climatechangedispatch--2020-07-21--New Climate Summary Smokes Out Wildfire Myths

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Wildfires throughout the United States have become much less extensive in recent decades as the climate has warmed , reports a new climate summary at the website Climate at a Glance .
Climate at a Glance is designed to provide policymakers , educators , students , and the general public compelling one- or two-page summaries destroying common global warming myths .
Each summary begins with a few short bullet-points to concisely summarize the topic , followed by one or two explanatory paragraphs and an illustrative graphic .
According to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wildfires are far less frequent and severe than was the case throughout the first half of the 20th century .
• Occasional upticks in current wildfire activity still result in far less land burnt than was the case throughout the early 20th century .
• Even the worst recent wildfire years burned only 1/5 to 1/2 as much land as typical wildfire years during the early 20th century • Drought is the key climate factor for wildfires .
As shown in Climate at a Glance : Drought , the United States in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of drought .
A full lineup of Climate-at-a-Glance summaries is available here .
The U.S. Wildfires summary is available here .

Written by James Taylor on Jul 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Wildfires throughout the United States have become much less extensive in recent decades as the climate has warmed, reports a new climate summary at the website Climate at a Glance.
Climate at a Glance is designed to provide policymakers, educators, students, and the general public compelling one- or two-page summaries destroying common global warming myths.
Each summary begins with a few short bullet-points to concisely summarize the topic, followed by one or two explanatory paragraphs and an illustrative graphic.
According to the new summary on U.S. wildfires:
Wildfires are far less frequent and severe than was the case throughout the first half of the 20th century.
Occasional upticks in current wildfire activity still result in far less land burnt than was the case throughout the early 20th century.
Even the worst recent wildfire years burned only 1/5 to 1/2 as much land as typical wildfire years during the early 20th century
Drought is the key climate factor for wildfires. As shown in Climate at a Glance: Drought, the United States in recent decades is benefiting from strikingly small amounts of drought.
A full lineup of Climate-at-a-Glance summaries is available here. The U.S. Wildfires summary is available here.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--Biden’s Spoon-Ready ‘Green’ Jobs Plan Is An Economic Disaster

Written by Craig Rucker on .
Posted in Latest news Joe Biden announced plans to make America prosper through the magic of taxing , spending and regulating .
Biden ’ s plan for economic recovery includes inserting America back into the UN Paris Climate Agreement and spending two trillion dollars on climate change , with 40 % of the cash going to “ climate justice.
” This is as foolish as it is dangerous .
“ When Donald Trump thinks about climate change , the only word he can muster is ‘ hoax , ’ ” Biden said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word I think of is ‘ jobs.
’ ” Biden would create those jobs by mandating and subsidizing inefficiency .
Do you remember the story about the economist who saw workers digging out a canal ?
He was shocked to see that , instead of modern tractors and earthmovers , the workers had shovels .
“ I thought you were trying to build a canal , ” the economist replied , “ If it ’ s jobs you want , then you should give the workers spoons , not shovels.
” No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was speaking , or when and whether this happened , but we all should agree that the lesson is valid .
Productivity counts .
Inefficiency places a drag on the economy to the detriment of all .
Replacing the energy producers who have given us American energy independence ( at last ! )
with a legion of wind and solar installers is just that sort of inefficiency .
They may as well be wielding spoons .
Biden pledged emissions-free electricity generation by 2035 and overall net-zero emissions by 2050 .
Can you imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down oil , gas , and coal energy in just 15 years and try to replace them by converting our remaining natural spaces into wind farms and solar deserts ?
Brace for major upheavals .
Kiss automobiles , appliances , housing , and jobs as you know and prefer them goodbye if this misbegotten thinking rules the day .
Larry Bell reminds us in a post at CFACT.org that Biden has ceded his climate plans to the radicals .
His climate committee is co-chaired by John Kerry and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes right out of the UN .
“ Approximately three months earlier , ” Bell writes , “ on April 22 , the U.N. announced , ‘ as the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery , the United Nations is calling on Governments to seize the opportunity to build back better by creating more sustainable , resilient and inclusive societies.
” Peter Murphy warns at CFACT.org that Biden “ has become a Trojan horse for climate true believers.
” Don ’ t forget Biden ’ s call for “ climate justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for redistribution of wealth .
Joe Biden ’ s economic and climate plans rest on false premises , are ruinously expensive , would cripple the economy , and would harm , rather than help the environment .
Biden and the Left have no idea how to build .
We should leave the building up to free people exercising free choice if we really want to build back better .

