climatechangedispatch--2020-06-04--Green Energy: Destroying The Environment To Save It

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news “ We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
” The infamous Vietnam era quotation may or may not have been uttered by an anonymous US Army major .
It may have been misquoted , revised , apocryphal , or invented .
But it quickly morphed into an anti-war mantra that reflected attitudes of the time .
For Virginians and others forced to travel the path of “ clean , green , renewable , sustainable ” energy , it will redound in modern politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment in order to save it.
” Weeks after Governor Ralph Northam signed Virginia ’ s “ Clean Economy Act , ” which had been rushed through a partisan Democrat legislature , Dominion Energy Virginia announced it would reach “ net-zero ” greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 .
To do so , the utility company will raise family , business , hospital , and school electricity bills by 3 % every year for the next ten years – as these customers and state and local governments struggle to climb out of the financial holes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just as bad , renewable energy mandates and commitments from the new law and Dominion ’ s “ integrated resource plan ” will have major adverse impacts on Virginia and world environmental values .
In reality , Virginia ’ s new “ clean ” economy exists only in fantasy land – and only if we ignore “ clean ” energy CO2 emissions , air and water pollution , and other environmental degradation around the world .
Dominion Energy plans to expand the state ’ s offshore wind , onshore solar and battery storage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ renewable ” energy by 2035 , and far more after that .
It will retain just 9,700 MW of existing natural gas generation , and only through 2045 , build no new gas-fired units , and retire 6,200 megawatts of coal-fired generation .
This will reduce in-state carbon dioxide emissions but certainly won ’ t do so globally .
The company intends to keep its four existing nuclear units operating .
To “ replace ” some of its abundant , reliable , affordable fossil fuel electricity , Dominion intends to build at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar capacity by 2045 .
The company estimates that it will require a land area some 25 % larger than 250,000-acre Fairfax County , west of Washington , DC .
That means Dominion Energy ’ s new solar facilities will blanket 490 square miles ( 313,000 acres ) of beautiful croplands , scenic areas , and habitats that now teem with wildlife .
That ’ s almost half the land area of Rhode Island , eight times the District of Columbia , 14 times more land than all Fairfax County parks combined – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more land will be torn up for access roads and new transmission lines .
All this is just for Dominion Energy ’ s solar panels .
The panels will actually generate electricity maybe 20-25 % of the year , once you factor in nighttime hours , cloudy days , and times when the sun is not bright enough to generate more than trifling electricity .
Dominion and other Virginia utility companies also plan to import and install 430 monstrous 850-foot-tall bird-chopping offshore wind turbines – and tens of thousands of half-ton battery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least a few hours or days when the sun isn ’ t shining and the wind isn ’ t blowing .
The batteries will prevent the economy from shutting down even more completely during each outage than it has during the Corona lockdown .
Similar policies across America will impact hundreds of millions of acres .
Most of these solar panels , wind turbines , and batteries – or their components , or the metals and minerals required to manufacture those components – will likely come from China or from Chinese-owned operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America … undermining , air and water pollution , workplace safety , fair wage , child labor , mined-land reclamation , manufacturing , and other laws and standards that would get the US and other Western companies unmasked , vilified , sued , fined and shut down in a heartbeat .
It is those minimal to nonexistent laws and regulations that govern most of the companies and operations that will supply the “ clean ” technologies that will soon blight Virginia landscapes and serve the new “ clean ” Virginia economy .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Planet of the Humans , other states that opt for “ clean ” energy will face the same realities .
Thus far , no one has produced even a rough estimate of how much concrete , steel , aluminum , copper , lithium , cobalt , silica , rare earth metals , and countless other materials will be needed .
All will require gigantic heavy equipment and prodigious amounts of fossil fuels to blast and haul away billions of tons of rocky overburden ; extract , crush and process tens of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , toxic chemicals , and other means to refine the ores ; smelt concentrates into metals ; manufacture all the millions of tons of components ; and haul , assemble and install the panels , turbines , batteries and transmission lines , setting them on top of tens of thousands of tons of concrete and rebar .
All of it beyond Virginia ’ s borders .
No one has tallied the oil , natural gas , and coal fuel requirements for doing all this “ Virginia Clean Economy ” work – nor the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be emitted in the process .
Nothing about this is clean , green , renewable , or sustainable .
But Virginia politicians and Dominion Energy officials have said nothing about any of this , nor about which countries will host the mining and other activities , under what environmental and human rights standards .
Will Virginians ever get a full accounting ?
Just because all of this will happen far beyond Virginia ’ s borders does not mean we can ignore the global environmental impacts .
Or the health , safety , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distant mines , processing plants , and factories .
This is the perfect time to observe the environmentalist creed : think globally , act locally .
Will that be done ?
Will Dominion and Virginia require that all these raw materials and wind , solar , and battery components be responsibly sourced ?
Will it require independently verified certifications that none of them involve child labor , and all are produced in compliance with US and Virginia laws , regulations and ethical codes for workplace safety , fair wages , air and water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and mined lands reclamation ?
Will they tally up all the fossil fuels consumed , and pollutants emitted , in the process ?
Science journalist , businessman and parliamentarian Matt Ridley says wind turbines need some 200 times more raw materials per megawatt of power than modern combined-cycle gas turbines .
It ’ s probably much the same for solar panels .
Add in the millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels , and billions of backup batteries that would be required under a nationwide Green New Deal , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human health , and human rights impacts become absolutely mindboggling .
If you ignore all the land and wildlife impacts from installing the wind turbines , solar panels , batteries , and transmission lines – you could perhaps call this “ clean energy ” and a “ clean economy ” within Virginia ’ s borders .
But not beyond those borders .
This is a global issue , and the world would likely be far better off if we just built modern combined-cycle gas turbines ( or nuclear power plants ) to generate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monumental human and ecological impacts of pseudo-renewable energy .
When it ’ s time to select sites for these 490 square miles of industrial solar facilities , will Virginia , its county and local governments , its citizens , environmentalist groups and courts apply the same rigorous standards , laws , and regulations that they demand for drilling , fracking , coal and gas power plants , pipelines , highways , timber cutting , and other projects ?
Will they apply the same standards for 850-foot-tall wind turbines and 100-foot-tall transmission lines as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Clean Economy Act will also plunge almost every project and jurisdiction into questions of race , poverty , and environmental justice .
Dominion Energy and other utility companies will have to charge means-tested rates ( even as rates climb 3 % per year ) and exempt low-income customers from some charges .
They will have to submit construction plans to “ environmental justice councils ” – even as the companies , councils , and politicians ignore the rampant injustices inflicted on children and parents slaving away in Chinese , African , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mines , processing plants and factories .
Government officials , utility industry executives , environmentalists , and anyone else who promotes wind , solar , battery , and biofuel energy need to explain exactly how they plan to address these issues .
Future town hall meetings and project approval hearings promise to be raucous , entertaining , and illuminating .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of books and articles on energy , environment , climate , and human rights @ @

