climatechangedispatch--2020-06-26--‘Apocalypse Never’ Review: False Gods For Lost Souls

Written by John Tierney on .
Posted in Latest news There is a recurring puzzle in the history of the environmental movement : Why do green activists keep promoting policies that are harmful not only to humans but also to the environment ?
Michael Shellenberger is determined to solve this problem , and he is singularly well qualified .
He understands activists because he has been one himself since high school when he raised money for the Rainforest Action Network .
Early in his adult career , he campaigned to protect redwood trees , promote renewable energy , stop global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers and factory workers in the Third World .
But the more he traveled , the more he questioned what Westerners ’ activism was accomplishing for people or for nature .
He became a different kind of activist by helping start a movement called ecomodernism , the subject of “ Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
” He still wants to help the poor and preserve ecosystems , but through industrialization instead of “ sustainable development.
” He ’ s still worried about climate change , but he doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , much less a threat to humanity ’ s survival—and he sees that greens ’ favorite solutions are making the problem worse .
He chronicles environmental progress around the world and crisply debunks myth after gloomy myth .
No , we are not in the midst of the “ sixth mass extinction , ” because only 0.001 % of the planet ’ s species go extinct annually .
No , whales were not saved by Greenpeace but rather by the capitalist entrepreneurs who discovered cheaper substitutes for whale oil ( first petroleum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whaling industry long before activists got involved .
No , plastics don ’ t linger for thousands of years in the ocean ; they ’ re broken down by sunlight and other forces .
No , climate change has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of floods , droughts , hurricanes , and tornadoes .
In 2002 , Mr. Shellenberger proposed the New Apollo Project , a precursor to the Green New Deal .
Many of its ideas for promoting renewable energy were adopted by the Obama administration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal funds , but Mr. Shellenberger was disillusioned with the results .
A disproportionate share of the money , as he documents , went to companies that enriched donors to the Obama campaign but failed to yield practical technologies .
He now considers most forms of renewable energy to be impractical for large-scale use .
Windmills and solar power are too expensive and unreliable as a primary source of power for people in poor countries , and they cause too much environmental damage because they require vast areas of land and harm flora @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and governments for trying to force these technologies on Third World countries and prevent them from building hydroelectric and fossil-fuel power plants .
“ Rich nations , ” he writes , “ should do everything they can to help poor nations industrialize.
” Instead “ many of them are doing something closer to the opposite : seeking to make poverty sustainable rather than to make poverty history.
” While industrialization causes a short-term rise in carbon emissions , in the long term it ’ s beneficial to the environment as people move to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature , and as prosperity enables them to switch to cleaner and more compact forms of energy .
Carbon emissions decline as people move from wood to coal to natural gas , and then ultimately to what Mr. Shellenberger calls the safest and cleanest source : nuclear energy , the only practical technology for drastically curtailing carbon emissions—if only green activists would stop trying to shut down nuclear plants .
Mr. Shellenberger blames the anti-nuke movement partly on fearmongering by activists and journalists , partly on instinctive hostility to new technology , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major climate activist group in America , ” he writes , including the Environmental Defense Fund , the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club , “ has been seeking to close nuclear plants around the United States while taking money from or investing in natural gas companies , renewable energy companies , and their investors who stand to make billions if nuclear plants are closed and replaced by natural gas.
” Mr. Shellenberger makes a persuasive case , lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries suffering the consequences of “ environmental colonialism.
” He realizes , though , that rational arguments alone won ’ t convince devout environmentalists .
“ I was drawn toward the apocalyptic view of climate change twenty years ago , ” he writes .
“ I can see now that my heightened anxiety about climate reflected underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.
” For him and so many others , environmentalism offered emotional relief and spiritual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose and transcendence .
It has become a substitute religion for those who have abandoned traditional faiths , as he explains in his concluding chapter , “ False Gods for Lost Souls.
” Its priests have been warning for half a century that humanity is about to be punished for its sins against nature , and no matter how often the doomsday forecasts fail , the faithful still thrill to each new one .
“ The trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic , destructive , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It leads its adherents to demonize their opponents , often hypocritically .
It drives them to seek to restrict power and prosperity at home and abroad .
And it spreads anxiety and depression without meeting the deeper psychological , existential , and spiritual needs its ostensibly secular devotees seek .
”

Written by John Tierney on Jun 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
There is a recurring puzzle in the history of the environmental movement: Why do green activists keep promoting policies that are harmful not only to humans but also to the environment?
Michael Shellenberger is determined to solve this problem, and he is singularly well qualified.
He understands activists because he has been one himself since high school when he raised money for the Rainforest Action Network.
Early in his adult career, he campaigned to protect redwood trees, promote renewable energy, stop global warming, and improve the lives of farmers and factory workers in the Third World.
But the more he traveled, the more he questioned what Westerners’ activism was accomplishing for people or for nature.
He became a different kind of activist by helping start a movement called ecomodernism, the subject of “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.”
He still wants to help the poor and preserve ecosystems, but through industrialization instead of “sustainable development.”
He’s still worried about climate change, but he doesn’t consider it the most important problem today, much less a threat to humanity’s survival—and he sees that greens’ favorite solutions are making the problem worse.
He chronicles environmental progress around the world and crisply debunks myth after gloomy myth.
No, we are not in the midst of the “sixth mass extinction,” because only 0.001% of the planet’s species go extinct annually.
No, whales were not saved by Greenpeace but rather by the capitalist entrepreneurs who discovered cheaper substitutes for whale oil (first petroleum, then vegetable oils) that decimated the whaling industry long before activists got involved.
No, plastics don’t linger for thousands of years in the ocean; they’re broken down by sunlight and other forces.
No, climate change has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes.
In 2002, Mr. Shellenberger proposed the New Apollo Project, a precursor to the Green New Deal.
Many of its ideas for promoting renewable energy were adopted by the Obama administration and received more than $150 billion in federal funds, but Mr. Shellenberger was disillusioned with the results.
A disproportionate share of the money, as he documents, went to companies that enriched donors to the Obama campaign but failed to yield practical technologies.
He now considers most forms of renewable energy to be impractical for large-scale use.
Windmills and solar power are too expensive and unreliable as a primary source of power for people in poor countries, and they cause too much environmental damage because they require vast areas of land and harm flora and fauna.
He faults Western activists and governments for trying to force these technologies on Third World countries and prevent them from building hydroelectric and fossil-fuel power plants.
“Rich nations,” he writes, “should do everything they can to help poor nations industrialize.” Instead “many of them are doing something closer to the opposite: seeking to make poverty sustainable rather than to make poverty history.”
While industrialization causes a short-term rise in carbon emissions, in the long term it’s beneficial to the environment as people move to cities, allowing farmland to revert to nature, and as prosperity enables them to switch to cleaner and more compact forms of energy.
Carbon emissions decline as people move from wood to coal to natural gas, and then ultimately to what Mr. Shellenberger calls the safest and cleanest source: nuclear energy, the only practical technology for drastically curtailing carbon emissions—if only green activists would stop trying to shut down nuclear plants.
Mr. Shellenberger blames the anti-nuke movement partly on fearmongering by activists and journalists, partly on instinctive hostility to new technology, and partly on financial self-interest.
“Every major climate activist group in America,” he writes, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, “has been seeking to close nuclear plants around the United States while taking money from or investing in natural gas companies, renewable energy companies, and their investors who stand to make billions if nuclear plants are closed and replaced by natural gas.”
Mr. Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of “environmental colonialism.”
He realizes, though, that rational arguments alone won’t convince devout environmentalists.
“I was drawn toward the apocalyptic view of climate change twenty years ago,” he writes. “I can see now that my heightened anxiety about climate reflected underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.”
For him and so many others, environmentalism offered emotional relief and spiritual satisfaction, giving them a sense of purpose and transcendence.
It has become a substitute religion for those who have abandoned traditional faiths, as he explains in his concluding chapter, “False Gods for Lost Souls.”
Its priests have been warning for half a century that humanity is about to be punished for its sins against nature, and no matter how often the doomsday forecasts fail, the faithful still thrill to each new one.
“The trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating,” he writes.
“It leads its adherents to demonize their opponents, often hypocritically. It drives them to seek to restrict power and prosperity at home and abroad. And it spreads anxiety and depression without meeting the deeper psychological, existential, and spiritual needs its ostensibly secular devotees seek.”
Read more at WSJ
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-26--CLIMATE INSANITY: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos Renames Seattle Stadium ‘Climate Pledge Arena’