Written by Craig Rucker on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Joe Biden announced plans to make America prosper through the magic of taxing, spending and regulating.
Biden’s plan for economic recovery includes inserting America back into the UN Paris Climate Agreement and spending two trillion dollars on climate change, with 40% of the cash going to “climate justice.”
This is as foolish as it is dangerous.
“When Donald Trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster is ‘hoax,’” Biden said, “When I think about climate change, the word I think of is ‘jobs.’”
Biden would create those jobs by mandating and subsidizing inefficiency.
Do you remember the story about the economist who saw workers digging out a canal? He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earthmovers, the workers had shovels.
“You don’t understand,” the bureaucrats explained, “this is a jobs program.”
“I thought you were trying to build a canal,” the economist replied, “If it’s jobs you want, then you should give the workers spoons, not shovels.”
No one seems able to agree on who was speaking, or when and whether this happened, but we all should agree that the lesson is valid. Productivity counts. Inefficiency places a drag on the economy to the detriment of all.
Replacing the energy producers who have given us American energy independence (at last!) with a legion of wind and solar installers is just that sort of inefficiency. They may as well be wielding spoons.
Biden pledged emissions-free electricity generation by 2035 and overall net-zero emissions by 2050.
Can you imagine the economic upheaval in store if we shut down oil, gas, and coal energy in just 15 years and try to replace them by converting our remaining natural spaces into wind farms and solar deserts?
Brace for major upheavals. Kiss automobiles, appliances, housing, and jobs as you know and prefer them goodbye if this misbegotten thinking rules the day.
Larry Bell reminds us in a post at CFACT.org that Biden has ceded his climate plans to the radicals.
His climate committee is co-chaired by John Kerry and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Even the phrase “build back better” comes right out of the UN.
“Approximately three months earlier,” Bell writes, “on April 22, the U.N. announced, ‘as the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery, the United Nations is calling on Governments to seize the opportunity to build back better by creating more sustainable, resilient and inclusive societies.”
Peter Murphy warns at CFACT.org that Biden “has become a Trojan horse for climate true believers.”
Don’t forget Biden’s call for “climate justice,” which is nothing more than code for redistribution of wealth.
Joe Biden’s economic and climate plans rest on false premises, are ruinously expensive, would cripple the economy, and would harm, rather than help the environment.
Biden and the Left have no idea how to build. We should leave the building up to free people exercising free choice if we really want to build back better.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--Late Show’s Colbert Indulges Greta’s Radical Climate Alarmism