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Jun 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
“We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
The infamous Vietnam era quotation may or may not have been uttered by an anonymous US Army major. It may have been misquoted, revised, apocryphal, or invented.
But it quickly morphed into an anti-war mantra that reflected attitudes of the time.
For Virginians and others forced to travel the path of “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” energy, it will redound in modern politics as “We had to destroy the environment in order to save it.”
Weeks after Governor Ralph Northam signed Virginia’s “Clean Economy Act,” which had been rushed through a partisan Democrat legislature, Dominion Energy Virginia announced it would reach “net-zero” greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.
To do so, the utility company will raise family, business, hospital, and school electricity bills by 3% every year for the next ten years – as these customers and state and local governments struggle to climb out of the financial holes created by the ongoing Coronavirus lockdown.
Just as bad, renewable energy mandates and commitments from the new law and Dominion’s “integrated resource plan” will have major adverse impacts on Virginia and world environmental values.
In reality, Virginia’s new “clean” economy exists only in fantasy land – and only if we ignore “clean” energy CO2 emissions, air and water pollution, and other environmental degradation around the world.
Dominion Energy plans to expand the state’s offshore wind, onshore solar and battery storage capacity by some 24,000 megawatts of new “renewable” energy by 2035, and far more after that.
It will retain just 9,700 MW of existing natural gas generation, and only through 2045, build no new gas-fired units, and retire 6,200 megawatts of coal-fired generation.
This will reduce in-state carbon dioxide emissions but certainly won’t do so globally. The company intends to keep its four existing nuclear units operating.
To “replace” some of its abundant, reliable, affordable fossil fuel electricity, Dominion intends to build at least 31,400 megawatts of expensive, unreliable solar capacity by 2045.
The company estimates that it will require a land area some 25% larger than 250,000-acre Fairfax County, west of Washington, DC.
That means Dominion Energy’s new solar facilities will blanket 490 square miles (313,000 acres) of beautiful croplands, scenic areas, and habitats that now teem with wildlife.
That’s almost half the land area of Rhode Island, eight times the District of Columbia, 14 times more land than all Fairfax County parks combined – blanketed by imported solar panels.
Still, more land will be torn up for access roads and new transmission lines. All this is just for Dominion Energy’s solar panels.
The panels will actually generate electricity maybe 20-25% of the year, once you factor in nighttime hours, cloudy days, and times when the sun is not bright enough to generate more than trifling electricity.
Dominion and other Virginia utility companies also plan to import and install 430 monstrous 850-foot-tall bird-chopping offshore wind turbines – and tens of thousands of half-ton battery packs, to provide backup power for at least a few hours or days when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
The batteries will prevent the economy from shutting down even more completely during each outage than it has during the Corona lockdown. Similar policies across America will impact hundreds of millions of acres.
Most of these solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries – or their components, or the metals and minerals required to manufacture those components – will likely come from China or from Chinese-owned operations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America … undermining, air and water pollution, workplace safety, fair wage, child labor, mined-land reclamation, manufacturing, and other laws and standards that would get the US and other Western companies unmasked, vilified, sued, fined and shut down in a heartbeat.
It is those minimal to nonexistent laws and regulations that govern most of the companies and operations that will supply the “clean” technologies that will soon blight Virginia landscapes and serve the new “clean” Virginia economy.
As Michael Moore observes in his new film, Planet of the Humans, other states that opt for “clean” energy will face the same realities.
Thus far, no one has produced even a rough estimate of how much concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, lithium, cobalt, silica, rare earth metals, and countless other materials will be needed.
All will require gigantic heavy equipment and prodigious amounts of fossil fuels to blast and haul away billions of tons of rocky overburden; extract, crush and process tens of millions of tons of ores, using acids, toxic chemicals, and other means to refine the ores; smelt concentrates into metals; manufacture all the millions of tons of components; and haul, assemble and install the panels, turbines, batteries and transmission lines, setting them on top of tens of thousands of tons of concrete and rebar.
All of it beyond Virginia’s borders.
No one has tallied the oil, natural gas, and coal fuel requirements for doing all this “Virginia Clean Economy” work – nor the greenhouse gases and actual pollutants that will be emitted in the process.
Nothing about this is clean, green, renewable, or sustainable. But Virginia politicians and Dominion Energy officials have said nothing about any of this, nor about which countries will host the mining and other activities, under what environmental and human rights standards.
Will Virginians ever get a full accounting? Just because all of this will happen far beyond Virginia’s borders does not mean we can ignore the global environmental impacts.
Or the health, safety, and well-being of children and parents in those distant mines, processing plants, and factories.
This is the perfect time to observe the environmentalist creed: think globally, act locally. Will that be done?
Will Dominion and Virginia require that all these raw materials and wind, solar, and battery components be responsibly sourced?
Will it require independently verified certifications that none of them involve child labor, and all are produced in compliance with US and Virginia laws, regulations and ethical codes for workplace safety, fair wages, air and water pollution, wildlife preservation, cancer prevention, and mined lands reclamation?
Will they tally up all the fossil fuels consumed, and pollutants emitted, in the process?
Science journalist, businessman and parliamentarian Matt Ridley says wind turbines need some 200 times more raw materials per megawatt of power than modern combined-cycle gas turbines.
It’s probably much the same for solar panels.
Add in the millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, and billions of backup batteries that would be required under a nationwide Green New Deal, and the combined US and global environmental, human health, and human rights impacts become absolutely mindboggling.
If you ignore all the land and wildlife impacts from installing the wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and transmission lines – you could perhaps call this “clean energy” and a “clean economy” within Virginia’s borders.
But not beyond those borders.
This is a global issue, and the world would likely be far better off if we just built modern combined-cycle gas turbines (or nuclear power plants) to generate reliable electricity – and avoided all the monumental human and ecological impacts of pseudo-renewable energy.
When it’s time to select sites for these 490 square miles of industrial solar facilities, will Virginia, its county and local governments, its citizens, environmentalist groups and courts apply the same rigorous standards, laws, and regulations that they demand for drilling, fracking, coal and gas power plants, pipelines, highways, timber cutting, and other projects?
Will they apply the same standards for 850-foot-tall wind turbines and 100-foot-tall transmission lines as they demand for buried-out-of-sight pipelines?
Virginia’s Clean Economy Act will also plunge almost every project and jurisdiction into questions of race, poverty, and environmental justice.
Dominion Energy and other utility companies will have to charge means-tested rates (even as rates climb 3% per year) and exempt low-income customers from some charges.
They will have to submit construction plans to “environmental justice councils” – even as the companies, councils, and politicians ignore the rampant injustices inflicted on children and parents slaving away in Chinese, African, and Latin American “clean energy” mines, processing plants and factories.
Government officials, utility industry executives, environmentalists, and anyone else who promotes wind, solar, battery, and biofuel energy need to explain exactly how they plan to address these issues.
Future town hall meetings and project approval hearings promise to be raucous, entertaining, and illuminating.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-04--Portland School Board Bans Books That Question Climate Dogma

Written by Jessica Chasmar on .
Posted in Latest news The Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution this week that bans textbooks and other teaching materials that deny climate change exists or cast doubt on whether humans are to blame .
The resolution , introduced by school board member Mike Rosen , also directs the superintendent and staff to develop a plan for offering “ curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice ” in all Portland public schools , the Portland Tribune reported .
“ It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causes and urgency of the crisis , ” Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux said during board testimony Tuesday .
“ Climate education is not a niche or a specialization , it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.
” Bill Bigelow , the editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education , worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution , the Tribune reported .
“ A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the science says otherwise , ” Mr. Bigelow said .
“ We don ’ t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.
” He took particular issue with teaching materials that used iffy language when discussing climate change , like “ might , ” “ may ” and “ could.
” Asked if the resolution will force the district to buy new textbooks , such as his book , “ A People ’ s Curriculum for the Earth , ” Mr. Bigelow said ReThinking Schools is a nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
“ What we ’ re asking for is not : Buy new stuff , ” he said .
“ What we ’ re looking for is a whole different model of curriculum development and distribution .
”

Written by Jessica Chasmar on Jun 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution this week that bans textbooks and other teaching materials that deny climate change exists or cast doubt on whether humans are to blame.
The resolution, introduced by school board member Mike Rosen, also directs the superintendent and staff to develop a plan for offering “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice” in all Portland public schools, the Portland Tribune reported.
“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux said during board testimony Tuesday.
“Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”
Bill Bigelow, the editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education, worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution, the Tribune reported.
“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”
He took particular issue with teaching materials that used iffy language when discussing climate change, like “might,” “may” and “could.”
Asked if the resolution will force the district to buy new textbooks, such as his book, “A People’s Curriculum for the Earth,” Mr. Bigelow said ReThinking Schools is a nonprofit, not a money-maker, the Tribune reported.
“What we’re asking for is not: Buy new stuff,” he said. “What we’re looking for is a whole different model of curriculum development and distribution.”
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-04--UK Unleashes A Green Deal To Kill What’s Left Of The Economy

Written by James Delingpole on .
Posted in Latest news UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak has found an ingenious scheme to ensure that Britain never recovers from the economic damage caused by the lockdown : a ‘ green industrial revolution.
’ According to The Times of London : Rishi Sunak is planning a ‘ green industrial revolution ’ to help to create jobs for people who are made redundant because of the pandemic .
The chancellor is preparing to bolster the government ’ s investment in clean energy as part of an economic stimulus package next month .
There could also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reskill ’ workers so they can get green jobs in areas such as insulation upgrades , offshore wind and carbon capture .
The measures are understood to go significantly beyond the Conservatives ’ manifesto commitment to create two million jobs in clean energy within the next decade .
The Tories have promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions to ‘ net zero ’ by 2050 .
A green industrial revolution is a bit like the original industrial revolution , except for one or two crucial differences : instead of boosting prosperity , creating jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exact opposite .
For example , a study by economics professor Dr. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of Madrid ’ s University of Rey Juan Carlos found that for every ‘ green job ’ created by the Spanish government , another 2.2 jobs were destroyed in the real economy .
Another study , this time in the UK , found that for every green job created by government ‘ investment ’ in the renewables industry , 3.7 jobs were destroyed in the real economy .
Sunak ’ s plan to squander yet more taxpayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is depressing but not remotely surprising .
Dr. John Constable , the energy editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation ( GWPF ) , warned that this was going to happen in a short paper published last month ‘ The Fatal Attraction of a Post-COVID Green New Deal.
’ Constable says that Net Zero – Britain ’ s answer to the Green New Deal – was ‘ deeply unwise ’ even before the economic collapse caused by the government ’ s response to the Chinese coronavirus .
But in the post-COVID-19 world we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ‘ deep contraction ’ , against a background of ‘ highly significant increases in geopolitical tension ’ – it is more foolish still .
‘ One might think that in such a context , those still lobbying for Net Zero would be desperately worried , but this would be a facile error .
In fact , the greens and their corporate collaborators see this as a great opportunity , and in my judgement they are correct .
Administrations around the world will indeed be very tempted to use tax- and levy-funded public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ to provide a stimulus to post-Covid economies .
It is perfectly true that this would create a large wealth transfer in an already contracting economy , delivering great absolute and relative wealth to those invested in the green industries , with corresponding transfers of socio-political power , but even if they understood that outcome , the bureaucracy will press on , barely restrained if at all by elected representatives.
’ There is going to be no escaping this looming disaster , caused by a mass outbreak of green groupthink at virtually every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Prime Ministerial girlfriends ( green activist Carrie Symonds ) to key members of the quadrumvirate ( Greenest Gove ever ) , from Prime Ministerial advisors ( Dom Cummings ) to formerly sound Tory MPs who definitely aren ’ t anymore because they ’ ve been put on the payroll and have to spout whatever eco bilge they are told to spout .
In the latter category , we can include Energy Minister Kwasi Kwarteng who , shamingly , can now be heard spouting drivel about how the UK is going to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change ’ by launching a carbon Emissions Trading Scheme ( ETS ) .
Meanwhile , as Western nations choose to hobble their recoveries by burdening their economies with more expensive energy , the Eastern powers , led by China , are heading in the opposite direction .

