough .
I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence .
And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book , Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All .
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism .
At 400 pages , with 100 of them endnotes , Apocalypse Never covers climate change , deforestation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrialization , meat , nuclear energy , and renewables .
Some highlights from the book : • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food , particularly meat , on less land • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium • 100 % renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today ’ s 0.5 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities , farms , and power plants to have higher , not lower , power densities • Vegetarianism reduces one ’ s emissions by less than 4 % • Greenpeace didn ’ t save the whales , switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did • “ Free-range ” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 % more emissions • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants Why were we all so misled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apocalypse Never I expose the financial , political , and ideological motivations .
Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests .
Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “ sustainable.
” And status anxiety , depression , and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been , often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations , it is hard not to feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference ?
There are certainly reasons to doubt it .
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s , and do not seem disposed to stop .
The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever .
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will , if not come to an end , have diminishing cultural power .
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think we have overreacted , Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe .
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science .
Their future existence and relevance depend on new leadership and serious reform .
Facts still matter , and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications .
Nations are reorienting toward the national interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism , which is good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to .
And the invitations I received from IPCC and Congress late last year after I published a series of criticisms of climate alarmism , are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment .
Another sign is the response to my book from climate scientists , conservationists , and environmental scholars .
“ Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The Making of the Atomic Bomb .
“ This may be the most important book on the environment ever written , ” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley .
“ We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias , ” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy , Steve McCormick .
“ But too often we are guilty of the same .
Shellenberger offers ‘ tough love : ’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasionally stinging , but always well-crafted , evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘ mental muscle ’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful , but an attainable , future.
” That is all that I had hoped for in writing it .
If you ’ ve made it this far , I hope you ’ ll agree that it ’ s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist , progressive , and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll accept my apology .
Michael Shellenberger was Time Magazine ’ s “ Hero of the Environment , ” Green Book Award Winner , and President of Environmental Progress , a research and policy organization .
He is also the author of several bestselling books.
, including Apocalypse Never .

Written by Michael Shellenberger on Jun 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The following is a mea culpa from prominent climate activist and environmental leader Michael Shellenberger, a Time Magazine ‘Hero of the Environment’ (pictured).
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening.
It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as an Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain, Germany, and France in the mid-seventies
Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives.
In my early 20s, I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California.
In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them.
Over the last few years, I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions
Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed.
After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding.
The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations.
Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed: “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”
Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.
As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter.
After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.
I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.
And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.
Some highlights from the book:
Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants
Why were we all so misled?
In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests.
Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.”
And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism
Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.
Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.
The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depend on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.
Nations are reorienting toward the national interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
And the invitations I received from IPCC and Congress late last year after I published a series of criticisms of climate alarmism, are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment.
Another sign is the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars.
“Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.
“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”
That is all that I had hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.
I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.
Michael Shellenberger was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. He is also the author of several bestselling books., including Apocalypse Never.
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--2020-06-29--‘Teenage God’ Of Global Worrying Says World Leaders Used Her

Written by Sky News on .
Posted in Latest news The “ teenage God of global warming ” Greta Thunberg @ @ @ @ @ lack of relevance following her recent calls on world leaders to remember they should feel @ @ @ @ @ News host Andrew Bolt .
It comes as the Swedish activist criticized world leaders for @ @ @ @ @ to her and use the hashtag ‘ # savetheplanet ’ on their Instagram pictures but @ @ @ @ @ a moment to be ashamed that their generation had let future generations down , ” @ @ @ @ @ said the activist told Swedish radio “ she ’ d been used.
” “ What @ @ @ @ @ saw that coming , ” he said .
He said the teenager “ was used @ @ @ @ @ , presidents , prime ministers , politicians of all kinds , European Union , French @ @ @ @ @ UN.
” “ I don ’ t think she realized she didn ’ t create @ @ @ @ @ .
”

Written by Sky News on Jun 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The “teenage God of global warming” Greta Thunberg is now feeling a sudden lack of relevance following her recent calls on world leaders to remember they should feel ashamed, according to Sky News host Andrew Bolt.
It comes as the Swedish activist criticized world leaders for seeking to take pictures next to her and use the hashtag ‘#savetheplanet’ on their Instagram pictures but have subsequently “forgotten for a moment to be ashamed that their generation had let future generations down,” she said.
Mr. Bolt said the activist told Swedish radio “she’d been used.”
“What a shock, I never saw that coming,” he said.
He said the teenager “was used as a prop by princes, presidents, prime ministers, politicians of all kinds, European Union, French Parliament (and the) UN.”
“I don’t think she realized she didn’t create them, they created her.”
h/t RCS
Read more at Sky News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-29--The GWPF Think Tank Launches ‘Energy For Africa’ Week

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , GWPF , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Today , the Global Warming Policy Foundation ( GWPF ) is launching its Energy Justice project , seeking to highlight how reliable energy access is central to the problems of people and businesses in the developing world , and showing how it must be central to any attempts to change things for the better .
Energy Justice is centered around a new website , that will highlight our research into some of these areas through reports and videos .
To kick off the project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Africa ” week .
In all the discussions about the developing world , about its poverty and its stuttering progress towards a developed future , it is all too easy to forget the ordinary people and their suffering .
So the first paper commissioned as part of the project attempts to put a human face on the question of energy access .
Entitled , Heart of Darkness : Why energy poverty is a security issue , this is a deeply personal view of the problems of energy access in Sub-Saharan Africa by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the street corners of Johannesburg to a nyaradzo – a countryside funeral , Hill shows how lack of energy blights the hopes for Africa ’ s people , tempting the young away from the countryside , to emigrate , or sometimes even to take up lives of crime .
He also shows how new research into clean coal , often driven by Africans themselves , may offer a way out , while also highlighting Africans ’ suspicions of the renewable energy “ solutions ” foisted on them by aid organizations and Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ papers on the problems of South Africa ’ s energy utility Eskom , as well as a series of short videos , highlighting Africa ’ s energy poverty amidst Western obstruction .
Heart of Darkness : Why energy poverty is a security issue ( pdf )

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on Jun 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Today, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is launching its Energy Justice project, seeking to highlight how reliable energy access is central to the problems of people and businesses in the developing world, and showing how it must be central to any attempts to change things for the better.
Energy Justice is centered around a new website, that will highlight our research into some of these areas through reports and videos. To kick off the project, GWPF has designated this “Energy for Africa” week.
In all the discussions about the developing world, about its poverty and its stuttering progress towards a developed future, it is all too easy to forget the ordinary people and their suffering.
So the first paper commissioned as part of the project attempts to put a human face on the question of energy access. Entitled, Heart of Darkness: Why energy poverty is a security issue, this is a deeply personal view of the problems of energy access in Sub-Saharan Africa by journalist Geoff Hill.
From blanket hawkers on the street corners of Johannesburg to a nyaradzo – a countryside funeral, Hill shows how lack of energy blights the hopes for Africa’s people, tempting the young away from the countryside, to emigrate, or sometimes even to take up lives of crime.
He also shows how new research into clean coal, often driven by Africans themselves, may offer a way out, while also highlighting Africans’ suspicions of the renewable energy “solutions” foisted on them by aid organizations and Western campaigners.
The project will continue with papers on the problems of South Africa’s energy utility Eskom, as well as a series of short videos, highlighting Africa’s energy poverty amidst Western obstruction.
Heart of Darkness: Why energy poverty is a security issue (pdf)
Energy Justice website
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-29--How The Ugliest, Most Implausible Climate Scenario Won