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s not enough for the leftist climate activist elites to promote their climate agenda in Big Tech company policies alone .
Now Amazon has decided to infuse its climate agenda into the naming of a stadium to shove it into sports fans ’ faces .
Big Tech giant Amazon.com Inc. bought the naming rights to Seattle , Washington ’ s KeyArena , “ the new home for the city ’ s expansion hockey team and the WNBA ’ s Seattle Storm , ” Bloomberg News reported June 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cringe name “ Climate Pledge Arena , ” in a “ nod to Amazon ’ s push to get companies to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Leftist extremists in corporate America are attempting their own take on a utopian Green New Deal .
Sports arenas are meant to be apolitical venues for those wanting to take a break from the venom of politics , not echo chambers for the leftist agenda .
Amazon founder and CEO and liberal Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos proclaimed with glee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ will be the first net zero carbon certified arena in the world.
” To make things even more cringeworthy , Bezos said that the arena will be using “ reclaimed rainwater in the ice system to create the greenest ice in the NHL.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
In September 2019 , the company released a report headlined “ The Climate Pledge , ” where it called “ on signatories to be net-zero carbon across their businesses by 2040—a decade ahead of the Paris Accord ’ s goal of 2050.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sustainability blog on June 23 , 2020 : “ We are all in on The Climate Pledge : net-zero carbon by 2040.
” Bezos also pledged in February that he was going to bleed through $ 10 billion to fight climate change in an effort called the Bezos Earth Fund , which ABC , CBS , and NBC ’ s morning shows had slobbered over at the time .
Apparently his climate agenda also included turning sports arenas into eco-extremist paradises .
According to Bloomberg News , “ The site was developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the as-yet-unnamed Seattle NHL franchise.
” Bloomberg News continued : “ The team is slated to take the ice in the 2021-2022 season .
The arena , which first opened in 1962 , is being extensively renovated — in part to make it eco-friendly.
” Oak View Group co-founder and CEO Tim Leiweke reportedly told Bloomberg News that “ Everyone loves to talk about being carbon-neutral , but it ’ s really hard and really expensive .
We ’ re spending tens of millions of dollars on this .
We ’ re trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Leiweke said he was inspired by musicians such as Billie Eilish , who have pushed for arenas to reduce their carbon footprint by reducing plastic and embracing renewable energy , ” according to Bloomberg News .
You know , the same Billie Eilish who wrote the disturbing song “ All the Good Girls Go to Hell.
” The song begins with the words : “ My Lucifer is lonely.
” According to MRC President Brent Bozell and NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham : Ah , so one of the groups spearheading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking its cues from an out of touch Hollywood leftist who uses satanist aesthetics to push her climate change zealotry .
Nice .
Contact Amazon at ( 206 ) 266-1000 and tell Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to get his eco-extremist politics out of sports .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Jun 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s not enough for the leftist climate activist elites to promote their climate agenda in Big Tech company policies alone.
Now Amazon has decided to infuse its climate agenda into the naming of a stadium to shove it into sports fans’ faces.
Big Tech giant Amazon.com Inc. bought the naming rights to Seattle, Washington’s KeyArena, “the new home for the city’s expansion hockey team and the WNBA’s Seattle Storm,” Bloomberg News reported June 25.
The venue will be given the cringe name “Climate Pledge Arena,” in a “nod to Amazon’s push to get companies to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.” [Emphasis added.]
Leftist extremists in corporate America are attempting their own take on a utopian Green New Deal.
Sports arenas are meant to be apolitical venues for those wanting to take a break from the venom of politics, not echo chambers for the leftist agenda.
Amazon founder and CEO and liberal Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos proclaimed with glee in an Instagram post that the stadium “will be the first net zero carbon certified arena in the world.”
To make things even more cringeworthy, Bezos said that the arena will be using “reclaimed rainwater in the ice system to create the greenest ice in the NHL.” [Emphasis added.]
In September 2019, the company released a report headlined “The Climate Pledge,” where it called “on signatories to be net-zero carbon across their businesses by 2040—a decade ahead of the Paris Accord’s goal of 2050.”
The Big Tech company doubled down in a sustainability blog on June 23, 2020: “We are all in on The Climate Pledge: net-zero carbon by 2040.”
Bezos also pledged in February that he was going to bleed through $10 billion to fight climate change in an effort called the Bezos Earth Fund, which ABC, CBS, and NBC’s morning shows had slobbered over at the time.
Apparently his climate agenda also included turning sports arenas into eco-extremist paradises.
According to Bloomberg News, “The site was developed in partnership with Oak View Group and the as-yet-unnamed Seattle NHL franchise.”
Bloomberg News continued: “The team is slated to take the ice in the 2021-2022 season. The arena, which first opened in 1962, is being extensively renovated — in part to make it eco-friendly.”
Oak View Group co-founder and CEO Tim Leiweke reportedly told Bloomberg News that “Everyone loves to talk about being carbon-neutral, but it’s really hard and really expensive. We’re spending tens of millions of dollars on this. We’re trying to set a precedent others will follow.”
“Leiweke said he was inspired by musicians such as Billie Eilish, who have pushed for arenas to reduce their carbon footprint by reducing plastic and embracing renewable energy,” according to Bloomberg News.
You know, the same Billie Eilish who wrote the disturbing song “All the Good Girls Go to Hell.” The song begins with the words: “My Lucifer is lonely.”
According to MRC President Brent Bozell and NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham:
This dark song [All the Good girls Go to Hell by Billie Eilish] is touted as a rant against climate change, but it carries the message that Heaven is a prison. ‘Pearly gates look more like a picket fence once you get inside ’em / Got friends but can’t invite them.’ She paints God as a woman who desperately needs the Devil. ‘All the good girls go to Hell cause even God herself has enemies,’ she sang. ‘And once the water starts to rise and Heaven’s out of sight, she’ll want the Devil on her team.’
Ah, so one of the groups spearheading the “Climate Pledge Arena” is taking its cues from an out of touch Hollywood leftist who uses satanist aesthetics to push her climate change zealotry. Nice.
Contact Amazon at (206) 266-1000 and tell Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to get his eco-extremist politics out of sports.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-26--CMIP6 Climate Models Show 50% More Warming Than Observations Since 1979

Written by Roy W. Spencer , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Those who defend climate model predictions often produce plots of observed surface temperature compared to the models which show very good agreement .
Setting aside the debate over the continuing adjustments to the surface temperature record which produce ever-increasing warming trends , let ’ s look at how the most recent ( CMIP6 ) models are doing compared to the latest version of the observations ( however good those are ) .
First , I ’ d like to explain how some authors get such good agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the two “ techniques ” they use that most annoy me .
• They look at long periods of time , say the last 100+ years .
This improves the apparent agreement because most of that period was before there was substantial forcing of the climate system by increasing CO2 .
• They plot anomalies about a common reference period but do not show trend lines .
Or , if they show trend lines , they do not start them at the same point at the beginning of the record .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models and observations is split in half , with the discrepancy in the latter half of the record having the opposite sign of the discrepancy in the early part of the record .
They say , “ See ?
The observed temperatures in the last few decades nearly match the models !
” In the following plot ( which will be included in a report I am doing for the Global Warming Policy Foundation ) I avoid both of those problems .
During the period of strongest greenhouse gas forcing ( since 1979 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 % more net surface warming from 1979 up to April 2020 ( +1.08 deg .
C ) than do the observations ( +0.72 deg .
C ) .
Note I have accounted for the trends being somewhat nonlinear , using a 2nd order polynomial fit to all three time-series .
Next , I have adjusted the CMIP time series vertically so that their polynomial fit lines are coaligned with the observations in 1979 .
I believe this is the most honest and meaningful way to intercompare the warming trends in different datasets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears the CMIP6 models are producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did… although the KNMI Climate Explorer website ( from which all of the data was downloaded ) has only 13 models archived so far .

Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. on Jun 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Those who defend climate model predictions often produce plots of observed surface temperature compared to the models which show very good agreement.
Setting aside the debate over the continuing adjustments to the surface temperature record which produce ever-increasing warming trends, let’s look at how the most recent (CMIP6) models are doing compared to the latest version of the observations (however good those are).
First, I’d like to explain how some authors get such good agreement between the models and observations. Here are the two “techniques” they use that most annoy me.
They look at long periods of time, say the last 100+ years. This improves the apparent agreement because most of that period was before there was substantial forcing of the climate system by increasing CO2. They plot anomalies about a common reference period but do not show trend lines. Or, if they show trend lines, they do not start them at the same point at the beginning of the record. When you do this, the discrepancy between models and observations is split in half, with the discrepancy in the latter half of the record having the opposite sign of the discrepancy in the early part of the record. They say, “See? The observed temperatures in the last few decades nearly match the models!”
In the following plot (which will be included in a report I am doing for the Global Warming Policy Foundation) I avoid both of those problems.
During the period of strongest greenhouse gas forcing (since 1979), the latest CMIP6 models reveal 50% more net surface warming from 1979 up to April 2020 (+1.08 deg. C) than do the observations (+0.72 deg. C).
Note I have accounted for the trends being somewhat nonlinear, using a 2nd order polynomial fit to all three time-series.
Next, I have adjusted the CMIP time series vertically so that their polynomial fit lines are coaligned with the observations in 1979.
I believe this is the most honest and meaningful way to intercompare the warming trends in different datasets.
As others have noted, it appears the CMIP6 models are producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did… although the KNMI Climate Explorer website (from which all of the data was downloaded) has only 13 models archived so far.
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--2020-06-27--A Winning Trifecta For Climate Science And Rationality

Written by Charles Battig on .
Posted in Latest news First , there was Michael Moore ’ s Planet of the Humans , then came Bjorn Lomborg ’ s False Alarm , and now Michael Schellenberger ’ s Apocalypse Never .
All three authors sound the common theme that the hyper-green environmental activists who have captured , politicized , and monetized the concern for the environment has , as Lomborg explains , created a false climate alarm that has “ costs us trillions , hurts the poor , and fails to fix the planet.
” To varying degrees , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist background , which observation makes their public revelations even more noteworthy .
Planet of the Humans , the recent film produced by Michael Moore , caused consternation and a considerable backlash from the green activists and their allied backers by pointing out how traditional energy companies had co-opted the environmental movement by donning a green alter-ego and embracing renewable energy .
By doing so , the corporations gained access to government funding/subsidies for wind turbine and commercial solar power installations and created a public relations victory for their vociferous eco-shareholders .
Moore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needing to provide 24/7 reliable electricity to consumers ensures that fossil fuel plants will remain the primary energy sources because of the failure of wind or solar to provide power if there is no wind or sufficient sun .
Renewables do not displace reliable fossil-fuel power plants .
Consumers ’ energy bills do not go down but go up when renewables are imposed .
Moore also documented that renewables require large amounts of rare earth , cement , and fossil fuel energy in their production .
They are both notoriously inefficient in land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas of native habitats .
Further environmental destruction is because the best wind or solar location is often remote from the most needed consumer base , thereby requiring the construction of massive electric transmission lines .
“ Factories claiming to have gone ‘ beyond coal ’ again and again turn out to be relying on natural gas.
” The film notes that biomass/wood chip power plants in England now rely on American forests .
Rather than just using lumber waste as was first proposed , this has now turned into a major sub-set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forests are leveled and the trees turned into wood chips .
The whole process of logging , processing , and trans-Atlantic shipping is all powered by fossil fuels .
The basic premise of using “ renewable ” lumber as a bio-fuel is that the carbon dioxide released upon its burning will become fertilizer for a new generation of trees and thus the cycle is carbon neutral .
The basic fallacy of it is that the time scale of new tree growth greatly exceeds the day-to-day weather cycle .
No matter .
Just imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country well versed in cutting down its forests .
With his recent book , False Alarm , Bjorn Lomborg continues to straddle the fence on global warming , aka climate change .
As the original “ skeptical environmentalist , ” Bjorn has argued that there are more productive ways to aid humanity than spending billions trying to influence climate change .
He has argued for improving sanitation , clean water supplies , basic nutrition , and providing paths out of poverty for the millions living in underdeveloped countries .
In this book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerted effort to alleviate these ills , rather than accepting the decades of panic-driven calls for “ fixing the climate.
” He provides numerous references to substantiate his claims that climate change is real but is not the apocalyptic threat so widely advertised .
Science , he says , “ shows that landfalling hurricanes in the US are not more frequent than in the past .
Droughts here have become shorter , less frequent , and cover a smaller area .
Seventeen times more people currently die from cold than heat , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Global climate-related deaths are an all-time low.
” …the projections of Earth ’ s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics .
In a politicized panic , world leaders have committed to wildly expensive , but largely ineffective policies , that hamper growth and crowd out other pressing investments in a better world , from immunization to education .
And yet , a schizophrenic-like mindset co-inhabits this rational evaluation of climate change and related issues .
Section 1 of the book is titled “ Climate of Fear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2004 “ State of Fear.
” A few pages into his introduction , Lomborg states , “ Climate change is real , it is caused predominantly by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels….
” No question that climate change is real ; however , he gives no reference for this unsubstantiated claim of human causation , which is the basic UN position , and the foundation for much green eco-activism .
A few lines later , he seems to criticize the same UN : After a 2019 UN climate science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of the scientists wrote : “ We risk turning off the public with extremist talk that is not carefully supported by the science.
” Media reports that we have to act by 2030 to solve the problem of climate change is the media defining what science is .
Lomborg points out that this is indeed not science , but “ what politics tells us.
” He does not clarify what the “ problem ” is with the climate , though chapter 6 is titled “ You Can ’ t Fix Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Carbon Tax : The Market-Based Solution.
” Chapter 14 “ Geoengineering : A Backup Plan ” is recognized as “ entering uncharted territory , ” but “ could play a role if we found that we needed fast action to avoid a looming catastrophe.
” After calling for consideration of this back-up plan , the chapter continues with an extended discussion of the pluses and minuses of actually implementing it .
The reader will have to evaluate this recent book to get the full import of Lomborg ’ s latest effort .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are better ways to alleviate human misery than spending taxpayer subsidies than on panic-driven , political non-solutions to a changing climate .
Few would argue with that goal .
Michael Shellenberger has green activist credentials going back to his high school years .
Yet over the ensuing years , he has had an environmental reality epiphany which now has manifested itself most clearly in his recent book “ Apocalypse Never , ” and with his starting the ecomodernism movement .
The subtitle of the book , “ Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moore and Lomborg .
Schellenberger had a few road bumps on the way to his current reality check .
Notable was his 2002 support of the “ New Apollo Project , ” which called for a major global science and economics research program to make carbon-free baseload electricity less costly than electricity from coal by the year 2025 at an expenditure of $ 150 billion over a decade .
The Obama administration adopted many of the renewable energy proposals , but Schellenberger documents that much of the money went to “ companies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but failed to produce the promised renewable energy advances .
Disillusionment gave way to reality , and in 2017 , Shellenberger told the Australian : “ Like most people , I started out pretty anti-nuclear .
I changed my mind as I realized you can ’ t power a modern economy on solar and wind… All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.
” He has made numerous efforts to support nuclear power .
His current book skewers many of the claims of eco-environmentalists , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Greenpeace , waste plastic fouling the ocean for thousands of years , and increases in extreme weather events .
He reflects upon his early devotion to environmentalism as a manifestation of “ underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.
” It became a quasi-religion offering “ emotional relief ” and “ spiritual satisfaction ” for those , like him , who may have lost the guidance of traditional spiritual faiths .
Schellenberg concludes with the observation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic , destructive , and self-defeating.
” So here are three environmentalists with different degrees of eco-activism in their past , but all now willing to speak out against the incessant climate propaganda of human-related guilt , the purveyors of anxiety , and the poisoners of childhood joy and wonder .
Climate change is the norm ; it is not mankind ’ s original sin .
The readers here are encouraged to read the works of these climate realists .
Charles Battig is a retired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Heartland Institute , and member of the CO2Coalition .
His website is http : //www.climateis.com