Written by James Delingpole on Jun 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak has found an ingenious scheme to ensure that Britain never recovers from the economic damage caused by the lockdown: a ‘green industrial revolution.’
According to The Times of London:
Rishi Sunak is planning a ‘green industrial revolution’ to help to create jobs for people who are made redundant because of the pandemic. The chancellor is preparing to bolster the government’s investment in clean energy as part of an economic stimulus package next month. There could also be a fund to help to ‘reskill’ workers so they can get green jobs in areas such as insulation upgrades, offshore wind and carbon capture. The measures are understood to go significantly beyond the Conservatives’ manifesto commitment to create two million jobs in clean energy within the next decade. The Tories have promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions to ‘net zero’ by 2050.
A green industrial revolution is a bit like the original industrial revolution, except for one or two crucial differences: instead of boosting prosperity, creating jobs and stimulating economic growth, it does the exact opposite.
For example, a study by economics professor Dr. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of Madrid’s University of Rey Juan Carlos found that for every ‘green job’ created by the Spanish government, another 2.2 jobs were destroyed in the real economy.
Another study, this time in the UK, found that for every green job created by government ‘investment’ in the renewables industry, 3.7 jobs were destroyed in the real economy.
Sunak’s plan to squander yet more taxpayers’ money on green, crony-capitalist boondoggles is depressing but not remotely surprising.
Dr. John Constable, the energy editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), warned that this was going to happen in a short paper published last month ‘The Fatal Attraction of a Post-COVID Green New Deal.’
Constable says that Net Zero – Britain’s answer to the Green New Deal – was ‘deeply unwise’ even before the economic collapse caused by the government’s response to the Chinese coronavirus.
But in the post-COVID-19 world we now inhabit – economies in a state of ‘deep contraction’, against a background of ‘highly significant increases in geopolitical tension’ – it is more foolish still.
‘One might think that in such a context, those still lobbying for Net Zero would be desperately worried, but this would be a facile error. In fact, the greens and their corporate collaborators see this as a great opportunity, and in my judgement they are correct. Administrations around the world will indeed be very tempted to use tax- and levy-funded public spending badges as ‘low carbon investment’ to provide a stimulus to post-Covid economies. It is perfectly true that this would create a large wealth transfer in an already contracting economy, delivering great absolute and relative wealth to those invested in the green industries, with corresponding transfers of socio-political power, but even if they understood that outcome, the bureaucracy will press on, barely restrained if at all by elected representatives.’
There is going to be no escaping this looming disaster, caused by a mass outbreak of green groupthink at virtually every level of the Boris Johnson administration – from Prime Ministerial girlfriends (green activist Carrie Symonds) to key members of the quadrumvirate (Greenest Gove ever), from Prime Ministerial advisors (Dom Cummings) to formerly sound Tory MPs who definitely aren’t anymore because they’ve been put on the payroll and have to spout whatever eco bilge they are told to spout.
In the latter category, we can include Energy Minister Kwasi Kwarteng who, shamingly, can now be heard spouting drivel about how the UK is going to become a ‘world leader in tackling climate change’ by launching a carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
Meanwhile, as Western nations choose to hobble their recoveries by burdening their economies with more expensive energy, the Eastern powers, led by China, are heading in the opposite direction.
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-05--New Study: Climate Impact Of Cattle Grazing Overestimated

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse , GWPF Science Editor on .
Posted in Latest news The climate impact of grass-fed cattle may have been exaggerated as scientists find emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas from certain types of pasture are lower than previously thought .
Researchers from Rothamsted Research found urine from animals reared on pasture where white clover grows – a plant commonly sown onto grazing land to reduce the need for additional nitrogen fertilizer – results in just over half the amount of nitrous oxide previously assumed by scientists to be released .
Nitrous oxide is a potent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than CO2 and can account for 40 % of beef supply chain emissions .
Co-author of the study , Dr. Laura Cardenas said : Due to technical and logistical challenges , field experiments which measure losses of nitrous oxide from soils usually add livestock faeces and urine they have sourced from other farms or other parts of the farm , meaning that the emissions captured do not necessarily represent the true emissions generated by the animals consuming the pasture.
” Writing in the journal Agriculture , Ecosystems , and Environment , the team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed ’ system whereby the circular flow of nitrogen from the soil to forage to cattle and , ultimately , back to soil again , could be monitored .
Lead author of the study , Dr. Graham McAuliffe and colleagues had previously discovered system-wide reductions of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the inclusion of white clover in a pasture .
This conclusion was primarily driven by a lack of need for ammonium nitrate fertilizer , whose production and application create greenhouse gases .
According to Dr. Cardenas , further research is required to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complementarity between white clover and high sugar grasses – but that the data points towards an effect of sowing clover on the soil ’ s microbes .
As the UK wants to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century , improving our understanding of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potentials has never been more important , she added .

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor on Jun 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The climate impact of grass-fed cattle may have been exaggerated as scientists find emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas from certain types of pasture are lower than previously thought.
Researchers from Rothamsted Research found urine from animals reared on pasture where white clover grows – a plant commonly sown onto grazing land to reduce the need for additional nitrogen fertilizer – results in just over half the amount of nitrous oxide previously assumed by scientists to be released.
Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas some 265 times more harmful than CO2 and can account for 40% of beef supply chain emissions.
Co-author of the study, Dr. Laura Cardenas said:
Due to technical and logistical challenges, field experiments which measure losses of nitrous oxide from soils usually add livestock faeces and urine they have sourced from other farms or other parts of the farm, meaning that the emissions captured do not necessarily represent the true emissions generated by the animals consuming the pasture.”
Writing in the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, the team report how they created a near ‘closed’ system whereby the circular flow of nitrogen from the soil to forage to cattle and, ultimately, back to soil again, could be monitored.
Lead author of the study, Dr. Graham McAuliffe and colleagues had previously discovered system-wide reductions of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the inclusion of white clover in a pasture.
This conclusion was primarily driven by a lack of need for ammonium nitrate fertilizer, whose production and application create greenhouse gases.
According to Dr. Cardenas, further research is required to explain the detailed mechanisms behind the observed complementarity between white clover and high sugar grasses – but that the data points towards an effect of sowing clover on the soil’s microbes.
The evidence suggests that including white clover amongst high sugar grass decreases the abundance of microbial genes associated with nitrous oxide production compared with microbial communities observed under just high sugar grass.”
As the UK wants to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century, improving our understanding of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potentials has never been more important, she added.
Read more at GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-05--BBC’s Environment Reporter Creates Hottest May On Record

Written by Paul Homewood on .
Posted in Latest news AFTER the BBC ’ s ‘ environment analyst ’ Roger Harrabin went into hysterics about last month ’ s sunny weather in his piece ‘ Climate change : May was sunniest calendar month on record in the UK ’ , it is appropriate to point out to him that last month was far from being the hottest on record in England : In fact , there have been 47 hotter Mays since 1659 .
The hottest was 1833 , and the five hottest were all pre-1850 .
We know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in facts unless they suit his agenda .
But he really should consult the data since he might learn something .
He claims that May 2020 was the sunniest on record in the UK , but sunshine records did not start until 1929 .
I strongly suspect those scorching Mays in the 19th century were also unusually sunny .
What about spring as a whole ?
Again , nowhere near a record , tied at 9th warmest with 1952 .
Spring was also warmer back in 1893 : The spring of 1893 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A look at the Met Office monthly weather summaries shows just how similar that spring was to this year ’ s , other than the fact that there was some rain towards the end of May : Far from the recent weather in the UK being unprecedented and astounding , or it being a part of a pattern of increasingly extreme weather , as Harrabin ’ s so-called fellow scientist travelers want us to believe , the spring of 1893 shows just how little England ’ s climate has changed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be told that by the BBC .