Written by Donna Laframboise on .
Posted in Latest news Science is not supposed to mislead .
It ’ s supposed to be precise .
Rigorous .
Circumspect .
But in recent years , something sneaky and unethical has occurred .
Officials have begun talking about the worst-case climate scenario is if it were our likely future .
More than a decade ago , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed four fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100 .
There was an optimistic scenario , two mid-range scenarios , and a pessimistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RCP8.5 ( I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophesy 8 dot 5 ) .
In January , Zeke Hausfather and Glenn Peters published a comment in Nature reminding everyone that RCP8.5 isn ’ t a realistic vision of the future .
It represents an unlikely , high-risk , dystopian world ( their words ) in which “ the dice are loaded with the worst outcomes.
” It can ’ t become reality , they point out , unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do , “ an amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserves.
” Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned , they say , it should be clearly labeled as an “ unlikely worst case.
” US climate analyst Roger Pielke Jr. has similarly written a trio of articles that document how RCP8.5 “ moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions , ” corrupting great swaths of the scientific literature along the way ( see here , here , and here ) .
He , too , calls the RCP8.5 vision of the future imaginary and impossible .
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RCP8.5 , he says , is “ a scorcher that predicts historically unprecedented increases in global CO2 emissions.
” Using words such as implausible , improbable , exaggerated , and distortion , he makes it clear the only place this vision of the future exists is in fevered imaginations .
“ No one seriously believes , ” he says , that the increase of coal consumption described by RCP8.5 “ is even possible.
” Even journalists who ’ ve hyped the climate threat are wising up .
In an article titled We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Future – and It ’ s Not as Bad as It Once Looked , David Wallace-Wells reports that most experts he ’ s interviewed “ told me that they did not see RCP8.5 as a plausible scenario.
” By the year 2100 , remember , teenager Greta Thunberg will be 97 years old .
Wallace-Wells observes that any attempt to predict what the world will be like that far into the future is really just “ a foolish game.
” Yet that is what much of climate ‘ science ’ – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
In 2018 , the front page of the New York Times announced : U.S .
Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy .
It began this way : Incredibly , that ‘ major scientific report ’ takes RCP8.5 seriously .
Calling it a “ core scenario , ” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination : This means the report is junk .
No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation .
But the Times didn ’ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Donna Laframboise on Jun 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Science is not supposed to mislead. It’s supposed to be precise. Rigorous. Circumspect.
But in recent years, something sneaky and unethical has occurred. Officials have begun talking about the worst-case climate scenario is if it were our likely future.
More than a decade ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed four fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100.
There was an optimistic scenario, two mid-range scenarios, and a pessimistic scenario.
The latter is known as RCP8.5 (I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophesy 8 dot 5).
In January, Zeke Hausfather and Glenn Peters published a comment in Nature reminding everyone that RCP8.5 isn’t a realistic vision of the future.
It represents an unlikely, high-risk, dystopian world (their words) in which “the dice are loaded with the worst outcomes.”
It can’t become reality, they point out, unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do, “an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves.”
Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned, they say, it should be clearly labeled as an “unlikely worst case.”
Their plea is unmistakable:
We must all – from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers – stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. [bold added]
US climate analyst Roger Pielke Jr. has similarly written a trio of articles that document how RCP8.5 “moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions,” corrupting great swaths of the scientific literature along the way (see here, here, and here).
He, too, calls the RCP8.5 vision of the future imaginary and impossible.
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick is also ringing the alarm bell. RCP8.5, he says, is “a scorcher that predicts historically unprecedented increases in global CO2 emissions.”
Using words such as implausible, improbable, exaggerated, and distortion, he makes it clear the only place this vision of the future exists is in fevered imaginations.
“No one seriously believes,” he says, that the increase of coal consumption described by RCP8.5 “is even possible.”
Even journalists who’ve hyped the climate threat are wising up. In an article titled We’re Getting a Clearer Picture of the Climate Future – and It’s Not as Bad as It Once Looked, David Wallace-Wells reports that most experts he’s interviewed “told me that they did not see RCP8.5 as a plausible scenario.”
By the year 2100, remember, teenager Greta Thunberg will be 97 years old. Wallace-Wells observes that any attempt to predict what the world will be like that far into the future is really just “a foolish game.”
In his words:
Projecting what global energy use will be in the year 2100 is the equivalent of trusting projections made in 1940 about where we are today.
Yet that is what much of climate ‘science’ – and climate ‘journalism’ – now amounts to. In 2018, the front page of the New York Times announced: U.S. Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy.
It began this way:
A major scientific report issued by 13 federal agencies on Friday presents the starkest warnings to date of the consequences of climate change for the United States, predicting that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end. [bold added]
Incredibly, that ‘major scientific report’ takes RCP8.5 seriously. Calling it a “core scenario,” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination:
RCP8.5 is generally associated with higher population growth, less technological innovation, and higher carbon intensity of the global energy mix.
This means the report is junk. No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation. But the Times didn’t tell readers that.
Read rest at Big Pic News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-29--The Ninety-Seven Percent Consensus Myth