Written by Charles Battig on Jun 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
First, there was Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans, then came Bjorn Lomborg’s False Alarm, and now Michael Schellenberger’s Apocalypse Never.
All three authors sound the common theme that the hyper-green environmental activists who have captured, politicized, and monetized the concern for the environment has, as Lomborg explains, created a false climate alarm that has “costs us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet.”
To varying degrees, all three authors come from a strong environmental activist background, which observation makes their public revelations even more noteworthy.
Planet of the Humans, the recent film produced by Michael Moore, caused consternation and a considerable backlash from the green activists and their allied backers by pointing out how traditional energy companies had co-opted the environmental movement by donning a green alter-ego and embracing renewable energy.
By doing so, the corporations gained access to government funding/subsidies for wind turbine and commercial solar power installations and created a public relations victory for their vociferous eco-shareholders.
Moore’s revelation that the reality of needing to provide 24/7 reliable electricity to consumers ensures that fossil fuel plants will remain the primary energy sources because of the failure of wind or solar to provide power if there is no wind or sufficient sun.
Renewables do not displace reliable fossil-fuel power plants. Consumers’ energy bills do not go down but go up when renewables are imposed.
Moore also documented that renewables require large amounts of rare earth, cement, and fossil fuel energy in their production.
They are both notoriously inefficient in land use and impose the destruction of large areas of native habitats.
Further environmental destruction is because the best wind or solar location is often remote from the most needed consumer base, thereby requiring the construction of massive electric transmission lines. “Factories claiming to have gone ‘beyond coal’ again and again turn out to be relying on natural gas.”
The film notes that biomass/wood chip power plants in England now rely on American forests. Rather than just using lumber waste as was first proposed, this has now turned into a major sub-set of the logging industry.
Our southern forests are leveled and the trees turned into wood chips. The whole process of logging, processing, and trans-Atlantic shipping is all powered by fossil fuels.
The basic premise of using “renewable” lumber as a bio-fuel is that the carbon dioxide released upon its burning will become fertilizer for a new generation of trees and thus the cycle is carbon neutral.
The basic fallacy of it is that the time scale of new tree growth greatly exceeds the day-to-day weather cycle. No matter. Just imagine, American lumber keeping England eco-green — a country well versed in cutting down its forests.
With his recent book, False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg continues to straddle the fence on global warming, aka climate change.
As the original “skeptical environmentalist,” Bjorn has argued that there are more productive ways to aid humanity than spending billions trying to influence climate change.
He has argued for improving sanitation, clean water supplies, basic nutrition, and providing paths out of poverty for the millions living in underdeveloped countries.
In this book, he continues to press for a concerted effort to alleviate these ills, rather than accepting the decades of panic-driven calls for “fixing the climate.”
He provides numerous references to substantiate his claims that climate change is real but is not the apocalyptic threat so widely advertised.
Science, he says, “shows that landfalling hurricanes in the US are not more frequent than in the past. Droughts here have become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller area. Seventeen times more people currently die from cold than heat, and these people will benefit from moderate warming. Global climate-related deaths are an all-time low.”
He claims:
…the projections of Earth’s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In a politicized panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive, but largely ineffective policies, that hamper growth and crowd out other pressing investments in a better world, from immunization to education.
And yet, a schizophrenic-like mindset co-inhabits this rational evaluation of climate change and related issues.
Section 1 of the book is titled “Climate of Fear,” and evokes memories of Michael Crichton’s 2004 “State of Fear.”
A few pages into his introduction, Lomborg states, “Climate change is real, it is caused predominantly by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels….”
No question that climate change is real; however, he gives no reference for this unsubstantiated claim of human causation, which is the basic UN position, and the foundation for much green eco-activism. A few lines later, he seems to criticize the same UN:
After a 2019 UN climate science report led to over-the-top claims by activists, one of the scientists wrote: “We risk turning off the public with extremist talk that is not carefully supported by the science.” Media reports that we have to act by 2030 to solve the problem of climate change is the media defining what science is.
Lomborg points out that this is indeed not science, but “what politics tells us.” He does not clarify what the “problem” is with the climate, though chapter 6 is titled “You Can’t Fix Climate Change,” and chapter 11 offers “Carbon Tax: The Market-Based Solution.”
Chapter 14 “Geoengineering: A Backup Plan” is recognized as “entering uncharted territory,” but “could play a role if we found that we needed fast action to avoid a looming catastrophe.”
After calling for consideration of this back-up plan, the chapter continues with an extended discussion of the pluses and minuses of actually implementing it.
The reader will have to evaluate this recent book to get the full import of Lomborg’s latest effort.
His most basic premise remains that there are better ways to alleviate human misery than spending taxpayer subsidies than on panic-driven, political non-solutions to a changing climate. Few would argue with that goal.
Michael Shellenberger has green activist credentials going back to his high school years. Yet over the ensuing years, he has had an environmental reality epiphany which now has manifested itself most clearly in his recent book “Apocalypse Never,” and with his starting the ecomodernism movement.
The subtitle of the book, “Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All,” echoes the similar conclusions of Moore and Lomborg.
Schellenberger had a few road bumps on the way to his current reality check.
Notable was his 2002 support of the “New Apollo Project,” which called for a major global science and economics research program to make carbon-free baseload electricity less costly than electricity from coal by the year 2025 at an expenditure of $150 billion over a decade.
The Obama administration adopted many of the renewable energy proposals, but Schellenberger documents that much of the money went to “companies that enriched donors to the Obama campaign” but failed to produce the promised renewable energy advances.
Disillusionment gave way to reality, and in 2017, Shellenberger told the Australian:
“Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear. I changed my mind as I realized you can’t power a modern economy on solar and wind… All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.”
He has made numerous efforts to support nuclear power.
His current book skewers many of the claims of eco-environmentalists, including mass extinctions, saving of the whales by Greenpeace, waste plastic fouling the ocean for thousands of years, and increases in extreme weather events.
He reflects upon his early devotion to environmentalism as a manifestation of “underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.”
It became a quasi-religion offering “emotional relief” and “spiritual satisfaction” for those, like him, who may have lost the guidance of traditional spiritual faiths.
Schellenberg concludes with the observation that “the trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating.”
So here are three environmentalists with different degrees of eco-activism in their past, but all now willing to speak out against the incessant climate propaganda of human-related guilt, the purveyors of anxiety, and the poisoners of childhood joy and wonder.
Climate change is the norm; it is not mankind’s original sin. The readers here are encouraged to read the works of these climate realists.
Charles Battig is a retired physician and graduate engineer, policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, and member of the CO2Coalition. His website is http://www.climateis.com
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--Contrite Activist Condemns ‘Terrorizing Schoolchildren’ With False Science