Written by Paul Homewood on Jun 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
AFTER the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’ Roger Harrabin went into hysterics about last month’s sunny weather in his piece ‘Climate change: May was sunniest calendar month on record in the UK’, it is appropriate to point out to him that last month was far from being the hottest on record in England:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
In fact, there have been 47 hotter Mays since 1659. The hottest was 1833, and the five hottest were all pre-1850.
We know, of course, that Harrabin has little interest in facts unless they suit his agenda. But he really should consult the data since he might learn something.
He claims that May 2020 was the sunniest on record in the UK, but sunshine records did not start until 1929. I strongly suspect those scorching Mays in the 19th century were also unusually sunny.
What about spring as a whole? Again, nowhere near a record, tied at 9th warmest with 1952. Spring was also warmer back in 1893:
The spring of 1893 was the driest on record in England. A look at the Met Office monthly weather summaries shows just how similar that spring was to this year’s, other than the fact that there was some rain towards the end of May:
https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/SO_0ae033c1-0ae6-4bde-a493-5851547972e6/
Far from the recent weather in the UK being unprecedented and astounding, or it being a part of a pattern of increasingly extreme weather, as Harrabin’s so-called fellow scientist travelers want us to believe, the spring of 1893 shows just how little England’s climate has changed in the last 127 years.
But you won’t be told that by the BBC.
Read more at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-05--Settled Science? New Study DESTROYS Alarmist Snowstorm Claims

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news A newly published peer-reviewed study is destroying years of claims by climate alarmists and the Establishment Media that global warming makes winter snowstorms more frequent and deadly .
In contrast to the longstanding alarmist narrative , a team of scientists documents in Nature Climate Change that a warmer world will reduce the frequency and severity of severe snowstorms , especially in the U.S. Northeast .
Nearly every year , when a major snowstorm strikes and captures public attention , climate alarmists and their media allies stoke public fear by claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ferocious , and deadly .
• “ Blizzard of Nor ’ Easters No Surprise , Thanks to Climate Change ” – National Geographic , Jan. 26 , 2015 • “ Major northeastern U.S. snowstorms expected to continue with climate change , ” – Science Daily , Jan. 24 , 2019 Now , let ’ s look at what the new peer-reviewed study says .
“ Significant decreases are found in the frequency and size of snowstorms in a pseudo-global warming simulation , including those events that produce the most extreme snowfall accumulations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and late boreal winter months show particularly robust proportional decreases in snowstorms and snow water equivalent accumulations.
” Or , as described by the newsroom at Northern Illinois University , where two of the study ’ s authors work : Each of the alarmist articles noted above claimed that more severe snowstorms are devastating results of climate change .
Now that research shows warming temperatures may make severe snowstorms less frequent and severe , alarmists are changing their tune , claiming that reduced severity constitutes a climate crisis .
A Science Daily article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in annual snowfall “ could have far-reaching implications ” on “ water resources and plant and animal life.
” Even one of the authors chimed in with an alarmist message , which was likely a necessary condition for Nature Climate Change to accept and publish the study .
“ There also could be serious negative consequences , especially for freshwater resource-dependent industries such as agriculture , recreation , refining , manufacturing , power generation , and river and lake transport , ” said coauthor Walker Ashley , according to the Northern Illinois University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmists Michael Mann , James Hansen , Gavin Schmidt , and Katharine Hayhoe will soon weigh in and help us sort out the contradictory alarmist claims : Will global warming creates more frequent and severe winter snowstorms , which is a very bad thing , or will global warming create less frequent and severe winter snowstorms , which is a very bad thing .
Remember , 97 percent of the world ’ s scientists all agree on one of these statements or the other , which is clearly “ settled science .
”

Written by James Taylor on Jun 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A newly published peer-reviewed study is destroying years of claims by climate alarmists and the Establishment Media that global warming makes winter snowstorms more frequent and deadly.
In contrast to the longstanding alarmist narrative, a team of scientists documents in Nature Climate Change that a warmer world will reduce the frequency and severity of severe snowstorms, especially in the U.S. Northeast.
Nearly every year, when a major snowstorm strikes and captures public attention, climate alarmists and their media allies stoke public fear by claiming global warming makes snowstorms more frequent, ferocious, and deadly.
A partial list of such articles includes:
Now, let’s look at what the new peer-reviewed study says.
“Significant decreases are found in the frequency and size of snowstorms in a pseudo-global warming simulation, including those events that produce the most extreme snowfall accumulations,” the study observes. “Early and late boreal winter months show particularly robust proportional decreases in snowstorms and snow water equivalent accumulations.”
Or, as described by the newsroom at Northern Illinois University, where two of the study’s authors work:
“Under an unabated greenhouse gas emissions scenario, the study projects 28% fewer snowstorms on average per year over central and eastern portions of North America by the century’s last decade, with a one-third reduction in the amount of snow or frozen precipitation and a 38% loss in average snowstorm size.”
Each of the alarmist articles noted above claimed that more severe snowstorms are devastating results of climate change.
Now that research shows warming temperatures may make severe snowstorms less frequent and severe, alarmists are changing their tune, claiming that reduced severity constitutes a climate crisis.
A Science Daily article on the new study claims substantial reductions in annual snowfall “could have far-reaching implications” on “water resources and plant and animal life.”
Even one of the authors chimed in with an alarmist message, which was likely a necessary condition for Nature Climate Change to accept and publish the study.
“There also could be serious negative consequences, especially for freshwater resource-dependent industries such as agriculture, recreation, refining, manufacturing, power generation, and river and lake transport,” said coauthor Walker Ashley, according to the Northern Illinois University press release.
Hopefully, prominent climate alarmists Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and Katharine Hayhoe will soon weigh in and help us sort out the contradictory alarmist claims:
Will global warming creates more frequent and severe winter snowstorms, which is a very bad thing, or will global warming create less frequent and severe winter snowstorms, which is a very bad thing.
Remember, 97 percent of the world’s scientists all agree on one of these statements or the other, which is clearly “settled science.”
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--2020-06-06--Global Economic Downturn Not Affecting CO2 Rise: May 2020

Written by Roy W. Spencer , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news ( While there has been a reduction in CO2 emissions , CO2 concentrations continue to rise globally . )
The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration data continue to show no reduction in the rate of rising due to the recent global economic slowdown .
This demonstrates how difficult it is to reduce global CO2 emissions without causing a major disruption to the global economy and exacerbation of poverty .
After removal of the strong seasonal cycle in Mauna Loa CO2 data , and a first-order estimate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ La Nina activity ( ENSO ) , the May 2020 update shows no indication of a reduction in the rate of rising in the last few months when the reduction in economic activity should have shown up .
I had previously explained why the slowdown would likely not be large enough to affect measured atmospheric CO2 levels compared to natural variations in global sources and sinks of CO2 .
I calculated that the Energy Information Administration-estimated 11 % reductions in CO2 emissions during 2020 would have to be four times larger to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values ( assuming no substantial natural variations in CO2 sources and sinks ) .

Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. on Jun 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
(While there has been a reduction in CO2 emissions, CO2 concentrations continue to rise globally.) The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration data continue to show no reduction in the rate of rising due to the recent global economic slowdown.
This demonstrates how difficult it is to reduce global CO2 emissions without causing a major disruption to the global economy and exacerbation of poverty.
After removal of the strong seasonal cycle in Mauna Loa CO2 data, and a first-order estimate of the CO2 influence of El Nino and La Nina activity (ENSO), the May 2020 update shows no indication of a reduction in the rate of rising in the last few months when the reduction in economic activity should have shown up.
I had previously explained why the slowdown would likely not be large enough to affect measured atmospheric CO2 levels compared to natural variations in global sources and sinks of CO2.
I calculated that the Energy Information Administration-estimated 11% reductions in CO2 emissions during 2020 would have to be four times larger to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2 over 2019 values (assuming no substantial natural variations in CO2 sources and sinks).
Read more at Dr. Roy’s Blog
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-06--DailyKos: It’s Ok For Climate Alarmists To Make Stuff Up