The Ninety-Seven Percent Consensus Myth

Written by John O'Sullivan on .
Posted in Latest news Public opinion on global warming/climate change has been relatively stable for some time across the globe .
Naturally , there are variations between nations , age-groups , and time-periods , but most surveys show a rough division of opinion between two-thirds of respondents who believe that global warming is largely caused by human activity and a serious threat to the world , and those who are skeptical on both points .
Of some moderate interest is that older people and those on the Right ( Republicans , Conservatives , Tories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and those on the Left ( Democrats , Labourites , etc . )
Inevitably , however , the explanations for these examples of partisanship are partisan , too .
Are young people more idealistic and global-minded in their concerns ?
Or are older people simply wiser because they ’ ve experienced other official “ scares ” as they ’ ve gone around the block ?
Do Democrats have more trust in government forecasts than the GOP ?
Or do Republicans have a stronger nervousness about rising costs of policy and the bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these questions because partisan attitudes tend to change when we change the subject .
Democrats tend to be more concerned about rising costs when the money is spent on defense programs .
Republicans trust official forecasts more when they show that tax cuts cost less or even repay themselves .
And so on , and so on .
That said , it ’ s oddly interesting ( i.e.
, counter-intuitive ) that political partisanship seems to operate on global warming as strongly among scientists as among the rest of us .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Earth Day showed that while Democrats with a high degree of scientific knowledge were likely to have a strong belief in the human contribution to climate change , Republicans with the same level of information were much more skeptical .
These are intriguing , even embarrassing , results .
The researchers plainly thought so , because they added this somewhat nervous comment on them : And maybe they illustrate something else , too .
These results seem to conflict with perhaps the single best-known statistic about science and global warming , namely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global warming .
To unpack that claim , they believe that global warming is happening , it ’ s man-made , and it ’ s dangerous .
That ’ s President Obama speaking .
Former Secretary of State John Kerry added the word “ urgent.
” And that ’ s pretty much the internationally respectable orthodoxy of officialdom and the media .
Anyone who dissents from it is labeled a “ climate denier ” and , as Herbert Spencer said of such judgments a century and a half ago , “ nothing he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But that raises a doubt .
If ninety-seven percent of the scientists you meet believe in global warming , how come that many Republicans knowledgeable about science don ’ t believe them ?
That simply wouldn ’ t happen , and we can say that on scientific grounds .
People are sensitive even against their will to the opinions of those around them .
As the great sociologist of religion , Peter Berger , pointed out in “ A Rumor of Angels ” some years ago , if you were marooned on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astrology , you ’ d be saying six months later that there really might be something in this “ governed by the stars ” stuff .
And if you want a brilliant fictional explanation of that , read H.G .
Wells ’ s superb early science fiction short story : “ In the Country of the Blind.
” That so many people who take science seriously also doubt the orthodoxy of global warming can not simply be explained as the result of their blind political partisanship .
That might bias them but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 97 percent of scientists they either meet or read .
So maybe that 97 percent is a mistake .
Once that question is raised , moreover , it soon becomes clear that whatever that statistic is , it certainly isn ’ t the unvarnished truth .
If you want the short version of why that is , please have a look at this , in which Dr. John Robson takes you on a witty and entertaining tour of how that statistic was compiled and sold to the world with fun graphics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background .
Among those organizations that suspected something was wrong with 97 percent figure was the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington which , among other tasks , has a watching brief on Green Ideology run amok .
The 97 percent claim is an obvious target for the CEI .
On July 19 last year , it submitted a formal complaint to NASA , which has on its website the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for global warming .
Though more or less bogus , that claim was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government agencies have to meet certain standards when they make such assertions .
So they can be held to account for misleading statements .
When CEI filed its petition , for instance , it did so under the Information Quality Act ( IQA ) —pointing out major flaws in studies cited by NASA to justify its claim and asking NASA to remove it from the website and any materials it circulated .
The substantial flaws it finds in the studies include arbitrarily excluding from the survey ’ s scientists who have published peer-reviewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grounds that they were not climate scientists ; misrepresenting the conclusions of scientific papers , as the scientists concerned later complained , to make them fit the desired conclusion ; and above all assigning papers that expressed no opinion on man-made global warming into the 97 percent column .
When these failings were corrected , the 97 percent estimate fell massively in all cases to numbers ranging from one-third of climate scientists to 1.6 percent !
As yet the CEI-NASA dispute remains as unsettled as the science now seems to be .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your signature to the petition CEI has launched , and unless NASA has some almost magical reply to CEI ’ s documented critique , you probably should .
For the 97 percent statistic , in addition to looking like a myth , is and always was a club to beat down any criticism of , let alone opposition to , the “ international community ’ s ” vastly expensive plans to revolutionize the world ’ s economy along dirigiste lines .
And before it started to wobble under Dr. Robson ’ s and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performed the vital function of sustaining the all-but-monolithic support for global warming shown by the statistics of popular opinion quoted at the start of this column .
Now that the key 97 percent statistic is crumbling , however , how long will the other statistics showing a two-thirds majority believing in mankind ’ s culpability in “ climate change ” remain dominant , let alone stable ?
John O ’ Sullivan is the editor-at-large of National Review , editor of Australia ’ s Quadrant , and president of the Danube Institute .
Read @ @ @ @

Written by John O'Sullivan on Jun 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Public opinion on global warming/climate change has been relatively stable for some time across the globe.
Naturally, there are variations between nations, age-groups, and time-periods, but most surveys show a rough division of opinion between two-thirds of respondents who believe that global warming is largely caused by human activity and a serious threat to the world, and those who are skeptical on both points.
Of some moderate interest is that older people and those on the Right (Republicans, Conservatives, Tories) are somewhat more skeptical than younger people and those on the Left (Democrats, Labourites, etc.)
Inevitably, however, the explanations for these examples of partisanship are partisan, too.
Are young people more idealistic and global-minded in their concerns? Or are older people simply wiser because they’ve experienced other official “scares” as they’ve gone around the block?
Do Democrats have more trust in government forecasts than the GOP? Or do Republicans have a stronger nervousness about rising costs of policy and the bottom line?
There are no correct answers to these questions because partisan attitudes tend to change when we change the subject.
Democrats tend to be more concerned about rising costs when the money is spent on defense programs. Republicans trust official forecasts more when they show that tax cuts cost less or even repay themselves. And so on, and so on.
That said, it’s oddly interesting (i.e., counter-intuitive) that political partisanship seems to operate on global warming as strongly among scientists as among the rest of us.
A Pew Research survey for this year’s Earth Day showed that while Democrats with a high degree of scientific knowledge were likely to have a strong belief in the human contribution to climate change, Republicans with the same level of information were much more skeptical.
These are intriguing, even embarrassing, results. The researchers plainly thought so, because they added this somewhat nervous comment on them:
A similar pattern was found regarding people’s beliefs about energy issues. These findings illustrate that the relationship between people’s level of science knowledge and their attitudes can be complex.
And maybe they illustrate something else, too.
These results seem to conflict with perhaps the single best-known statistic about science and global warming, namely that 97 percent of scientists believe in global warming.
To unpack that claim, they believe that global warming is happening, it’s man-made, and it’s dangerous. That’s President Obama speaking.
Former Secretary of State John Kerry added the word “urgent.” And that’s pretty much the internationally respectable orthodoxy of officialdom and the media.
Anyone who dissents from it is labeled a “climate denier” and, as Herbert Spencer said of such judgments a century and a half ago, “nothing he says thereafter need be listened to again.”
But that raises a doubt. If ninety-seven percent of the scientists you meet believe in global warming, how come that many Republicans knowledgeable about science don’t believe them?
That simply wouldn’t happen, and we can say that on scientific grounds. People are sensitive even against their will to the opinions of those around them.
As the great sociologist of religion, Peter Berger, pointed out in “A Rumor of Angels” some years ago, if you were marooned on an island inhabited entirely by believers in astrology, you’d be saying six months later that there really might be something in this “governed by the stars” stuff.
And if you want a brilliant fictional explanation of that, read H.G. Wells’s superb early science fiction short story: “In the Country of the Blind.”
That so many people who take science seriously also doubt the orthodoxy of global warming cannot simply be explained as the result of their blind political partisanship.
That might bias them but it wouldn’t outweigh the overwhelming testimony of 97 percent of scientists they either meet or read.
So maybe that 97 percent is a mistake. Once that question is raised, moreover, it soon becomes clear that whatever that statistic is, it certainly isn’t the unvarnished truth.
If you want the short version of why that is, please have a look at this, in which Dr. John Robson takes you on a witty and entertaining tour of how that statistic was compiled and sold to the world with fun graphics and Ravel’s Bolero as a soothing background.
Among those organizations that suspected something was wrong with 97 percent figure was the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington which, among other tasks, has a watching brief on Green Ideology run amok.
The 97 percent claim is an obvious target for the CEI. On July 19 last year, it submitted a formal complaint to NASA, which has on its website the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for global warming.
Though more or less bogus, that claim was a boon to climate skeptics because U.S. government agencies have to meet certain standards when they make such assertions.
So they can be held to account for misleading statements. When CEI filed its petition, for instance, it did so under the Information Quality Act (IQA)—pointing out major flaws in studies cited by NASA to justify its claim and asking NASA to remove it from the website and any materials it circulated.
The substantial flaws it finds in the studies include arbitrarily excluding from the survey’s scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles in journals of climate science on the grounds that they were not climate scientists; misrepresenting the conclusions of scientific papers, as the scientists concerned later complained, to make them fit the desired conclusion; and above all assigning papers that expressed no opinion on man-made global warming into the 97 percent column.
When these failings were corrected, the 97 percent estimate fell massively in all cases to numbers ranging from one-third of climate scientists to 1.6 percent!
As yet the CEI-NASA dispute remains as unsettled as the science now seems to be. If you wish, you can add your signature to the petition CEI has launched, and unless NASA has some almost magical reply to CEI’s documented critique, you probably should.
For the 97 percent statistic, in addition to looking like a myth, is and always was a club to beat down any criticism of, let alone opposition to, the “international community’s” vastly expensive plans to revolutionize the world’s economy along dirigiste lines.
And before it started to wobble under Dr. Robson’s and CEI’s criticism, it also performed the vital function of sustaining the all-but-monolithic support for global warming shown by the statistics of popular opinion quoted at the start of this column.
Now that the key 97 percent statistic is crumbling, however, how long will the other statistics showing a two-thirds majority believing in mankind’s culpability in “climate change” remain dominant, let alone stable?
John O’Sullivan is the editor-at-large of National Review, editor of Australia’s Quadrant, and president of the Danube Institute.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-29--Extinction Rebellion Occupies Paris Airport, Wants To Ban Flights