Written by Kristine Marsh on .
Posted in Latest news host Stephen Colbert had media darling , and radical climate crusader Greta Thunberg on his show Tuesday night to discuss her latest accolades and activism .
While there , Colbert urged the Swedish teen to mock President Trump and lamented with her that world leaders would not go to “ extraordinary measures ” like nationwide lockdowns for climate change .
After profusely thanking the teen making time in her busy schedule to talk to him , Colbert praised her for teaching other kids to ditch school to protest climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , it spoke to a hunger for an opportunity to take action and for people to speak out , and you were a spark that lit that fire for people , ” the talk show host hailed .
From there , he tried to get Thunberg to attack her critics : “ Is there anything that surprised you about , like , negative reactions you got to this ?
Because you became the focus of hostility for reasons that I don ’ t entirely understand but from media figures , from politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he gushed .
Colbert didn ’ t mention that any criticism Thunberg received from conservative figures and President Trump was dwarfed by the media ’ s outright adulation of the liberal teen .
Still , Thunberg took the bait , mocking “ presidents going to social media to silence young activists , ” as proof teens are “ making an impact.
” He agreed , gushing how this was because politicians saw Thunberg as “ a threat ” to their “ status quo.
” Yeah , OK. Colbert brought up Trump again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s alleged glare at the UN .
“ I agree with your stare !
” he said with glee .
The talk show host also pathetically tried to get Thunberg to say how the worldwide lockdowns due to coronavirus crisis had been good for the environment .
Perhaps humbling from the backlash CNN received for putting her on a coronavirus townhall a few months ago , Thunberg actually countered Colbert ’ s line of questioning : STEPHEN COLBERT : What is the COVID crisis and the reduction of emissions do to the COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ?
Do you see anything in there and the possibility of change ?
THUNBERG : No .
I mean , some people say that the coronavirus is positive for environment and the climate which is not true at all .
The corona pandemic is a tragedy and nothing else , and I don ’ t think we should speak of it as an opportunity to build back better or whatever because it ’ s such a tragedy… However , she went on to say that what the pandemic showed us was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change just as seriously .
The late-night host agreed .
As the pair went on to take digs at President Trump again , Colbert whined that our leaders won ’ t take “ extraordinary measures ” ( like shut down the country ? )
to fight climate change : THUNBERG : But one thing will come out , that the Corona pandemic will lead to is that it will change the way that we treat and perceive an emergency and a crisis because this only shows that the climate crisis has never once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so — so , yeah .
COLBERT : Well , that ’ s interesting because now we see , when we truly believe that life is on the line , we will go to extraordinary measures .
THUNBERG : Yes , and world leaders are now saying themselves that we will not — I mean , not all world leaders , as you may know — COLBERT : I do know .
Unfortunately , yeah .
THUNBERG : But they will do whatever it takes because you can not put a price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think at least I ’ ve never experienced that when they say that themselves because that means that we can start — that they actually mean it , and it feels like when they say those kinds of things , that opens up a new dimension because , if you use that logic , then — if you let that fly for the climate crisis , then it — apply to the climate crisis it changes basically everything .
This attempt by the media to float extreme solutions for a left-wing movement was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Written by Kristine Marsh on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Late Show host Stephen Colbert had media darling, and radical climate crusader Greta Thunberg on his show Tuesday night to discuss her latest accolades and activism.
While there, Colbert urged the Swedish teen to mock President Trump and lamented with her that world leaders would not go to “extraordinary measures” like nationwide lockdowns for climate change.
After profusely thanking the teen making time in her busy schedule to talk to him, Colbert praised her for teaching other kids to ditch school to protest climate change in a worldwide walkout:
“To me, it spoke to a hunger for an opportunity to take action and for people to speak out, and you were a spark that lit that fire for people,” the talk show host hailed.
From there, he tried to get Thunberg to attack her critics:
“Is there anything that surprised you about, like, negative reactions you got to this? Because you became the focus of hostility for reasons that I don’t entirely understand but from media figures, from politicians. What did that feel like?” he gushed.
Colbert didn’t mention that any criticism Thunberg received from conservative figures and President Trump was dwarfed by the media’s outright adulation of the liberal teen.
Still, Thunberg took the bait, mocking “presidents going to social media to silence young activists,” as proof teens are “making an impact.”
He agreed, gushing how this was because politicians saw Thunberg as “a threat” to their “status quo.” Yeah, OK.