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news The leftist website Daily Kos published an article yesterday claiming climate alarmists are more scientifically credible when they make things up out of thin air – while presenting no supporting scientific facts or evidence – than when climate realists cite numerous datasets and peer-reviewed studies that support their claims .
Making stuff up out of thin air is acceptable , honorable , and compelling , according to DailyKos , if you do it in the name of climate alarmism .
Earlier this week , we published an article here at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made by prominent climate alarmist Katharine Hayhoe in her public presentations to Christian groups .
We specifically noted that Hayhoe uses an apparently self-made chart in her presentations that shows global temperatures steadily and monotonously declining , with almost no variations , for nearly 6,000 years .
Hayhoe ’ s chart reproduced below , then shows , at the end of the 6,000 years of steady cooling , an enormous temperature spike in the 20th century that completely overwhelms the previous 6,000 years of steady cooling .
Our Climate Realism article then showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Change ( IPCC ) itself presented in its very first climate report – published in 1990 and confirmed by multiple studies since ( see , for example , pg .
14 here ) – in which scientists , the IPCC , and multiple datasets and peer-reviewed studies agreed that scientific evidence shows temperatures have varied frequently and considerably throughout the past 6,000 years .
The IPCC chart reproduced below , also showed temperatures currently remain cooler than was the case during most of the past 6,000 years .
As we pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides no sources or supporting data to support her claim that the IPCC , established science , and multiple supporting studies are all wrong .
She merely shows her own chart in public presentations and then uses her highly suspicious chart to support her claim that humans are creating an unprecedented and existential climate crisis .
DailyKos yesterday published an article childishly attacking the Climate Realism article .
The DailyKos article never cited any scientific evidence , data , or studies to support Hayhoe ’ s chart .
Instead , the article claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Heartland ’ s James Taylor thought it would be clever to contrast a chart Dr. Hayhoe uses with one from the very first IPCC report , as though a graph from 1990 is somehow more accurate than something produced with the benefit of an additional thirty years of research.
” Of course , the only presented “ thirty years of research ” is Katharine Hayhoe ’ s self-serving , self-presented chart for which she provides no documentary evidence .
So , the alarmist argument is that if a climate alarmist simply makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thin air , that chart or argument is more credible than factually documented , evidentiary-based science that has been well established and that has remained in effect for many , many years .
• Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth because Copernicus ’ theory is “ old science ” demonstrated more than 400 years ago .
• Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Earth is flat because it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth .
• Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Moon landing never happened , because 50 years have passed since scientists and astronauts accomplished and documented the feat .
Sorry , Katharine Hayhoe and DailyKos , making stuff up out of thin air is not more scientifically compelling than long-established scientific knowledge that is well-sourced , well-cited , and confirmed multiple times since with additional scientific data and studies .

Written by James Taylor on Jun 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The leftist website Daily Kos published an article yesterday claiming climate alarmists are more scientifically credible when they make things up out of thin air – while presenting no supporting scientific facts or evidence – than when climate realists cite numerous datasets and peer-reviewed studies that support their claims.
Making stuff up out of thin air is acceptable, honorable, and compelling, according to DailyKos, if you do it in the name of climate alarmism.
Earlier this week, we published an article here at Climate Realism calling attention to dubious claims made by prominent climate alarmist Katharine Hayhoe in her public presentations to Christian groups.
We specifically noted that Hayhoe uses an apparently self-made chart in her presentations that shows global temperatures steadily and monotonously declining, with almost no variations, for nearly 6,000 years.
Hayhoe’s chart reproduced below, then shows, at the end of the 6,000 years of steady cooling, an enormous temperature spike in the 20th century that completely overwhelms the previous 6,000 years of steady cooling.
Our Climate Realism article then showed what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself presented in its very first climate report – published in 1990 and confirmed by multiple studies since (see, for example, pg. 14 here) – in which scientists, the IPCC, and multiple datasets and peer-reviewed studies agreed that scientific evidence shows temperatures have varied frequently and considerably throughout the past 6,000 years.
The IPCC chart reproduced below, also showed temperatures currently remain cooler than was the case during most of the past 6,000 years.
As we pointed out in the Climate Realism article, Hayhoe provides no sources or supporting data to support her claim that the IPCC, established science, and multiple supporting studies are all wrong.
She merely shows her own chart in public presentations and then uses her highly suspicious chart to support her claim that humans are creating an unprecedented and existential climate crisis.
DailyKos yesterday published an article childishly attacking the Climate Realism article. The DailyKos article never cited any scientific evidence, data, or studies to support Hayhoe’s chart.
Instead, the article claimed, “Not be outdumb’d, Heartland’s James Taylor thought it would be clever to contrast a chart Dr. Hayhoe uses with one from the very first IPCC report, as though a graph from 1990 is somehow more accurate than something produced with the benefit of an additional thirty years of research.”
Of course, the only presented “thirty years of research” is Katharine Hayhoe’s self-serving, self-presented chart for which she provides no documentary evidence.
So, the alarmist argument is that if a climate alarmist simply makes up a chart or an argument out of thin air, that chart or argument is more credible than factually documented, evidentiary-based science that has been well established and that has remained in effect for many, many years.
By that logic:
Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth because Copernicus’ theory is “old science” demonstrated more than 400 years ago.
Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Earth is flat because it has been 500 years since Magellan circumnavigated the Earth.
Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Moon landing never happened, because 50 years have passed since scientists and astronauts accomplished and documented the feat.
Sorry, Katharine Hayhoe and DailyKos, making stuff up out of thin air is not more scientifically compelling than long-established scientific knowledge that is well-sourced, well-cited, and confirmed multiple times since with additional scientific data and studies.
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--2020-06-08--Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Brings New Questions To Underlying Science

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse , GWPF Science Editor on .
Posted in Latest news Researchers from the Universities of Princeton , California , Tokyo , Kyushu , and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said the recent hiatus in global temperatures rising has led to a surge in climate science .
The global effort to understand the global warming hiatus they say has led to an increased understanding of some of the key metrics of global climate change such as global temperature and ice-cover .
Searching for an answer to the hiatus , they say , meant that the scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metrics , in particular the fact that they do not unequivocally portray the same story about global warming .
For instance , as the global surface temperature increase underwent an apparent slowdown , Antarctic sea ice expanded and boreal summer Arctic sea ice declined rapidly , at least until 2007 .
Hot and cold extremes increased in northern hemisphere continents , and the Hadley circulation shifted poleward .
Many of the changes are not ones expected due to increasing greenhouse gas forcing .
For some this called into question the viability of computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes indicated a fundamental lack in our understanding and ability to simulate radiatively forced changes , or indeed if internal climate variability alone is sufficient to explain the changes .
The researchers point out that since the hiatus was identified just over a decade ago it stimulated advances in our understanding of the multidecadal variability of these key metrics , providing insight into internal climate variability .
As well as drawing attention to biases in the temperature record it has also improved our understanding of the role of the tropical Pacific Ocean in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress , many challenges remain , especially due to the relatively short timescale of the observations .
There are also limitations of climate models in simulating internal , multidecadal climate variability , and the way radiatively forced changes to interact with that inherent variability .
The short period over which we have reliable observations restricts the number of independent simulations of observed multidecadal variability that can be performed .
Uncertainties in the data , such as sea ice extent are very large before the satellite era in the late 1970s .
Other datasets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as global sea surface temperature , have large uncertainties in the first half of the 20th century particularly over the Southern Ocean due to sparse data .
Because of these uncertainties , the scientists say , many existing sea surface temperature reconstructions may have underestimated the amplitude of early 20th-century natural climatic variations , impeding our ability to understand associated climate changes such as accelerated Arctic warming .
Although recent climate models can simulate the basic structure of internal climatic variability , they underestimate the strength of some important modes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oceanic climate cycles .
Specifically , the decadal-to-multidecadal component of the North Atlantic Oscillation which has important consequences for the Northern Hemisphere temperature .
As with the recent hiatus , they say , it is inevitable that internal variability will offset and possibly even temporarily reverse the radiatively forced trends for each of these metrics over decadal to multidecadal periods , that is possibly bring on a period of global cooling .
The scientific community should be ready for this they imply .
Johnson et al writing a review article in Global and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multidecadal modulations , the trends of these metrics must be calculated over several decades to suppress the noise of internal variability .
This is in contrast to the prevailing message before the identification of the hiatus which was the long-term climate warming signal was strong and the “ noise ” relatively weak .
The hiatus , they add , demonstrated that natural variability of global surface temperature can overcome the effects of radiative forced global warming over periods of about 15 years .
For other more regionally confined metrics , this timescale tends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond available observational records .
In other words , we do not have enough long-term data to evaluate natural climatic variability to place today ’ s change into their proper historical perspective .
Thus , these researchers lay bare some of the dominant memes of climate change regarding its ability to forecast the future .
The lesson of the hiatus is that we do not understand internal climatic variability as much as many think we do , and our predictive power is less than many believe .