Written by Chris Tomlinson on .
Posted in Latest news Members of the climate change alarmist group Extinction Rebellion occupied runways at Paris Orly Airport on Friday , interrupting flights and demanding domestic air travel be canceled .
Airports in France , heavily impacted by coronavirus restrictions , begun increasing their operations only recently , but passenger flights were interrupted by the Extinction Rebellion group on Friday morning , with activists demanding that all domestic air travel in France be banned .
Extinction Rebellion insists that domestic air travel should be banned to lower greenhouse gas emissions , and carried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s save the living , not the planes.
” A Corsica Airlines aircraft was delayed by the group and forced to take off from a different runway , Le Figaro reports .
A member of the organization named Franck told French media : “ It is a symbol of facing an airplane , to face what puts us in danger.
” The activist went on to note that he was surprised that the police reaction to the demonstration took as long as it did , saying , “ We expected a faster reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anyone can enter.
” A spokesperson of the French Secretariat of State for Transport said that 29 people were arrested for entering the secure area of the airport .
Extinction Rebellion is not the only one on the side of banning domestic flights within France .
The government of President Emmanuel Macron has also come out in support of such a policy , making it a requirement for Air France to receive coronavirus bailout cash .
French Minister of the Economy Bruno Le Maire said that in order to get the cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greenest airline in the world : “ It involves the elimination of domestic flights , and quite frankly when you can make the train journey in less than two and a half hours , taking a plane is not justified .
It should not be a transitional measure but a definitive measure.
” Climate change extremists have previously made threats to the Labour Party in the United Kingdom , saying they would launch cyberattacks against the left-wing party for supporting bailouts for British airlines .

Written by Chris Tomlinson on Jun 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Members of the climate change alarmist group Extinction Rebellion occupied runways at Paris Orly Airport on Friday, interrupting flights and demanding domestic air travel be canceled.
Airports in France, heavily impacted by coronavirus restrictions, begun increasing their operations only recently, but passenger flights were interrupted by the Extinction Rebellion group on Friday morning, with activists demanding that all domestic air travel in France be banned.
Extinction Rebellion insists that domestic air travel should be banned to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and carried banners at Orly stating “let’s save the living, not the planes.”
A Corsica Airlines aircraft was delayed by the group and forced to take off from a different runway, Le Figaro reports.
A member of the organization named Franck told French media: “It is a symbol of facing an airplane, to face what puts us in danger.”
The activist went on to note that he was surprised that the police reaction to the demonstration took as long as it did, saying, “We expected a faster reaction. It says a lot about security, anyone can enter.”
A spokesperson of the French Secretariat of State for Transport said that 29 people were arrested for entering the secure area of the airport.
Extinction Rebellion is not the only one on the side of banning domestic flights within France. The government of President Emmanuel Macron has also come out in support of such a policy, making it a requirement for Air France to receive coronavirus bailout cash.
French Minister of the Economy Bruno Le Maire said that in order to get the cash, the airline would have to become the greenest airline in the world:
“It involves the elimination of domestic flights, and quite frankly when you can make the train journey in less than two and a half hours, taking a plane is not justified. It should not be a transitional measure but a definitive measure.”
Climate change extremists have previously made threats to the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, saying they would launch cyberattacks against the left-wing party for supporting bailouts for British airlines.
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--2020-07-01--Phys.org Busted: Study Asserts NO Link Between Flooding and Climate Change

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Phys.org has published an article , misleadingly titled , “ How increased flooding due to climate change impacts waterways across the U.S , ” that is among the top Google News search results today for “ climate change.
” The article discusses a paper published in the journal Nature Communications .
In fact , the Nature Communications paper does not say climate change is causing increased flooding .
Indeed , it does not really discuss climate change at all .
Instead , it examines a little-discussed aspect of flood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas as well as imposing costs .
After the Nature Communications study was published , Phys.org interviewed the lead author , Durelle Scott , an associate professor of Biological Systems Engineering affiliate of the Global Change Center at Virginia Tech .
Scott told Phys.org , “ The big picture is that flooding across the world is increasing with climate change , but not all flooding is bad and catastrophic , ” but the study itself doesn ’ t say floods are getting worse due to climate change .
Even Scott ’ s statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is coincident with climate change , not that it is being caused by it .
Nor does Scott ’ s paper conduct any specific analysis regarding flooding and climate change .
Among scientists who have actually studied the issue , even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have found no evidence of increased flooding frequency or severity as the climate has modestly warmed .
Indeed , as discussed in Climate at a Glance : Floods , IPCC admits having “ low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding the frequency or severity of floods , going so far as to say it has “ low confidence ” in even the “ sign ” of any changes—in other words , it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe .
Also , a 2017 study in the Journal of Hydrology discussing climate impact on flooding for the USA and Europe , concluded : “ … the number of significant trends [ concerning floods ] was about the number expected due to chance alone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.
” Even if there were a climate-change impact on flooding , Scott ’ s new study does not address or make any new findings on the topic .
Nevertheless , Phys.org asserts the opposite , driven by aggressive alarmism , clickbait deception , or both .
While some increased flooding has occurred , scientists report changes in land use are the main factor .
As human societies have urbanized , this urbanization has impacted streamflow and water drainage .
Environmental laws and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
For example , recent widespread flooding across parts of the United Kingdom was shown to be tied to European Union environmental regulations preventing the dredging , deepening , and on occasion widening and building embankments along rivers .
Also contributing to flooding events are the conversion of floodplains and wetlands to urban development ; the increase in impervious surfaces , leading to ever greater runoff during storms ; the rapid draining of shallow aquifers ; stream channelization ; land subsidence ; and government policies subsidizing and otherwise encouraging below-market flood insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , scientists report no evidence of climate change increasing the frequency or severity of floods .
Scientists report that any increase in flooding in recent decades is due instead to human land-use changes .
The fact that Phys.org claims a link between floods and climate change , when the actual study does not even address the topic , is shameful although not surprising .
That is after all , similar to how alarmists produce the faux 97 percent consensus .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Phys.org has published an article, misleadingly titled, “How increased flooding due to climate change impacts waterways across the U.S,” that is among the top Google News search results today for “climate change.”
The article discusses a paper published in the journal Nature Communications. In fact, the Nature Communications paper does not say climate change is causing increased flooding.
Indeed, it does not really discuss climate change at all. Instead, it examines a little-discussed aspect of flood events: floods deliver benefits to affected areas as well as imposing costs.
After the Nature Communications study was published, Phys.org interviewed the lead author, Durelle Scott, an associate professor of Biological Systems Engineering affiliate of the Global Change Center at Virginia Tech.
Scott told Phys.org, “The big picture is that flooding across the world is increasing with climate change, but not all flooding is bad and catastrophic,” but the study itself doesn’t say floods are getting worse due to climate change.
Even Scott’s statement is equivocal. It indicates increased flooding is coincident with climate change, not that it is being caused by it. Nor does Scott’s paper conduct any specific analysis regarding flooding and climate change.
Among scientists who have actually studied the issue, even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have found no evidence of increased flooding frequency or severity as the climate has modestly warmed.
Indeed, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Floods, IPCC admits having “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to say it has “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes—in other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe.
Also, a 2017 study in the Journal of Hydrology discussing climate impact on flooding for the USA and Europe, concluded: “… the number of significant trends [concerning floods] was about the number expected due to chance alone,” and “[c]hanges in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.”
Even if there were a climate-change impact on flooding, Scott’s new study does not address or make any new findings on the topic. Nevertheless, Phys.org asserts the opposite, driven by aggressive alarmism, clickbait deception, or both.
While some increased flooding has occurred, scientists report changes in land use are the main factor.
As human societies have urbanized, this urbanization has impacted streamflow and water drainage. Environmental laws and regulations have contributed to this, as well.
For example, recent widespread flooding across parts of the United Kingdom was shown to be tied to European Union environmental regulations preventing the dredging, deepening, and on occasion widening and building embankments along rivers.
Also contributing to flooding events are the conversion of floodplains and wetlands to urban development; the increase in impervious surfaces, leading to ever greater runoff during storms; the rapid draining of shallow aquifers; stream channelization; land subsidence; and government policies subsidizing and otherwise encouraging below-market flood insurance policies in flood-prone areas.
In short, scientists report no evidence of climate change increasing the frequency or severity of floods. Scientists report that any increase in flooding in recent decades is due instead to human land-use changes.
The fact that Phys.org claims a link between floods and climate change, when the actual study does not even address the topic, is shameful although not surprising. That is after all, similar to how alarmists produce the faux 97 percent consensus.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--Forbes Cancels Activist’s Apology For Pushing The ‘Climate Scare’