Written by Chris Kenny on .
Posted in Latest news Former climate activist Michael Shellenberger has condemned alarmists for “ terrorizing school children ” with false claims that the world is about to end .
The life-long environmentalist has given Sky News host Chris Kenny a lengthy interview about his decision to speak out against the alarmist rhetoric which he says is creating anxiety in young people .
“ I have a 14-year-old daughter and she is fine because I ’ ve explained the science to her ( but ) her friends are very alarmed , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to worry about , anxiety and depression are rising among everyone really , certainly adolescents , and I thought it was not right to be terrorizing school children and giving them false information.
” Shellenberger – who has been invited to be an expert reviewer to the UN ’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – maintains that climate change is occurring but says it is not a “ catastrophic threat ” .
He says the science has been hijacked by a “ handful ” of activist scientists who are spreading “ science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists are not activists , there are actually only a handful of scientists who feel the need to terrify people , ” he said .
“ I don ’ t think this is really that complicated , we need to lift everybody out of poverty , and we need to do our best to preserve natural places and things have just spiraled out of control .
“ This climate change thing has just got too crazy.
” Shellenberger said he had noticed a “ dark tradition ” of anti-human rhetoric spilling from climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a “ cancer ” or a virus .
In the second half of the interview – which will air on Sky News Australia on the Kenny Report at 5 pm on Tuesday night – Shellenberger also weighs into whether climate change was a significant cause of the Australian bushfires .
“ Yes there is evidence of that , ” he said .
“ However , It is massively outweighed by two factors ; the accumulation of wood fuel in the forests and the development of new houses near forests .
“ Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Yes .
Is it very significant ?
No .
”

Written by Chris Kenny on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former climate activist Michael Shellenberger has condemned alarmists for “terrorizing school children” with false claims that the world is about to end.
The life-long environmentalist has given Sky News host Chris Kenny a lengthy interview about his decision to speak out against the alarmist rhetoric which he says is creating anxiety in young people.
“I have a 14-year-old daughter and she is fine because I’ve explained the science to her (but) her friends are very alarmed,” he said.
“Adolescents these days have a lot to worry about, anxiety and depression are rising among everyone really, certainly adolescents, and I thought it was not right to be terrorizing school children and giving them false information.”
Shellenberger – who has been invited to be an expert reviewer to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – maintains that climate change is occurring but says it is not a “catastrophic threat”.
He says the science has been hijacked by a “handful” of activist scientists who are spreading “science fiction”.
“The majority of scientists are not activists, there are actually only a handful of scientists who feel the need to terrify people,” he said.
“I don’t think this is really that complicated, we need to lift everybody out of poverty, and we need to do our best to preserve natural places and things have just spiraled out of control.
“This climate change thing has just got too crazy.”
Shellenberger said he had noticed a “dark tradition” of anti-human rhetoric spilling from climate change activists, including views that humans were a “cancer” or a virus.
In the second half of the interview – which will air on Sky News Australia on the Kenny Report at 5 pm on Tuesday night – Shellenberger also weighs into whether climate change was a significant cause of the Australian bushfires.
“Yes there is evidence of that,” he said. “However, It is massively outweighed by two factors; the accumulation of wood fuel in the forests and the development of new houses near forests.
“Is there some contributing role of climate change? Yes. Is it very significant? No.”
Read more at Sky News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--WARNING: Al Gore’s Business Advice In The Post-Pandemic World

Written by Robert Wenzel on .
Posted in Latest news Al Gore , in a Wall Street Journal op-ed with David Blood , provides frightening advice to investors and corporate leaders on how they should act in the post-COVID-19 world .
Here are key excerpts from the piece : As economies reopen around the country , it is essential that policymakers don ’ t default to pre-pandemic thinking .
Covid-19 with all its unfolding tragedy presents a once-in-a-century obligation to rethink the relationships among business , markets , government , and society .
What is desperately needed , and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of capitalism .
— All investments made today must factor in long-term climate and societal implications .
— Companies making cuts in pay or staff numbers should lead from the top .
The C-suites should be taking the largest cuts to total compensation , and we are pleased that many companies have adopted this approach .
— Finally , we want CEOs to accelerate their efforts on climate action .
Gore and Brooks don ’ t come out and call for more government regulations and interventions in the economy , but you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curtain—to be produced when the time is just right .
There is just no indication of understanding by these two writers of fundamental , basic economics or sound science of any kind .

Written by Robert Wenzel on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Al Gore, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed with David Blood, provides frightening advice to investors and corporate leaders on how they should act in the post-COVID-19 world.
Here are key excerpts from the piece:
As economies reopen around the country, it is essential that policymakers don’t default to pre-pandemic thinking. Covid-19 with all its unfolding tragedy presents a once-in-a-century obligation to rethink the relationships among business, markets, government, and society. What is desperately needed, and what we must deliver, is a sustainable form of capitalism.
—
All investments made today must factor in long-term climate and societal implications.
—
Companies making cuts in pay or staff numbers should lead from the top. The C-suites should be taking the largest cuts to total compensation, and we are pleased that many companies have adopted this approach.
—
Finally, we want CEOs to accelerate their efforts on climate action.
Gore and Brooks don’t come out and call for more government regulations and interventions in the economy, but you can be sure that is behind the curtain—to be produced when the time is just right.
There is just no indication of understanding by these two writers of fundamental, basic economics or sound science of any kind.
h/t Jake R.
Read more at Economic Policy Journal
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--WaPo Reporter: ‘Climate Change’ Is A ‘Racial Justice Problem’