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor on Jun 8, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Researchers from the Universities of Princeton, California, Tokyo, Kyushu, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said the recent hiatus in global temperatures rising has led to a surge in climate science.
The global effort to understand the global warming hiatus they say has led to an increased understanding of some of the key metrics of global climate change such as global temperature and ice-cover.
Searching for an answer to the hiatus, they say, meant that the scientific community grappled with difficulties with these climate metrics, in particular the fact that they do not unequivocally portray the same story about global warming.
For instance, as the global surface temperature increase underwent an apparent slowdown, Antarctic sea ice expanded and boreal summer Arctic sea ice declined rapidly, at least until 2007.
Hot and cold extremes increased in northern hemisphere continents, and the Hadley circulation shifted poleward.
Many of the changes are not ones expected due to increasing greenhouse gas forcing. For some this called into question the viability of computer models of the climate and whether these changes indicated a fundamental lack in our understanding and ability to simulate radiatively forced changes, or indeed if internal climate variability alone is sufficient to explain the changes.
The researchers point out that since the hiatus was identified just over a decade ago it stimulated advances in our understanding of the multidecadal variability of these key metrics, providing insight into internal climate variability.
As well as drawing attention to biases in the temperature record it has also improved our understanding of the role of the tropical Pacific Ocean in mean global temperature.
Despite the research progress, many challenges remain, especially due to the relatively short timescale of the observations.
There are also limitations of climate models in simulating internal, multidecadal climate variability, and the way radiatively forced changes to interact with that inherent variability.
Data Uncertainty
The short period over which we have reliable observations restricts the number of independent simulations of observed multidecadal variability that can be performed. Uncertainties in the data, such as sea ice extent are very large before the satellite era in the late 1970s.
Other datasets with records extending more than a century, such as global sea surface temperature, have large uncertainties in the first half of the 20th century particularly over the Southern Ocean due to sparse data.
Because of these uncertainties, the scientists say, many existing sea surface temperature reconstructions may have underestimated the amplitude of early 20th-century natural climatic variations, impeding our ability to understand associated climate changes such as accelerated Arctic warming.
Although recent climate models can simulate the basic structure of internal climatic variability, they underestimate the strength of some important modes of internal multidecadal variability, in particular the oceanic climate cycles.
Specifically, the decadal-to-multidecadal component of the North Atlantic Oscillation which has important consequences for the Northern Hemisphere temperature.
As with the recent hiatus, they say, it is inevitable that internal variability will offset and possibly even temporarily reverse the radiatively forced trends for each of these metrics over decadal to multidecadal periods, that is possibly bring on a period of global cooling.
The scientific community should be ready for this they imply.
Johnson et al writing a review article in Global and Planetary Change concludes that because of these multidecadal modulations, the trends of these metrics must be calculated over several decades to suppress the noise of internal variability.
This is in contrast to the prevailing message before the identification of the hiatus which was the long-term climate warming signal was strong and the “noise” relatively weak.
The hiatus, they add, demonstrated that natural variability of global surface temperature can overcome the effects of radiative forced global warming over periods of about 15 years.
For other more regionally confined metrics, this timescale tends to be even longer and may extend beyond available observational records.
In other words, we do not have enough long-term data to evaluate natural climatic variability to place today’s change into their proper historical perspective.
Thus, these researchers lay bare some of the dominant memes of climate change regarding its ability to forecast the future.
The lesson of the hiatus is that we do not understand internal climatic variability as much as many think we do, and our predictive power is less than many believe.
Read more at GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-08--Inconvenient Truths: Gore Proven Spectacularly Wrong On Glacier National Park

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news In his 2006 book , An Inconvenient Truth , Al Gore asserted there would be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2012 .
“ Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed , ‘ the park formerly known as Glacier , ’ ” Gore wrote .
Here in 2020 , however , glaciers remain in abundance in the Park .
Call this another Al Gore prediction that spectacularly failed .
On page 47 of his book , Gore writes , “ I climbed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ park with one of my daughters in 1997 and heard from the scientists who accompanied us that within 15 years all of the glaciers throughout the park will likely be gone.
” Yet , Caitlyn Florentine , a research physical scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey ’ s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center , told Montana Public Radio earlier this year that 26 named glaciers continue to exist in Glacier National Park , eight years after Gore ’ s no-glacier deadline .
Gore ’ s assertion that the glaciers would be gone by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prediction to be proven wrong .
The National Park Service previously put up signs claiming all the glaciers would be gone by 2020 .
Earlier this year , the Park Service attempted to remove and replace the signs without anybody noticing .
People noticed .
“ Never put a time limit on your doomsday predictions , ” columnist James Delingpole observed , commenting on the Park Service ’ s stealth sign-replacement program .
In perhaps the most telling example of climate alarmists ’ lack of either credibility or integrity , the website GlacierHub @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 prediction under the subhead , “ Climate denialists pounce.
” Yes , you read that correctly .
The National Park Service put up propaganda signs all over Glacier National Park – at taxpayer expense – claiming the Park would have no more glaciers by 2020 .
Climate Realists questioned the prediction from the very beginning and were called science “ deniers ” for doing so .
The deadline passed , the Park Service was proven wrong , and Climate Realists were proven right .
Alarmists respond by calling the vindicated Climate Realists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Earth Institute is rewarding GlacierHub , by the way , by inviting GlacierHub to host its website to the Columbia University Earth Institute website .
Ethical , objective , sound science in action .
Either way , a loss of all glaciers by 2012 in Glacier National Park is yet another alarmist prediction that Al Gore got spectacularly wrong .
We at Climate Realism expect a full correction and an apology from Gore very soon and will report on it when it comes .

Written by James Taylor on Jun 8, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In his 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asserted there would be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2012.
“Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed, ‘the park formerly known as Glacier,’” Gore wrote.
Here in 2020, however, glaciers remain in abundance in the Park. Call this another Al Gore prediction that spectacularly failed.
On page 47 of his book, Gore writes, “I climbed to the top of the bigger glacier in this park with one of my daughters in 1997 and heard from the scientists who accompanied us that within 15 years all of the glaciers throughout the park will likely be gone.”
Yet, Caitlyn Florentine, a research physical scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, told Montana Public Radio earlier this year that 26 named glaciers continue to exist in Glacier National Park, eight years after Gore’s no-glacier deadline.
Gore’s assertion that the glaciers would be gone by 2012 wasn’t the only alarmist prediction to be proven wrong.
The National Park Service previously put up signs claiming all the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Earlier this year, the Park Service attempted to remove and replace the signs without anybody noticing. People noticed.
“Never put a time limit on your doomsday predictions,” columnist James Delingpole observed, commenting on the Park Service’s stealth sign-replacement program.
In perhaps the most telling example of climate alarmists’ lack of either credibility or integrity, the website GlacierHub acknowledged the Park Service’s failed 2020 prediction under the subhead, “Climate denialists pounce.”
Yes, you read that correctly. The National Park Service put up propaganda signs all over Glacier National Park – at taxpayer expense – claiming the Park would have no more glaciers by 2020.
Climate Realists questioned the prediction from the very beginning and were called science “deniers” for doing so.
The deadline passed, the Park Service was proven wrong, and Climate Realists were proven right. Alarmists respond by calling the vindicated Climate Realists science “denialists.”
Columbia University’s Earth Institute is rewarding GlacierHub, by the way, by inviting GlacierHub to host its website to the Columbia University Earth Institute website. Ethical, objective, sound science in action.
Either way, a loss of all glaciers by 2012 in Glacier National Park is yet another alarmist prediction that Al Gore got spectacularly wrong.
We at Climate Realism expect a full correction and an apology from Gore very soon and will report on it when it comes.
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--2020-06-08--How Those Evil Plastic Bags Are Now Coronavirus Fighters

Written by Karalee Katsambanis on .
Posted in Latest news It is not often that an identified Public Enemy Number One becomes a Superhero .
And it took a pandemic to prove it .
But previously , much-maligned plastic is proving a key to survival during COVD-19 .
I keep waiting for the protests against plastic to begin , but there is welcomed silence .
Less than two years ago , supermarkets were scrambling to ensure plastic wrap was pushed off dozens of items and of course , the plastic bag ban was seen as the best thing since sliced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race and the planet .
How ironic that we have all done a 180-degree turn and the humble single-use plastic bag is again a much-valued item .
Along with lots of other plastic treasures — plastic food wrapping , plastic gloves , all the personal protective equipment needed during the pandemic across the globe with gowns , gloves , and masks .
No PPE stuff is being recycled and nor should anyone want it to be .
Supermarket giant Woolworths thought it was on a winner when it recently announced that shoppers across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a fully recyclable paper bag for 20 cents , which is five cents more than the reusable plastic bags that were rolled out when single-use bags were banned and withdrawn .
Not only can these paper bags carry six kilograms of groceries but they can be recycled in regular household council wheelie bins .
Soon it will also introduce reusable nylon produce bags too .
We used to have one option of a single-use plastic bag .
Suddenly there are three options — reusable plastic , recyclable paper , and now even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All those resources and energy used to give “ conscious consumers ” a choice of three ways to get their shopping home as opposed to just one .
They all cost time and money in some way though .
A timely reminder for everyone that banning the single-use plastic bag resulted in a huge windfall to all retailers , especially supermarkets .
Back in 2018 , when the ban came into effect in Australia , Queensland University of Technology retail expert Dr. Gary Mortimer argued that the ban would have a minimal impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Productivity Commission had already reached similar conclusions .
The supermarkets ’ so-called eco-friendly future was instead boosted by them making around $ 71 million in gross profit because shoppers were now having to pay for something they used to get for free .
Some smart executive would have received a hefty bonus for turning a business cost into a profit center .
At the end of the day , there were many Australians who were recycling their one-use plastic bags subconsciously by using them for muddy footy boots , kitchen bin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them out or littering them .
But fighting against the might of the greenies who mandate much from the comfort of a café sipping a turmeric soy latte is not easy for those of us with common sense .
Plastic equaled badness .
The idea to ban plastic entirely has resulted in a few brave souls who have pointed out the need for flexible plastic straws to help people in nursing homes and hospitals .
The demonizing of them soon stopped .
But the demonizing of balloons and bunting is undoubtedly on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-pandemic .
But for now , many previously sustainability-conscious people are now craving everything plastic .
Funny that .
Even funnier is that none of them will ever actually admit it !
How many households are now stocked with plastic bottles of hand sanitizer , disposable wipes , and takeaway food containers ?
Demand for disposable gloves and masks remains at a record high .
The bacteria-riddled reusable “ keep cup ” has been kicked to the curb by cafes and coffee shops .
No one wants to see one on their premises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just hear the audible gasp from staff and customers alike .
Even the option of customers wanting to bring in their containers to stores and restaurants has been knocked on the head meaning everyone is defaulting to the good old disposable options .
Local newspapers that were available at various stands in various locations around Australian suburbs are now home-delivered , tightly wrapped in plastic wrap .
Some people are arguing that single-use plastic bags are a more hygienic option than reusable ones and plastic bag bans have been reversed in some US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have all been blindly led down the garden path for so long by activist groups intent on demonizing plastic .
But this pandemic has seen the pendulum swing back hard , demonstrating that when it comes to the crunch , more often than not , common sense prevails .
People are now realizing the true value of plastic : something that was initially invented to benefit the human race and providing its benefits in a crisis .
Remember , it is people who litter .
The plastic item doesn ’ t throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silver lining in this pandemic has been that plastic is not the devil in disguise after all .