Written by John Robson on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s big news when somebody prominent apologizes for being badly wrong on a major public matter , promises to do better going forward , and urges others to do the same , right ?
Unless the person commits heresy like , say , Michael Shellenberger .
In case you missed it , and they did their best to make sure you did , Shellenberger is an excruciatingly woke environmentalist and progressive .
By his own account , “ At 17 , I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women ’ s co-operatives .
In my early 20s , I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions .
At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
” His environmentalist credentials are equally solid beginning with raising money for Rainforest Action Network at 16 .
But in cancel culture , all that is solid melts into air … with a little help from a match .
Including Shellenberger ’ s remarkable cri de coeur in Forbes starting “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years .
Climate change is happening .
It ’ s just not the end of the world .
It ’ s not even our most serious environmental problem.
” Sorry .
Did I say “ in Forbes ?
” Alas , if you go there now you get a terse “ This page is no longer active .
We regret any inconvenience.
” In the fast-vanishing spirit of fair play , I contacted Forbes to see if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tovarisch .
Their initial wary response asked “ the angle of your column ” and suggested , “ a brief call for us to connect.
” I retorted that “ the ‘ angle ’ of my column has no bearing on the reasons for your decision ” and asked bluntly “ Was it because you discovered a factual error ?
Because of protests from subscribers ?
Because of protests from within the organization ?
Because something in it struck you as legally problematic ?
It ’ s a pretty major decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization took it , and that this person knows why .
Please ask them , and tell me what they said.
” Their reply , which would make a seasoned politician or bureaucrat blush , read , in its entirety , “ You can attribute the below statement to a Forbes spokesperson .
Forbes requires its contributors to adhere to strict editorial guidelines .
This story did not follow those guidelines , and was removed.
” I responded tartly : “ Thanks .
But obviously this statement raises fresh questions , particularly : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow ?
2 .
In what way did it not follow them ?
3 .
How often do you remove a story for violating those guidelines ?
” As you may imagine , that inquiry went down the memory hole .
I won ’ t say I became a non-person because I think I was one already .
But Shellenberger sure did .
Except he didn ’ t , because for all its faults the internet is a really lousy place to hide things .
People archived the piece ( here for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book , Apocalypse Never , is Amazon ’ s “ # 1 Best Seller in Climatology.
” Since you can read it for yourself despite Forbes ’ craven hypocrisy , I won ’ t spend much time on the column ’ s contents , including statements like “ Climate change is not making natural disasters worse.
” But let me quote one highly pertinent part .
“ Until last year , I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare .
Partly that ’ s because I was embarrassed .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other environmentalist .
For years , I referred to climate change as an ‘ existential ’ threat to human civilization , and called it a ‘ crisis.
’ But mostly I was scared.
” “ I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding .
The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences .
And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ courageous dissenters standing up to the patriarchy or some such vanished bogeyman .
In fact , I think one reason they ’ re so frantic is they ’ re all geared up for mortal combat against a foe who ’ s fled the field .
But regardless , the truth is that they ’ re running the show and running it as nasty , scary bullies who do not tolerate dissent .
They no longer favor free speech even in principle .
For decades young people have been educated and socialized to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant issue from climate to gender to economics .
And it worked .
Some like Shellenberger have the courage and profile to stand up to this ill-educated , ill-bred mob and prevail .
But for the average person , including academics , it ’ s flat-out terrifying .
So they stand mute and trembling as the tumbril passes by .
Somebody owes us an apology .

Written by John Robson on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s big news when somebody prominent apologizes for being badly wrong on a major public matter, promises to do better going forward, and urges others to do the same, right?
Unless the person commits heresy like, say, Michael Shellenberger.
In case you missed it, and they did their best to make sure you did, Shellenberger is an excruciatingly woke environmentalist and progressive.
By his own account, “At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s co-operatives. In my early 20s, I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.”
His environmentalist credentials are equally solid beginning with raising money for Rainforest Action Network at 16. But in cancel culture, all that is solid melts into air … with a little help from a match.
Including Shellenberger’s remarkable cri de coeur in Forbes starting “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”
Sorry. Did I say “in Forbes?” Alas, if you go there now you get a terse “This page is no longer active. We regret any inconvenience.” In the fast-vanishing spirit of fair play, I contacted Forbes to see if it was just a technical glitch. Nyet, tovarisch.
Their initial wary response asked “the angle of your column” and suggested, “a brief call for us to connect.”
I retorted that “the ‘angle’ of my column has no bearing on the reasons for your decision” and asked bluntly “Was it because you discovered a factual error? Because of protests from subscribers? Because of protests from within the organization? Because something in it struck you as legally problematic? It’s a pretty major decision. I assume someone fairly senior in the organization took it, and that this person knows why. Please ask them, and tell me what they said.”
Their reply, which would make a seasoned politician or bureaucrat blush, read, in its entirety, “You can attribute the below statement to a Forbes spokesperson. Forbes requires its contributors to adhere to strict editorial guidelines. This story did not follow those guidelines, and was removed.”
I responded tartly: “Thanks. But obviously this statement raises fresh questions, particularly: 1. Which guidelines did it not follow? 2. In what way did it not follow them? 3. How often do you remove a story for violating those guidelines?”
As you may imagine, that inquiry went down the memory hole. I won’t say I became a non-person because I think I was one already. But Shellenberger sure did.
Except he didn’t, because for all its faults the internet is a really lousy place to hide things. People archived the piece (here for instance). And Shellenberger’s new book, Apocalypse Never, is Amazon’s “#1 Best Seller in Climatology.”
Since you can read it for yourself despite Forbes’ craven hypocrisy, I won’t spend much time on the column’s contents, including statements like “Climate change is not making natural disasters worse.” But let me quote one highly pertinent part.
“Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis.’ But mostly I was scared.”
Yes. Scared.
“I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”
The SJWs like to pose as courageous dissenters standing up to the patriarchy or some such vanished bogeyman. In fact, I think one reason they’re so frantic is they’re all geared up for mortal combat against a foe who’s fled the field.
But regardless, the truth is that they’re running the show and running it as nasty, scary bullies who do not tolerate dissent.
They no longer favor free speech even in principle. For decades young people have been educated and socialized to believe there is only one side to any significant issue from climate to gender to economics. And it worked.
Some like Shellenberger have the courage and profile to stand up to this ill-educated, ill-bred mob and prevail.
But for the average person, including academics, it’s flat-out terrifying. So they stand mute and trembling as the tumbril passes by.
Somebody owes us an apology.
h/t Rúnar O.
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--2020-07-02--Why Environmentalism Is A Racist Ideology