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news The leftist lunacy of The Washington Post knows no bounds .
The story was headlined : “ Climate change is also a racial justice problem.
” In the piece , Kaplan led readers off with the question : “ What does racism mean for climate change — and vice versa ?
” In the piece , she admitted that “ Normally , I use this column to respond to questions from readers about climate change.
” “ But — amid our ongoing national reckoning with racism prompted by the unequal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent killings of African Americans at the hands of police , and 400 years of history — this was the question on my mind.
” OK , so this is an op-ed , not news .
Welcome to the leftist concept of intersectionality — where every agenda item is tied to every other agenda item .
According to Kaplan , “ If humanity is going to effectively tackle climate change , scientists and activists told me , it ’ s a question we have to answer.
” She cited Penn State meteorologist Gregory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Racism is ‘ inexorably ’ linked to climate change , said Penn State meteorologist Gregory Jenkins , because it dictates who benefits from activities that produce planet-warming gases and who suffers most from the consequences.
” “ In a course , he teaches called ‘ Climate Change , Climate Justice and Front Line Communities , ’ Jenkins traces this connection from slavery , which created the economic foundation for the industrial revolution , to modern-day policies that influence where people live and environmental risks to which they are exposed.
” [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of the left , apparently , even the radical environmentalist movement was racist and sexist : “ The world of climate activism has historically been dominated by white men , said Dorceta Taylor , an environmental sociologist at the University of Michigan who studies the history of the environmental movement , ” [ emphasis added . ]
Earlier , Kaplan pivoted off of a strange study , which she used to summarize that “ black and Hispanic communities in the U.S. are exposed to far more air pollution than they produce through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By contrast , Kaplan wrote that “ white Americans experience better air quality than the national average , even though their activities are the source of most pollutants.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Tell The Washington Post to call Kaplan ’ s piece what it is and move it to the op-ed section .
You can contact The Post via email at corrections @ washpost.com or call 1-800-477-4679 and ask to speak to a customer service representative .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The leftist lunacy of The Washington Post knows no bounds.
Washington Post Climate and Science reporter Sarah Kaplan wrote a climate propaganda article masquerading as news.
The story was headlined: “Climate change is also a racial justice problem.” In the piece, Kaplan led readers off with the question: “What does racism mean for climate change — and vice versa?”
In the piece, she admitted that “Normally, I use this column to respond to questions from readers about climate change.”
She continued:
“But — amid our ongoing national reckoning with racism prompted by the unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the recent killings of African Americans at the hands of police, and 400 years of history — this was the question on my mind.”
OK, so this is an op-ed, not news. Welcome to the leftist concept of intersectionality — where every agenda item is tied to every other agenda item.
According to Kaplan, “If humanity is going to effectively tackle climate change, scientists and activists told me, it’s a question we have to answer.”
She cited Penn State meteorologist Gregory Jenkins to push an asinine talking point:
“Racism is ‘inexorably’ linked to climate change, said Penn State meteorologist Gregory Jenkins, because it dictates who benefits from activities that produce planet-warming gases and who suffers most from the consequences.”
Kaplan continued to tout Jenkins’s nonsensical theory:
“In a course, he teaches called ‘Climate Change, Climate Justice and Front Line Communities,’ Jenkins traces this connection from slavery, which created the economic foundation for the industrial revolution, to modern-day policies that influence where people live and environmental risks to which they are exposed.” [Emphasis added.]
From the vantage point of the left, apparently, even the radical environmentalist movement was racist and sexist:
“The world of climate activism has historically been dominated by white men, said Dorceta Taylor, an environmental sociologist at the University of Michigan who studies the history of the environmental movement,” [emphasis added.]
Earlier, Kaplan pivoted off of a strange study, which she used to summarize that “black and Hispanic communities in the U.S. are exposed to far more air pollution than they produce through actions like driving and using electricity.”
By contrast, Kaplan wrote that “white Americans experience better air quality than the national average, even though their activities are the source of most pollutants.” [Emphasis added.]
Tell The Washington Post to call Kaplan’s piece what it is and move it to the op-ed section. You can contact The Post via email at corrections@washpost.com or call 1-800-477-4679 and ask to speak to a customer service representative.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--Climate Alarmist Apologizes—Will Al Gore Make Climate Reparations?

Written by Stephen Kruiser on .
Posted in Latest news There are times when the climate-hoax alarmists are so tedious that I almost wish they were not only right but that the planet would die really , really soon .
Just so I can escape them .
I ’ m of a certain age and can remember when the looming climate crisis was supposed to have us all freezing to death and being buried in the ice until invading intergalactic aliens discover our fossils millennia from now .
Then , of course , the climate scare was all about Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it , “ a fever ” and being on the brink of boiling to death .
In the fourteen years since Gore ’ s An Inconvenient Truth made that claim , “ global warming ” has become “ climate change , ” largely because the alarmists keep being wrong about everything and they needed a malleable catch-all phrase to better market their snake oil .
As has been written by me and many others , the climate change hoax movement has become the secular Left ’ s religion .
It does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its will on academia by controlling the grant money purse , effectively purging dissent .
Those who go against the grain and dispute any of the accepted climate teachings are branded “ anti-science , ” even though “ climate science ” has more to do with a bunch of computer models that keep being wrong than actual science .
One of the more bizarre attacks that are deployed against skeptics is to say we “ don ’ t believe in climate.
” Not we “ don ’ t believe in climate change , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe in climate at all .
Spoiler alert : every skeptic believes in climate and knows that the climate changes .
On Tuesday , Rick wrote a post about a former climate alarmist who has dared to deviate from orthodoxy : Shellenberger ’ s story is an interesting one .
He admits that he was quiet for as long as he was because he was “ scared ” and that he “ suffered harsh consequences ” when he tried to speak his own truth about climate science .
He also debunks a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gore and Co. trot out to pimp their agenda .
As we all know , that agenda is to use climate hysteria to institute a money-grabbing New World Order .
Well , in Gore ’ s case it ’ s just to make himself a buck ; he ’ s using all of them .
Gore and his ilk have successfully terrorized a generation of children into believing that their futures are doomed and worthless because of the threat of climate change .
Yes , Greta Thunberg is annoying , but the adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals .
Heaven help the Republic if the Democrats come to complete power and we ’ re saddled with a “ green new deal ” that ultimately makes us part of the climate freak commie world order .
The sea levels can ’ t rise quickly enough if that happens .

Written by Stephen Kruiser on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A Climate of Intolerance
There are times when the climate-hoax alarmists are so tedious that I almost wish they were not only right but that the planet would die really, really soon. Just so I can escape them.
I’m of a certain age and can remember when the looming climate crisis was supposed to have us all freezing to death and being buried in the ice until invading intergalactic aliens discover our fossils millennia from now.
Then, of course, the climate scare was all about Earth having, as Al Gore so infamously put it, “a fever” and being on the brink of boiling to death.
In the fourteen years since Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth made that claim, “global warming” has become “climate change,” largely because the alarmists keep being wrong about everything and they needed a malleable catch-all phrase to better market their snake oil.
As has been written by me and many others, the climate change hoax movement has become the secular Left’s religion. It does not tolerate heretics.
The Climate Church imposes its will on academia by controlling the grant money purse, effectively purging dissent.
It’s a heckuva racket, I will grudgingly admit.
Those who go against the grain and dispute any of the accepted climate teachings are branded “anti-science,” even though “climate science” has more to do with a bunch of computer models that keep being wrong than actual science.
One of the more bizarre attacks that are deployed against skeptics is to say we “don’t believe in climate.”
Not we “don’t believe in climate change,” but that we don’t believe in climate at all.
Spoiler alert: every skeptic believes in climate and knows that the climate changes.
On Tuesday, Rick wrote a post about a former climate alarmist who has dared to deviate from orthodoxy:
Michael Shellenberger has been a climate activist for 30 years, a liberal activist who went to Nicaragua in the 1980s to help the Sandinistas. He’s traveled the world for liberal causes, pushed the “existential threat” of global warming, but is now apologizing for promoting “climate alarmism.”
Shellenberger’s story is an interesting one. He admits that he was quiet for as long as he was because he was “scared” and that he “suffered harsh consequences” when he tried to speak his own truth about climate science.
He also debunks a lot of the regular talking points that Al Gore and Co. trot out to pimp their agenda.
As we all know, that agenda is to use climate hysteria to institute a money-grabbing New World Order. Well, in Gore’s case it’s just to make himself a buck; he’s using all of them.
Gore and his ilk have successfully terrorized a generation of children into believing that their futures are doomed and worthless because of the threat of climate change.
Yes, Greta Thunberg is annoying, but the adults responsible for her being that way are criminals.
Heaven help the Republic if the Democrats come to complete power and we’re saddled with a “green new deal” that ultimately makes us part of the climate freak commie world order.
The sea levels can’t rise quickly enough if that happens.
Read rest at PJ Media
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--Cold, Wet Spring Sinks U.S. Wheat Acreage To Lowest Levels