Written by Karalee Katsambanis on Jun 8, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It is not often that an identified Public Enemy Number One becomes a Superhero. And it took a pandemic to prove it.
But previously, much-maligned plastic is proving a key to survival during COVD-19.
I keep waiting for the protests against plastic to begin, but there is welcomed silence.
Less than two years ago, supermarkets were scrambling to ensure plastic wrap was pushed off dozens of items and of course, the plastic bag ban was seen as the best thing since sliced bread for the survival of the human race and the planet.
How ironic that we have all done a 180-degree turn and the humble single-use plastic bag is again a much-valued item.
Along with lots of other plastic treasures — plastic food wrapping, plastic gloves, all the personal protective equipment needed during the pandemic across the globe with gowns, gloves, and masks.
No PPE stuff is being recycled and nor should anyone want it to be.
Supermarket giant Woolworths thought it was on a winner when it recently announced that shoppers across the nation would be able to pick up a fully recyclable paper bag for 20 cents, which is five cents more than the reusable plastic bags that were rolled out when single-use bags were banned and withdrawn.
Not only can these paper bags carry six kilograms of groceries but they can be recycled in regular household council wheelie bins. Soon it will also introduce reusable nylon produce bags too.
We used to have one option of a single-use plastic bag. Suddenly there are three options — reusable plastic, recyclable paper, and now even a nylon bag.
Go figure. All those resources and energy used to give “conscious consumers” a choice of three ways to get their shopping home as opposed to just one. They all cost time and money in some way though.
A timely reminder for everyone that banning the single-use plastic bag resulted in a huge windfall to all retailers, especially supermarkets.
Back in 2018, when the ban came into effect in Australia, Queensland University of Technology retail expert Dr. Gary Mortimer argued that the ban would have a minimal impact on the environment.
A decade earlier, the Productivity Commission had already reached similar conclusions.
The supermarkets’ so-called eco-friendly future was instead boosted by them making around $71 million in gross profit because shoppers were now having to pay for something they used to get for free. Some smart executive would have received a hefty bonus for turning a business cost into a profit center.
At the end of the day, there were many Australians who were recycling their one-use plastic bags subconsciously by using them for muddy footy boots, kitchen bin bag liners, and not just throwing them out or littering them.
But fighting against the might of the greenies who mandate much from the comfort of a café sipping a turmeric soy latte is not easy for those of us with common sense.
Plastic equaled badness. The idea to ban plastic entirely has resulted in a few brave souls who have pointed out the need for flexible plastic straws to help people in nursing homes and hospitals. The demonizing of them soon stopped.
But the demonizing of balloons and bunting is undoubtedly on the environmental activists’ “to-do” list post-pandemic.
But for now, many previously sustainability-conscious people are now craving everything plastic.
Funny that. Even funnier is that none of them will ever actually admit it!
How many households are now stocked with plastic bottles of hand sanitizer, disposable wipes, and takeaway food containers? Demand for disposable gloves and masks remains at a record high.
The bacteria-riddled reusable “keep cup” has been kicked to the curb by cafes and coffee shops.
No one wants to see one on their premises at all. Bring one out and just hear the audible gasp from staff and customers alike.
Even the option of customers wanting to bring in their containers to stores and restaurants has been knocked on the head meaning everyone is defaulting to the good old disposable options.
Local newspapers that were available at various stands in various locations around Australian suburbs are now home-delivered, tightly wrapped in plastic wrap.
Some people are arguing that single-use plastic bags are a more hygienic option than reusable ones and plastic bag bans have been reversed in some US states and elsewhere around the world.
We have all been blindly led down the garden path for so long by activist groups intent on demonizing plastic.
But this pandemic has seen the pendulum swing back hard, demonstrating that when it comes to the crunch, more often than not, common sense prevails.
People are now realizing the true value of plastic: something that was initially invented to benefit the human race and providing its benefits in a crisis.
Remember, it is people who litter.
The plastic item doesn’t throw itself out. […]
One silver lining in this pandemic has been that plastic is not the devil in disguise after all.
Read rest at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-08--The Green New Deal’s Pandemic Dress Rehearsal

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news More than 1.4 million cases of Wuhan Virus and 106,000 deaths in the United States alone have accompanied stay-at-home lockdowns , business bankruptcies , over 40 million unemployed workers , plummeting tax revenues , and unprecedented debt .
Ongoing rioting , vandalism , arson , and looting are compounding problems for many cities and minority communities .
But where many see disaster , others see opportunity .
Some want to use the crises to enact laws and welfare programs they could never get otherwise .
More ambitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or dress rehearsal for total energy , economic , and lifestyle transformation to “ save the planet.
” If three months of COVID lockdowns can reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions , they argue , permanent fossil fuel bans are possible , essential and should be undertaken immediately .
Five years ago , former UN official Christiana Figueres said the real goal of climate actions was to “ intentionally transform the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years ” – and replace it with socialist-environmentalist global governance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic stimulus packages should be used to “ kick-start ” investments “ in low-carbon infrastructure projects that will create jobs and put the world on a safer , fairer , more resilient path.
” Others want to use climate change as a pretext for dictating how global wealth and resources will be redistributed .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s chief of staff is on the same page .
The Green New Deal “ wasn ’ t originally a climate thing at all , ” he said in May 2019 .
It was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and other leading Democrats have endorsed the GND .
UN Secretary-General António Guterres believes “ the pandemic could create an opportunity to rebuild the global economy along more sustainable lines.
” His environment chief thinks COVID-19 presents “ a chance to do capitalism differently.
” The UN Green Climate Fund says it “ offers an opportunity to direct finances towards bolstering climate action ” and “ re-launch [ ing ] economies on low-emission , climate-resilient trajectories , ” to control climate and weather and prevent massive extinctions .
In short , echoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want the United States and other modern societies to de-develop and de-industrialize , establish low-consumption lifestyles that ensure “ more equitable distribution of wealth , ” and tell poor countries how much “ ecologically feasible ” development they will be permitted to pursue .
Perhaps most important , these “ visionary ” ruling elites will be in charge .
They will define what is clean , green , renewable , sustainable , ecologically feasible , safer , fairer , more resilient .
They will demand less travel , trade , and commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live quite well while telling today ’ s oilfield and factory workers their industries must disappear and they must be content with minimum-wage jobs installing , maintaining , and dismantling wind turbines and solar panels made overseas .
Fans and implementers of COVID-19 lockdowns have been oblivious to the economic , societal and human devastation caused by the lockdowns : not just economic losses , depleted savings and ruined dreams , but millions of cases of depression , drug addiction , alcoholism , domestic violence , obesity , stroke , heart attack , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and suicide and murder attributable to the lockdowns .
Add to that millions of future or still uncounted deaths and disabilities from missed biopsies , skipped cancer screenings and chemotherapy , missed early treatments for stroke and heart-attack patients , and organ transplants simply not performed – because “ non-essential ” medicine was closed down , people lost their health insurance , or patients were afraid to go to clinics and emergency rooms .
Many hospitals , clinics , and practices lost so much money that they may have to close their doors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on healthcare , life spans , and death tolls among obese , diabetic , elderly , and severely ill patients could be enormous .
These human costs will take years to manifest themselves and be calculated .
Indeed , the ultimate cost of the lockdown could be worse than the virus .
We still do not have reliable data on COVID infections , cases and deaths – and don ’ t know whether deaths were due to Corona , or merely associated with the virus and primarily due to age or serious underlying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even know how many vulnerable elderly people died from COVID complications inflicted on them by decisions by New York , New Jersey , Pennsylvania , and other officials to force nursing homes to accept recovering Corona patients and keep COVID-infected staff working in those facilities .
All this is from lockdowns lasting several months .
Suggestions that we “ transform ” our economy with expensive , unreliable , weather-dependent energy – and endure energy , employment , healthcare , and other deprivations in perpetuity – border on homicidal insanity .
They would postpone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in unimaginable misery and death in now-developed countries – and condemn tens of millions of people in still impoverished nations to horrible suffering , disease , starvation , and death .
As to saving the planet and ensuring “ ecologically feasible ” development , GND energy systems would be vastly more devastating to scenic areas , habitats , and wildlife – and to human health and welfare – than any likely effects from manmade portions of future climate changes or weather events .
As Michael Moore ’ s new film , “ Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wind , solar , battery , and biofuel technologies are the antithesis of clean , green , renewable , and sustainable .
Even worse , the ecological devastation it documents is happening in a world that is still 81 % dependent on oil , natural gas , and coal , 4 % on nuclear and 7 % on hydroelectric .
The impacts and species losses would be orders of magnitude greater if we were 100 % dependent on pseudo-renewable energy sources .
Adopting UN-AOC energy prescriptions would require literally millions of 800-foot-tall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , billions of half-ton batteries , thousands of biofuel plantations and clear-cut forests , billions of battery-powered vehicles , and thousands of new and expanded mines to provide tens of billions of tons more metals and minerals .
The ecological impacts would reach every corner of every continent .
Hundreds of bird , bat , reptile and mammalian species would disappear .
Household , hospital , school , business , and factory electricity costs would skyrocket .
Jobs and industries would vanish .
Those prescriptions would also make the United States enormously dependent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devices and pharmaceutical components – but for metals , raw materials and component parts needed in wind turbines , solar panels , backup power batteries , and defense , aerospace , and high-technology applications .
And all that mining and manufacturing , in Asia and other distant lands , would require fossil fuels , at levels far beyond anything seen in history , under minimal to nonexistent pollution , workplace safety and human rights laws , accompanied by prodigious emissions of carbon dioxide .
Fans and implementers of GND transformations are willfully oblivious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discuss them or allow others to discuss them – because to do so would destroy their phony “ saving the planet ” narrative and quest for total control over our lives , livelihoods , living standards and liberties .
No wonder the UN-AOC-environmentalist crowd went ballistic over Moore ’ s film .
YouTube yanked the movie from its viewing platform , and “ mainstream ” media , social media , search engines , and information sites are now engaging in blatant censorship on climate , energy , and environmental issues .
An increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dictate and control what people see , hear , say , and think on race relations , medicine , and virtually every other political topic .
From the NY Times and Washington Post to Facebook , Twitter , Google , YouTube , and Wikipedia , platforms that should be forums for robust debate instead are used to dictate what is true or false , permissible , or banned .
US , EU , and UN green new deals are just one component of the battle for our future .
Corona lockdowns should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could come – not as a dress rehearsal or blueprint for it .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of Eco-Imperialism : Green power , Black Death , and other books and articles on energy , environment , climate , and human rights issues .