Written by Ben Pile on .
Posted in Latest news As reported on spiked last month , it did not take long for green ideologues to seize on the chaos of the coronavirus pandemic .
And in recent weeks , racial politics has exploded , putting the Black Lives Matter movement at the center of global attention .
In its wake , jealous greens have sought to capture the narrative of racial grievance .
But by highlighting what they claim are the racial dimensions of climate change , what greens have instead exposed are their deep contradictions and callous indifference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s poor .
At the end of May , having only just been reinvented as an expert on coronavirus , Greta Thunberg tweeted : ‘ Centuries of structural and systematic racism and social injustice won ’ t go away by itself .
We need a global structural change .
The injustices must come to an end.
’ It is an interesting claim , not least for its remarkable resemblance to her claims about climate change .
In a more recent tweet , she opined : ‘ The climate and ecological crisis can no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political and economic systems .
That ’ s not an opinion .
It ’ s just simple maths.
’ This is not a coincidence .
As I have long argued on spiked , environmentalists ’ preoccupation with ‘ systems ’ and global institutions to oversee their regulation belies their ability to identify and locate environmental problems .
What is motivating their search is less a desire to understand the natural world than a desire to systematize the human world .
It was ‘ simple maths ’ which took the neo-Malthusians of the 1960s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clock back on population growth , economic growth , and technology , lest their dire prognostications of apocalypse came to pass .
Yet it was also simple math that showed these prognostications to be false , dangerous , and misleading .
Greta was not the only green to jump on the racial bandwagon .
George Monbiot did the same in his review of Planet of the Humans – the new film from Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore .
The film makes a number of vague references to overpopulation , which Monbiot believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-right ’ .
‘ Population is where you go when you don ’ t have the guts to face the structural , systemic causes of our predicament : inequality , oligarchic power , capitalism ’ , he writes .
There ’ s that word ‘ systemic ’ again .
But Monbiot ’ s attack on population-environmentalism isn ’ t quite the commitment it seems .
David Attenborough , a patron of Population Matters ( formerly the Optimum Population Trust ) , has never been called a ‘ far-right ’ by Monbiot , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population reaching vastly more people than Planet of the Humans has .
Moreover , it was not the ‘ far-right ’ which put Malthus back on the political agenda ; it was Monbiot ’ s fellow green campaigners – the neo-Malthusians – back in the mid- to late 20th century .
If Planet of the Humans is ‘ far-right ’ , then so is the Guardian .
In a 2018 interview , which was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation , Paul Ehrlich , author of Population Bomb , told the Guardian ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilization is a near certainty within decades ’ ( again ) .
In the interview , Ehrlich claimed that he rejects the idea that the desire to control the population is racist and that he is hurt by the allegation .
But aren ’ t we constantly being told by the likes of the Guardian that it is not enough to say you are not racist , because racism lingers in systems and structures ?
The Rockefeller fortune has played a large role in funding the neo-Malthusian cause over the years .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Rockefellers were among the first ‘ philanthropists ’ to use their vast wealth to support eugenics programs .
According to Professor Stefan Kühl , ‘ the Rockefeller foundation played the central role in establishing and sponsoring major eugenic institutes in Germany ’ in the 1920s .
Its funding kept them afloat through the depression and well into the Nazi regime .
After the Second World War , eugenics became less fashionable .
Malthusian ideas became a more acceptable vehicle for racism .
In 1952 , the Rockefellers founded the Population Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global stage via the United Nations and the World Bank .
Between the 1950s and 1990s , green billionaires – the Rockefeller and Ford foundations – were funders of mass sterilization programs across the world .
This obnoxious agenda asserted itself most aggressively in India , where millions were coerced and forced into sterilization camps to ensure that brown people would not overrun the world .
In a single year , more than six million Indian men were sterilized – more than 15 times the number sterilized by the Nazis .
Thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not merely blindness to green neo-Malthusianism – arguably one of the few lasting legacies of racial eugenics – which troubles Monbiot ’ s attempts to distance himself from it .
The problem is that all green thinking is intractably bound to it .
In the 1970s , Ehrlich and colleagues proposed a formula known as IPAT , stating that Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology .
In other words , they believe that policymakers have three levers for combating environmental problems : reducing population and / or affluence and / or technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcended this rubric .
‘ High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low ’ , argues Monbiot : ‘ Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people.
’ Poor people do not consume so much , you see .
Science !
If it is racist to tell black people not to breed , it is surely racist to tell black people they can not be wealthy .
Rejection of population control might well sound principled , but it is not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The IPAT , to its believers , is an expression of fundamental relationships , not a menu – greens who adhere to any part of it can in reality no more pick and choose than a Catholic can worship the Father and the Son but not the Holy Spirit .
Monbiot may not wish to slow population growth .
But he does wish to make us all live in ecological austerity .
We are talking here about what greens claim are the systems and structures of society .
They claim that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what is revealed by a closer look at society ’ s tangible structures and systems is that it is environmentalism – not environmental degradation – that has been imposed on the poor .
Green NGOs run riot in the developing world .
Many , such as the World Wildlife Fund , are implicated in the murder , torture , rape , and violent eviction of the world ’ s poorest people .
Where is Monbiot ’ s condemnation of the WWF ?
Greens do not even consider the possibility of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day having their own shopping malls , domestic appliances , SUVs , or intercontinental holidays .
In ruling out the possibility of the poor becoming wealthy , environmentalism rules out the poor becoming a political force who might be able to speak for themselves .
Some climate activists have rebranded climate change as ‘ climate justice ’ , in an attempt to marshall the lives of the world ’ s poor in their mission .
‘ We can change our lifestyles , we can move ’ , says one self-styled ‘ climate communicator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course : ‘ Within countries and between continents , it ’ s people of color and it ’ s indigenous people that bear the brunt of environmental destruction ’ , he adds .
But life in close dependence on ‘ nature ’ – poverty , to give it its real name – has always been precarious .
Indeed , it is not climate change that is the real worry here – it ’ s poverty .
Economic participation and wealth are what allow people to weather what nature might throw at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which greens are determined to deny to the world ’ s poor .
The green ideology is racist .
It presupposes that others ’ poverty and others ’ futures are determined by weather rather than by the changes that can be brought by man-made technological , economic , and political development .
The disparity between the wealthiest and poorest people in the world allows this presupposition to become an imposition .
Despite green attempts to keep people in their places , there are far fewer people now living on the edges of global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ehrlich , and Monbiot ’ s understanding , diseases of poverty are on their way to being eliminated .
Far fewer people die in natural disasters today than a century ago when the population was a quarter of what it is now and when the world was considerably less industrialized .
Progress has not come fast enough , of course .
But the claim that ‘ stable ’ weather will improve anyone ’ s living condition is a lie .
Countless greens argue that , without rises in CO2 emissions , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no hunger , no inequality .
But this is oblivious both to the present historical lows of all of the above and to the implications of a political order that imposes ‘ sustainability ’ on a population – and one of those consequences is racism .
One problem we face is that so many ‘ development ’ agencies are dominated by environmentalist anti-development thinking .
The boast of the World Bank ’ s ‘ sustainability ’ agenda , for example , is epitomized by this video , in which a family in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessity of buying or collecting firewood for cooking .
Instead , wife , mother , and housekeeper , Judith , must collect animal shit to put into a vat , which then produces gas the family can use for cooking .
It ’ s not even shit generated by an industrial process .
It ’ s shit from someone ’ s backyard .
If this strikes you as an improvement , and as a mark of success by a global political institution in abolishing poverty , you need to ‘ check your privilege @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reactor is a Heath Robinson contraption , not development .
It ‘ abolishes ’ poverty only at best in a palliative sense – not in a structural or systemic sense .
Where is the electricity grid ?
Where is Judith ’ s car ?
Where is Judith ’ s aircon , washing machine , dishwasher ?
If Black Lives Matter , then the grid matters , the car matters , and the domestic appliances matter .
Would you accept daily shit-collecting as a solution to your family ’ s energy needs ?
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political and financial institutions , on the instructions of the United Nations , green billionaires , and their pet NGOs , have withdrawn financial support for fossil-fuel-fired power stations for developing economies .
Energy infrastructure , which has in recent decades proved essential to the rapid development seen in China and India , is being explicitly denied to the people who need it most .
Their desire for a better life is not ‘ sustainable ’ , you see .
And yet it is micro-aggressions , not macroeconomics , which trouble today ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk of ‘ systems ’ and ‘ structures ’ , it is ‘ symbols ’ which preoccupy them .
As activists tear down statues of history ’ s racists , it is the present that they ignore .
Tycoons , who made vast fortunes from oil , gas , and coal , and who built global institutions in their own image , have spent billions on PR campaigns to recast themselves as green philanthropists , who can buy favorable coverage in the Guardian , and are free to assert themselves and their designs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is ignored by Black Lives Matter and green activists alike .
Environmentalism is racist .