Written by Cap Allon on .
Posted in Latest news Following a disastrous 2019 growing season across the U.S. , particularly in the Midwest , the cold and wet spring of 2020 along with “ burnt ” farmers has resulted in reduced planting of this year ’ s crops , too .
The weather proved so cold and wet in 2019 that many North Dakota farmers ’ corn harvest lasted more than six months — and a few still haven ’ t finished it , reports thedickinsonpress.com .
And now , following last year ’ s challenging conditions , North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down more than 30 % year on year , with potato planting also drastically reduced .
ND corn acreage this spring is pegged at 2.4 million , 31.5 % lower than the 3.5 million planted in 2019 , according to the USDA acreage report released Tues , June 30–a report based on surveys of farmers during the first two weeks of June .
The combination of a never-ending 2019 harvest and unfavorable planting conditions this spring likely discouraged many farmers across the Midwest from planting .
Frayne Olson , NDSU Extension marketing specialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to risk planting beyond the optimal time and end up with immature corn that they will have to harvest in spring 2021 .
“ Farmers said ‘ I got burned last year , ’ ” says Olson .
Nationwide , farmers planted 92 million acres of corn in 2020 — and while that ’ s a fraction more than last year , it took the trade by surprise because , earlier this spring , U.S. farmers had indicated they would plant 97 million acres in 2020–an organized attempt to make up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both corn and soybeans futures shot-up in price after the report was released Tuesday .
Wheat prices also climbed as U.S. farmers are on track to plant the smallest crop on record .
Total U.S. wheat acreage this year is estimated at just 44.3 million — the lowest amount of acres planted since USDA began keeping records in 1919 , the June 30 report said .
The reduction in spring wheat acreage is again the result of cold and wet weather during the 2020 planting season .
“ It was wet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t drying out , ” Olson said .
And on top of the dire corn and wheat numbers , a double-digit decrease in potato acreage is also being suffered .
Thousands of acres of potatoes weren ’ t harvested last fall because of cold and wet field conditions — the fresh commodity , unlike corn , spoils if left in the field until spring .
So , who are you going to believe… ?
The IPCC with their warm-mongering political agenda , who claim catastrophic-heat will see our undoing ?
Or the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and despite all the MSM headlines to the contrary , NOAA ’ s own data reveals ALL of North America has suffered sharp cooling since 2015 .
Using the same data tool NOAA cites in its latest report ( released Jan. 2020 ) as well as the same 5-year time-frame , it is revealed that temps in North America declined at a rate of 2.03C per decade between 2015-2019 .
This is a monster drop in temps , one 29 times Earth ’ s official average rate of increase since 1880 according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual temperature has increased at an avg .
rate of 0.07C ( 0.13F ) per decade since 1880.
” The COLD TIMES are returning , in line with historically low solar activity , cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays , and meridional jet streamflow .
We ’ ve seen the NOAA data proving this , but NASA is also in agreement–if you read between the lines .
Their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle ( 25 ) sees it as “ the weakest of the past 200 years , ” with the agency correlating previous solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .

Written by Cap Allon on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Following a disastrous 2019 growing season across the U.S., particularly in the Midwest, the cold and wet spring of 2020 along with “burnt” farmers has resulted in reduced planting of this year’s crops, too.
The weather proved so cold and wet in 2019 that many North Dakota farmers’ corn harvest lasted more than six months — and a few still haven’t finished it, reports thedickinsonpress.com.
And now, following last year’s challenging conditions, North Dakota’s 2020 corn acreage is down more than 30% year on year, with potato planting also drastically reduced.
ND corn acreage this spring is pegged at 2.4 million, 31.5% lower than the 3.5 million planted in 2019, according to the USDA acreage report released Tues, June 30–a report based on surveys of farmers during the first two weeks of June.
The combination of a never-ending 2019 harvest and unfavorable planting conditions this spring likely discouraged many farmers across the Midwest from planting.
Frayne Olson, NDSU Extension marketing specialist, says farmers didn’t again want to risk planting beyond the optimal time and end up with immature corn that they will have to harvest in spring 2021.
“Farmers said ‘I got burned last year,’” says Olson.
Nationwide, farmers planted 92 million acres of corn in 2020 — and while that’s a fraction more than last year, it took the trade by surprise because, earlier this spring, U.S. farmers had indicated they would plant 97 million acres in 2020–an organized attempt to make up for the Midwest’s poor 2019 harvest.
Both corn and soybeans futures shot-up in price after the report was released Tuesday. Wheat prices also climbed as U.S. farmers are on track to plant the smallest crop on record.
Total U.S. wheat acreage this year is estimated at just 44.3 million — the lowest amount of acres planted since USDA began keeping records in 1919, the June 30 report said.
The reduction in spring wheat acreage is again the result of cold and wet weather during the 2020 planting season.
“It was wet, it was cold, things weren’t drying out,” Olson said.
And on top of the dire corn and wheat numbers, a double-digit decrease in potato acreage is also being suffered.
Thousands of acres of potatoes weren’t harvested last fall because of cold and wet field conditions — the fresh commodity, unlike corn, spoils if left in the field until spring.
So, who are you going to believe…?
The IPCC with their warm-mongering political agenda, who claim catastrophic-heat will see our undoing? Or the nation’s cold-weary farmers?
Furthermore, and despite all the MSM headlines to the contrary, NOAA’s own data reveals ALL of North America has suffered sharp cooling since 2015.
Using the same data tool NOAA cites in its latest report (released Jan. 2020) as well as the same 5-year time-frame, it is revealed that temps in North America declined at a rate of 2.03C per decade between 2015-2019.
This is a monster drop in temps, one 29 times Earth’s official average rate of increase since 1880 according to the NOAA report:
“The global annual temperature has increased at an avg. rate of 0.07C (0.13F) per decade since 1880.”
Don’t fall for bogus, warm-mongering political agendas.
The COLD TIMES are returning, in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and meridional jet streamflow.
We’ve seen the NOAA data proving this, but NASA is also in agreement–if you read between the lines.
Their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) sees it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Read rest at ElectroVerse
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--Green New Deal lite: House Dems Unveil Substitute To AOC’s Climate Plan

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news House Democrats unveiled Monday their long-awaited Climate Crisis Action Plan , a less-ambitious version of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s Green New Deal that proponents hailed as a bold step toward slashing emissions and critics slammed as a way to “ make China great again.
” The plan , written by Democrats on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis without Republican input , called for a carbon tax , hefty green-energy subsidies , and a federal mandate to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 , or 20 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 2030 goal .
While the Green New Deal has been described by supporters as aspirational , however , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it clear she intends to enact the policy goals laid out in the 538-page plan , seen as a blueprint for Democrats if former Vice President Joseph R. Biden captures the White House in the November election .
“ With your leadership , all of you , we will turn this report into law , into saving the planet , ” Mrs. Pelosi said at a press conference on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that the climate crisis is the essential crisis of our time , threatening public health , jobs and the economy , national security , and values.
” The plan would also require ending sales of cars that produce greenhouse-gas by 2035 and sales of heavy-duty carbon-emitting trucks by 2040 while eliminating power-plant emissions by 2040 .
Committee Republicans balked , saying they were not given an opportunity to amend or vote on the report — or even read it before its release — and blaming Mrs. Pelosi ’ s House pandemic rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ input has been pushed aside in favor of expedited Democratic partisanship.
” They called for relying on technological innovation to reduce emissions , rather than imposing costly regulations and obliterating the oil-and-gas industry , and urged Democrats to take into account the economic destruction wrought by the novel coronavirus shutdown , as well as China ’ s growing role as a fossil-fuel polluter .
More than 90 % of global emissions “ will soon originate outside U.S. borders , ” said the Republicans , with 105 % of emissions growth coming from China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 % from 2005-17 , thanks in large part to the transition from coal to natural gas in power plants .
“ Moreover , since 2005 , for every ton of emissions reduced by the United States , China has increased its emissions by four tons , ” said the Republican statement .
“ That increase more than negates U.S. action to reduce emissions .
Foreign nations will reject carbon reduction strategies that result in higher energy prices or increased manufacturing costs.
” James Taylor , president of the free-market Heartland Institute , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Make China Great Again Initiative .
”