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Jun 8, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
More than 1.4 million cases of Wuhan Virus and 106,000 deaths in the United States alone have accompanied stay-at-home lockdowns, business bankruptcies, over 40 million unemployed workers, plummeting tax revenues, and unprecedented debt.
Ongoing rioting, vandalism, arson, and looting are compounding problems for many cities and minority communities.
But where many see disaster, others see opportunity. Some want to use the crises to enact laws and welfare programs they could never get otherwise.
More ambitious activists see the lockdown as a blueprint or dress rehearsal for total energy, economic, and lifestyle transformation to “save the planet.”
If three months of COVID lockdowns can reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, they argue, permanent fossil fuel bans are possible, essential and should be undertaken immediately.
Five years ago, former UN official Christiana Figueres said the real goal of climate actions was to “intentionally transform the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years” – and replace it with socialist-environmentalist global governance.
More recently, she said post-Corona economic stimulus packages should be used to “kick-start” investments “in low-carbon infrastructure projects that will create jobs and put the world on a safer, fairer, more resilient path.”
Others want to use climate change as a pretext for dictating how global wealth and resources will be redistributed.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff is on the same page. The Green New Deal “wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” he said in May 2019. It was “a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Presidential candidate Joe Biden and other leading Democrats have endorsed the GND.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres believes “the pandemic could create an opportunity to rebuild the global economy along more sustainable lines.”
His environment chief thinks COVID-19 presents “a chance to do capitalism differently.”
The UN Green Climate Fund says it “offers an opportunity to direct finances towards bolstering climate action” and “re-launch[ing] economies on low-emission, climate-resilient trajectories,” to control climate and weather and prevent massive extinctions.
In short, echoing former Obama science advisor John Holdren, they want the United States and other modern societies to de-develop and de-industrialize, establish low-consumption lifestyles that ensure “more equitable distribution of wealth,” and tell poor countries how much “ecologically feasible” development they will be permitted to pursue.
Perhaps most important, these “visionary” ruling elites will be in charge. They will define what is clean, green, renewable, sustainable, ecologically feasible, safer, fairer, more resilient.
They will demand less travel, trade, and commerce – for the masses. They will live quite well while telling today’s oilfield and factory workers their industries must disappear and they must be content with minimum-wage jobs installing, maintaining, and dismantling wind turbines and solar panels made overseas.
Fans and implementers of COVID-19 lockdowns have been oblivious to the economic, societal and human devastation caused by the lockdowns: not just economic losses, depleted savings and ruined dreams, but millions of cases of depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, domestic violence, obesity, stroke, heart attack, thousands of deaths from these causes, and suicide and murder attributable to the lockdowns.
Add to that millions of future or still uncounted deaths and disabilities from missed biopsies, skipped cancer screenings and chemotherapy, missed early treatments for stroke and heart-attack patients, and organ transplants simply not performed – because “non-essential” medicine was closed down, people lost their health insurance, or patients were afraid to go to clinics and emergency rooms.
Many hospitals, clinics, and practices lost so much money that they may have to close their doors.
The cumulative long-term impact from that on healthcare, life spans, and death tolls among obese, diabetic, elderly, and severely ill patients could be enormous.
These human costs will take years to manifest themselves and be calculated. Indeed, the ultimate cost of the lockdown could be worse than the virus.
We still do not have reliable data on COVID infections, cases and deaths – and don’t know whether deaths were due to Corona, or merely associated with the virus and primarily due to age or serious underlying health problems.
We don’t even know how many vulnerable elderly people died from COVID complications inflicted on them by decisions by New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and other officials to force nursing homes to accept recovering Corona patients and keep COVID-infected staff working in those facilities.
All this is from lockdowns lasting several months. Suggestions that we “transform” our economy with expensive, unreliable, weather-dependent energy – and endure energy, employment, healthcare, and other deprivations in perpetuity – border on homicidal insanity.
They would postpone or eliminate any economic recovery, result in unimaginable misery and death in now-developed countries – and condemn tens of millions of people in still impoverished nations to horrible suffering, disease, starvation, and death.
As to saving the planet and ensuring “ecologically feasible” development, GND energy systems would be vastly more devastating to scenic areas, habitats, and wildlife – and to human health and welfare – than any likely effects from manmade portions of future climate changes or weather events.
As Michael Moore’s new film, “Planet of the Humans,” dramatically demonstrates, wind, solar, battery, and biofuel technologies are the antithesis of clean, green, renewable, and sustainable.
Even worse, the ecological devastation it documents is happening in a world that is still 81% dependent on oil, natural gas, and coal, 4% on nuclear and 7% on hydroelectric.
The impacts and species losses would be orders of magnitude greater if we were 100% dependent on pseudo-renewable energy sources.
Adopting UN-AOC energy prescriptions would require literally millions of 800-foot-tall wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of half-ton batteries, thousands of biofuel plantations and clear-cut forests, billions of battery-powered vehicles, and thousands of new and expanded mines to provide tens of billions of tons more metals and minerals.
The ecological impacts would reach every corner of every continent. Hundreds of bird, bat, reptile and mammalian species would disappear. Household, hospital, school, business, and factory electricity costs would skyrocket. Jobs and industries would vanish.
Those prescriptions would also make the United States enormously dependent on China, not just for medical devices and pharmaceutical components – but for metals, raw materials and component parts needed in wind turbines, solar panels, backup power batteries, and defense, aerospace, and high-technology applications.
And all that mining and manufacturing, in Asia and other distant lands, would require fossil fuels, at levels far beyond anything seen in history, under minimal to nonexistent pollution, workplace safety and human rights laws, accompanied by prodigious emissions of carbon dioxide.
Fans and implementers of GND transformations are willfully oblivious of these realities. They refuse to discuss them or allow others to discuss them – because to do so would destroy their phony “saving the planet” narrative and quest for total control over our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties.
No wonder the UN-AOC-environmentalist crowd went ballistic over Moore’s film. YouTube yanked the movie from its viewing platform, and “mainstream” media, social media, search engines, and information sites are now engaging in blatant censorship on climate, energy, and environmental issues.
An increasingly activist, liberal media complex also wants to dictate and control what people see, hear, say, and think on race relations, medicine, and virtually every other political topic.
From the NY Times and Washington Post to Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, and Wikipedia, platforms that should be forums for robust debate instead are used to dictate what is true or false, permissible, or banned.
US, EU, and UN green new deals are just one component of the battle for our future. Corona lockdowns should serve as a bitter taste of what could come – not as a dress rehearsal or blueprint for it.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black Death, and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print