Written by Ben Pile on Jul 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As reported on spiked last month, it did not take long for green ideologues to seize on the chaos of the coronavirus pandemic.
And in recent weeks, racial politics has exploded, putting the Black Lives Matter movement at the center of global attention. In its wake, jealous greens have sought to capture the narrative of racial grievance.
But by highlighting what they claim are the racial dimensions of climate change, what greens have instead exposed are their deep contradictions and callous indifference to the plight of the world’s poor.
At the end of May, having only just been reinvented as an expert on coronavirus, Greta Thunberg tweeted: ‘Centuries of structural and systematic racism and social injustice won’t go away by itself. We need a global structural change. The injustices must come to an end.’
It is an interesting claim, not least for its remarkable resemblance to her claims about climate change.
In a more recent tweet, she opined: ‘The climate and ecological crisis can no longer be solved within today’s political and economic systems. That’s not an opinion. It’s just simple maths.’ This is not a coincidence.
As I have long argued on spiked, environmentalists’ preoccupation with ‘systems’ and global institutions to oversee their regulation belies their ability to identify and locate environmental problems.
What is motivating their search is less a desire to understand the natural world than a desire to systematize the human world.
It was ‘simple maths’ which took the neo-Malthusians of the 1960s and 1970s to their demands to turn the clock back on population growth, economic growth, and technology, lest their dire prognostications of apocalypse came to pass.
Yet it was also simple math that showed these prognostications to be false, dangerous, and misleading.
Greta was not the only green to jump on the racial bandwagon. George Monbiot did the same in his review of Planet of the Humans – the new film from Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore.
The film makes a number of vague references to overpopulation, which Monbiot believes marks it as belonging to the ‘far-right’.
‘Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarchic power, capitalism’, he writes. There’s that word ‘systemic’ again.
But Monbiot’s attack on population-environmentalism isn’t quite the commitment it seems.
David Attenborough, a patron of Population Matters (formerly the Optimum Population Trust), has never been called a ‘far-right’ by Monbiot, despite Attenborough’s many explicit statements on population reaching vastly more people than Planet of the Humans has.
Moreover, it was not the ‘far-right’ which put Malthus back on the political agenda; it was Monbiot’s fellow green campaigners – the neo-Malthusians – back in the mid- to late 20th century.
If Planet of the Humans is ‘far-right’, then so is the Guardian. In a 2018 interview, which was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, Paul Ehrlich, author of Population Bomb, told the Guardian’s Damian Carrington that the ‘collapse of civilization is a near certainty within decades’ (again).
In the interview, Ehrlich claimed that he rejects the idea that the desire to control the population is racist and that he is hurt by the allegation.
But aren’t we constantly being told by the likes of the Guardian that it is not enough to say you are not racist, because racism lingers in systems and structures?
The Rockefeller fortune has played a large role in funding the neo-Malthusian cause over the years. And it has a long history of racism. The Rockefellers were among the first ‘philanthropists’ to use their vast wealth to support eugenics programs.
According to Professor Stefan Kühl, ‘the Rockefeller foundation played the central role in establishing and sponsoring major eugenic institutes in Germany’ in the 1920s. Its funding kept them afloat through the depression and well into the Nazi regime.
After the Second World War, eugenics became less fashionable. Malthusian ideas became a more acceptable vehicle for racism.
In 1952, the Rockefellers founded the Population Council, which established the population-control agenda on the global stage via the United Nations and the World Bank.
Between the 1950s and 1990s, green billionaires – the Rockefeller and Ford foundations – were funders of mass sterilization programs across the world.
This obnoxious agenda asserted itself most aggressively in India, where millions were coerced and forced into sterilization camps to ensure that brown people would not overrun the world.
In a single year, more than six million Indian men were sterilized – more than 15 times the number sterilized by the Nazis. Thousands died from botched procedures.
It is not merely blindness to green neo-Malthusianism – arguably one of the few lasting legacies of racial eugenics – which troubles Monbiot’s attempts to distance himself from it. The problem is that all green thinking is intractably bound to it.
In the 1970s, Ehrlich and colleagues proposed a formula known as IPAT, stating that Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology.
In other words, they believe that policymakers have three levers for combating environmental problems: reducing population and / or affluence and / or technology. Today’s greens have not transcended this rubric.
‘High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low’, argues Monbiot: ‘Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people.’ Poor people do not consume so much, you see. Science!
If it is racist to tell black people not to breed, it is surely racist to tell black people they cannot be wealthy. Rejection of population control might well sound principled, but it is not in itself a rejection of the neo-Malthusian formulation.
The IPAT, to its believers, is an expression of fundamental relationships, not a menu – greens who adhere to any part of it can in reality no more pick and choose than a Catholic can worship the Father and the Son but not the Holy Spirit.
Monbiot may not wish to slow population growth. But he does wish to make us all live in ecological austerity. We are talking here about what greens claim are the systems and structures of society.
They claim that the system which produces climate change is racist. But what is revealed by a closer look at society’s tangible structures and systems is that it is environmentalism – not environmental degradation – that has been imposed on the poor. Green NGOs run riot in the developing world.
Many, such as the World Wildlife Fund, are implicated in the murder, torture, rape, and violent eviction of the world’s poorest people. Where is Monbiot’s condemnation of the WWF?
Greens do not even consider the possibility of these wretched souls of the developing world one day having their own shopping malls, domestic appliances, SUVs, or intercontinental holidays.
In ruling out the possibility of the poor becoming wealthy, environmentalism rules out the poor becoming a political force who might be able to speak for themselves.
Some climate activists have rebranded climate change as ‘climate justice’, in an attempt to marshall the lives of the world’s poor in their mission.
‘We can change our lifestyles, we can move’, says one self-styled ‘climate communicator’. But the poor cannot, of course: ‘Within countries and between continents, it’s people of color and it’s indigenous people that bear the brunt of environmental destruction’, he adds.
But life in close dependence on ‘nature’ – poverty, to give it its real name – has always been precarious. Indeed, it is not climate change that is the real worry here – it’s poverty.
Economic participation and wealth are what allow people to weather what nature might throw at them. And it is this wealth which greens are determined to deny to the world’s poor.
The green ideology is racist. It presupposes that others’ poverty and others’ futures are determined by weather rather than by the changes that can be brought by man-made technological, economic, and political development.
The disparity between the wealthiest and poorest people in the world allows this presupposition to become an imposition.
Despite green attempts to keep people in their places, there are far fewer people now living on the edges of global society than before. Contrary to Greta, Ehrlich, and Monbiot’s understanding, diseases of poverty are on their way to being eliminated.
Far fewer people die in natural disasters today than a century ago when the population was a quarter of what it is now and when the world was considerably less industrialized.
Progress has not come fast enough, of course. But the claim that ‘stable’ weather will improve anyone’s living condition is a lie. Countless greens argue that, without rises in CO2 emissions, there would be no conflict, no poverty, no hunger, no inequality.
But this is oblivious both to the present historical lows of all of the above and to the implications of a political order that imposes ‘sustainability’ on a population – and one of those consequences is racism.
One problem we face is that so many ‘development’ agencies are dominated by environmentalist anti-development thinking.
The boast of the World Bank’s ‘sustainability’ agenda, for example, is epitomized by this video, in which a family in Tanzania is ‘liberated’ from the necessity of buying or collecting firewood for cooking.
Instead, wife, mother, and housekeeper, Judith, must collect animal shit to put into a vat, which then produces gas the family can use for cooking. It’s not even shit generated by an industrial process. It’s shit from someone’s backyard.
If this strikes you as an improvement, and as a mark of success by a global political institution in abolishing poverty, you need to ‘check your privilege’.
Judith’s domestic natural-gas reactor is a Heath Robinson contraption, not development. It ‘abolishes’ poverty only at best in a palliative sense – not in a structural or systemic sense.
Where is the electricity grid? Where is Judith’s car? Where is Judith’s aircon, washing machine, dishwasher? If Black Lives Matter, then the grid matters, the car matters, and the domestic appliances matter.
Would you accept daily shit-collecting as a solution to your family’s energy needs?
Meanwhile, the World Bank and other global political and financial institutions, on the instructions of the United Nations, green billionaires, and their pet NGOs, have withdrawn financial support for fossil-fuel-fired power stations for developing economies.
Energy infrastructure, which has in recent decades proved essential to the rapid development seen in China and India, is being explicitly denied to the people who need it most. Their desire for a better life is not ‘sustainable’, you see.
And yet it is micro-aggressions, not macroeconomics, which trouble today’s anti-racist radicals. For all the talk of ‘systems’ and ‘structures’, it is ‘symbols’ which preoccupy them. As activists tear down statues of history’s racists, it is the present that they ignore.
Tycoons, who made vast fortunes from oil, gas, and coal, and who built global institutions in their own image, have spent billions on PR campaigns to recast themselves as green philanthropists, who can buy favorable coverage in the Guardian, and are free to assert themselves and their designs over billions of people with impunity.
This is ignored by Black Lives Matter and green activists alike. Environmentalism is racist.
Read more at Spiked-Online
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-02--Wash. Examiner Labels ‘Left-Of-AOC’ Congressman As Centrist