Written by Valerie Richardson on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
House Democrats unveiled Monday their long-awaited Climate Crisis Action Plan, a less-ambitious version of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal that proponents hailed as a bold step toward slashing emissions and critics slammed as a way to “make China great again.”
The plan, written by Democrats on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis without Republican input, called for a carbon tax, hefty green-energy subsidies, and a federal mandate to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, or 20 years after the Green New Deal resolution’s 2030 goal.
While the Green New Deal has been described by supporters as aspirational, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it clear she intends to enact the policy goals laid out in the 538-page plan, seen as a blueprint for Democrats if former Vice President Joseph R. Biden captures the White House in the November election.
“With your leadership, all of you, we will turn this report into law, into saving the planet,” Mrs. Pelosi said at a press conference on the U.S. Capitol steps. “Democrats know that the climate crisis is the essential crisis of our time, threatening public health, jobs and the economy, national security, and values.”
The plan would also require ending sales of cars that produce greenhouse-gas by 2035 and sales of heavy-duty carbon-emitting trucks by 2040 while eliminating power-plant emissions by 2040.
Committee Republicans balked, saying they were not given an opportunity to amend or vote on the report — or even read it before its release — and blaming Mrs. Pelosi’s House pandemic rules under which “[p]ublic input has been pushed aside in favor of expedited Democratic partisanship.”
They called for relying on technological innovation to reduce emissions, rather than imposing costly regulations and obliterating the oil-and-gas industry, and urged Democrats to take into account the economic destruction wrought by the novel coronavirus shutdown, as well as China’s growing role as a fossil-fuel polluter.
More than 90% of global emissions “will soon originate outside U.S. borders,” said the Republicans, with 105% of emissions growth coming from China and developing economies.
U.S. emissions declined 12% from 2005-17, thanks in large part to the transition from coal to natural gas in power plants.
“Moreover, since 2005, for every ton of emissions reduced by the United States, China has increased its emissions by four tons,” said the Republican statement.
“That increase more than negates U.S. action to reduce emissions. Foreign nations will reject carbon reduction strategies that result in higher energy prices or increased manufacturing costs.”
James Taylor, president of the free-market Heartland Institute, said the report “should be renamed the Make China Great Again Initiative.”
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--Forbes Cancels Activist’s Apology For 30-Year ‘Climate Scare’

Written by Tyler Durden on .
Posted in Latest news Forbes has decided to unpublish an article by award-winning climate @ @ @ @ @ which he apologizes “ for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years.
@ @ @ @ @ , was named one of TIME ‘ s “ Heroes of the Environment , ” @ @ @ @ @ was heralded by WIRED as potentially “ the best thing to happen to environmentalism since @ @ @ @ @ Spring.
” His book Apocalypse Never was widely praised as an ‘ eye-opening , fact-based @ @ @ @ @ and ‘ engaging and well-researched.
’ Now that he ’ s apologized for three-decades of @ @ @ @ @ now blocked Shellenberger ’ s article without explanation .
You can read it in full @ @

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


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-01--Risky Business: Fooling Us With Climate Trickery

Written by Donna Laframboise on .
Posted in Latest news In an article published late last year , analyst Roger Pielke Jr. demonstrates that the US National Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) have placed an extreme and unlikely vision of the future at the center of their recent reports .
Known as the RCP8.5 , this hypothetical scenario was never rooted in reality .
It was an implausible hallucination .
What if absurd amounts of fossil fuels were burned ?
What if population trends reversed ?
What if technological innovation stalled ?
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s improbable and extreme nature , Pielke says RCP8.5 got mentioned “ more than 470 ” times in a 2017 US government report .
And “ more than 580 times ” in a 2019 IPCC report .
In a subsequent article , titled How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science , Pielke explains some of the reasons RCP8.5 began appearing everywhere .
This is a story , he says , of “ privilege and conceit.
” If you ’ re mindbogglingly wealthy like Steyer and Bloomberg , you hire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report aimed at business leaders .
Titled Risky Business : The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States , its impressive-looking pages contain the names of rich and famous people .
They also feature a highly misleading graphic .
The original , below , comes from a 2011 paper that guestimates the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere according to four fairy tales developed by the IPCC .
The red line is RCP8.5 .
If that highly unlikely scenario were to hypothetically come true , the parts-per-million of carbon dioxide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the year 2100 ( the tan-colored bar represents the years 2000 to 2100 ) .
Currently , there are 414 parts-per-million of CO2 in the atmosphere .
Risky Business tells us its own graphic – which appears at the top of this blog post – is based on this paper .
But the new version takes a highly implausible scenario – the red line that is RCP8.5 – and calls it Business as Usual : Our Current Path .
So let us be clear about what has happened here .
The 2011 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those scenarios science is a stretch .
The fact that those scenarios are discussed in a peer-reviewed journal tells us nothing about their accuracy .
Let us not forget Lancet editor Richard Horton ’ s famous declaration : “ much of the scientific literature , perhaps half , may simply be untrue.
” So the Risky Business report not only relabels a dystopian climate hallucination as our current path , it calls this ‘ peer-reviewed climate science.
’ That ’ s how you fool people .
That ’ s how you frighten and @ @ @

Written by Donna Laframboise on Jul 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In an article published late last year, analyst Roger Pielke Jr. demonstrates that the US National Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have placed an extreme and unlikely vision of the future at the center of their recent reports.
Known as the RCP8.5, this hypothetical scenario was never rooted in reality. It was an implausible hallucination.
What if absurd amounts of fossil fuels were burned? What if population trends reversed? What if technological innovation stalled? (see my previous post)
Despite it’s improbable and extreme nature, Pielke says RCP8.5 got mentioned “more than 470” times in a 2017 US government report. And “more than 580 times” in a 2019 IPCC report.
In a subsequent article, titled How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science, Pielke explains some of the reasons RCP8.5 began appearing everywhere. This is a story, he says, of “privilege and conceit.”
If you’re mindbogglingly wealthy like Steyer and Bloomberg, you hire groups of consultants to write a custom report aimed at business leaders.
Titled Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States, its impressive-looking pages contain the names of rich and famous people. They also feature a highly misleading graphic.
The original, below, comes from a 2011 paper that guestimates the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere according to four fairy tales developed by the IPCC.
The red line is RCP8.5. If that highly unlikely scenario were to hypothetically come true, the parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would hypothetically exceed 1,000 around the year 2100 (the tan-colored bar represents the years 2000 to 2100).
Currently, there are 414 parts-per-million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Risky Business tells us its own graphic – which appears at the top of this blog post – is based on this paper. But the new version takes a highly implausible scenario – the red line that is RCP8.5 – and calls it Business as Usual: Our Current Path.
This is absolute nonsense. Utter chicanery.
A few pages earlier, Risky Business tells us:
Our research combines peer-reviewed climate science projections through the year 2100 with empirically-derived estimates of the impact of projected changes…on the U.S. economy. [bold added, first page of the Executive Summary]
So let us be clear about what has happened here. The 2011 paper is about imaginary scenarios. Calling those scenarios science is a stretch.
The fact that those scenarios are discussed in a peer-reviewed journal tells us nothing about their accuracy.
Let us not forget Lancet editor Richard Horton’s famous declaration: “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
So the Risky Business report not only relabels a dystopian climate hallucination as our current path, it calls this ‘peer-reviewed climate science.’
That’s how you fool people. That’s how you frighten and manipulate them.
Read more at Big Pic News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print