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news The Washington Examiner ’ s Daily on Energy project embarrassed itself today , calling climate-activist congressman Sean Casten ( D-IL ) , who holds a 0 % lifetime rating from Heritage Action , as a “ centrist Democrat.
” By earning a rating of 0 % , Casten holds an even more leftist rating than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( 17 % ) and Ilhan Omar ( 12 % ) .
The Examiner made its subjective and ridiculous assertion about Casten being a centrist in an effort to make Casten ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Examiner soft-tossed Casten a creampuff interview , giving him a media platform to – in the words of the Examiner – “ blast the GOP ” for opposing carbon dioxide taxes and other extremist climate measures .
After calling Casten a “ centrist Democrat , ” the Examiner piled on this false narrative .
The Examiner claimed Casten “ has emerged as one of the most independent-minded members on the House ’ s special climate committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
” SEE ALSO : Have Climate Alarmists Taken Over The Examiner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Showing how he amassed a voting record to the left of AOC and Ilhan Omar , Casten claimed that imposing carbon dioxide taxes should be just one of many new government restrictions on energy and climate .
The Examiner swept under the rug the fact that Casten has financially profited off his climate alarmism .
Casten and his father founded a recycling waste heat company , marketing his company as a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions .
The Examiner described Casten , despite this bias and apparent conflict of interest as simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scientist.
” No , Washington Examiner , a member of Congress with a 0 % Heritage Action lifetime rating , scoring farther to the left than AOC and Ilhan Omar , is not a “ centrist Democrat .
”

Written by James Taylor on Jul 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Washington Examiner’s Daily on Energy project embarrassed itself today, calling climate-activist congressman Sean Casten (D-IL), who holds a 0% lifetime rating from Heritage Action, as a “centrist Democrat.”
By earning a rating of 0%, Casten holds an even more leftist rating than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (17%) and Ilhan Omar (12%).
The Examiner made its subjective and ridiculous assertion about Casten being a centrist in an effort to make Casten’s climate extremism sound middle-of-the-road and reasonable.
The Examiner soft-tossed Casten a creampuff interview, giving him a media platform to – in the words of the Examiner – “blast the GOP” for opposing carbon dioxide taxes and other extremist climate measures.
After calling Casten a “centrist Democrat,” the Examiner piled on this false narrative.
The Examiner claimed Casten “has emerged as one of the most independent-minded members on the House’s special climate committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
SEE ALSO: Have Climate Alarmists Taken Over The Examiner’s Energy And Climate Reporting?
Showing how he amassed a voting record to the left of AOC and Ilhan Omar, Casten claimed that imposing carbon dioxide taxes should be just one of many new government restrictions on energy and climate.
The Examiner swept under the rug the fact that Casten has financially profited off his climate alarmism.
Casten and his father founded a recycling waste heat company, marketing his company as a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The Examiner described Casten, despite this bias and apparent conflict of interest as simply, “A former clean energy businessman and scientist.”
No, Washington Examiner, a member of Congress with a 0% Heritage Action lifetime rating, scoring farther to the left than AOC and Ilhan Omar, is not a “centrist Democrat.”
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