Colbert brought up Trump again, this time fawning over Thunberg’s alleged glare at the UN. “I agree with your stare!” he said with glee.
The talk show host also pathetically tried to get Thunberg to say how the worldwide lockdowns due to coronavirus crisis had been good for the environment.
Perhaps humbling from the backlash CNN received for putting her on a coronavirus townhall a few months ago, Thunberg actually countered Colbert’s line of questioning:
STEPHEN COLBERT: What is the COVID crisis and the reduction of emissions do to the COVID crisis? What does that mean to you? Do you see anything in there and the possibility of change? THUNBERG: No. I mean, some people say that the coronavirus is positive for environment and the climate which is not true at all. The corona pandemic is a tragedy and nothing else, and I don’t think we should speak of it as an opportunity to build back better or whatever because it’s such a tragedy…
However, she went on to say that what the pandemic showed us was that world leaders won’t take climate change just as seriously. The late-night host agreed.
As the pair went on to take digs at President Trump again, Colbert whined that our leaders won’t take “extraordinary measures” (like shut down the country?) to fight climate change:
THUNBERG: But one thing will come out, that the Corona pandemic will lead to is that it will change the way that we treat and perceive an emergency and a crisis because this only shows that the climate crisis has never once been treated as a crisis. And, so — so, yeah. COLBERT: Well, that’s interesting because now we see, when we truly believe that life is on the line, we will go to extraordinary measures. THUNBERG: Yes, and world leaders are now saying themselves that we will not — I mean, not all world leaders, as you may know — COLBERT: I do know. Unfortunately, yeah. THUNBERG: But they will do whatever it takes because you cannot put a price on a human life, and I think at least I’ve never experienced that when they say that themselves because that means that we can start — that they actually mean it, and it feels like when they say those kinds of things, that opens up a new dimension because, if you use that logic, then — if you let that fly for the climate crisis, then it — apply to the climate crisis it changes basically everything.
This attempt by the media to float extreme solutions for a left-wing movement was brought to you by Target and Applebees.
Read rest at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--China’s Pandemic Recovery Drives Massive Boom In Coal Plants

Written by Harry Pearl on .
Posted in Latest news China is in the midst of a new coal boom , as approvals for coal-energy projects have accelerated this year in response to the coronavirus outbreak .
Far from treating the coronavirus pandemic as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to speed up decarbonization and lock in climate goals , there are signs China is falling back on its old playbook of pumping cheap credit into fossil-fuel-heavy energy projects to help the economy recover from a historic first-quarter contraction .
Following a dramatic plunge in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s energy sector is roaring back to life .
Daily consumption of coal , oil , and gas in June was on par with the previous year , according to the government , and analysts say carbon emissions have bounced back to pre-coronavirus levels .
It may still be too early to say where energy use and emissions are heading in 2020 , but the environmental detox that followed months of sweeping lockdowns appears to be over .
China has 249.6 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity either under construction or in planning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air – which is larger than the current coal fleets of the United States or India .
In this year alone , China permitted 17.0GW of coal-fired power for construction , more than the previous two years combined , and the power sector has proposed some 40GW of new coal plants , the two groups said in a report in June .
The surge in new coal-fired power plant approvals is being driven in large part by a glut of local government infrastructure projects facilitated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government support for stimulus spending , analysts said .
[ … ] But the acceleration of coal plant construction this year highlights the tension at the heart of China ’ s energy planning , one which often pits the strategic interests of Beijing against the immediate goals of cash-strapped provincial governments .

Written by Harry Pearl on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
China is in the midst of a new coal boom, as approvals for coal-energy projects have accelerated this year in response to the coronavirus outbreak.
Far from treating the coronavirus pandemic as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to speed up decarbonization and lock in climate goals, there are signs China is falling back on its old playbook of pumping cheap credit into fossil-fuel-heavy energy projects to help the economy recover from a historic first-quarter contraction.
Following a dramatic plunge in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at the start of the year, China’s energy sector is roaring back to life.
Daily consumption of coal, oil, and gas in June was on par with the previous year, according to the government, and analysts say carbon emissions have bounced back to pre-coronavirus levels.
It may still be too early to say where energy use and emissions are heading in 2020, but the environmental detox that followed months of sweeping lockdowns appears to be over.
China has 249.6 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity either under construction or in planning, according to Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air – which is larger than the current coal fleets of the United States or India.
In this year alone, China permitted 17.0GW of coal-fired power for construction, more than the previous two years combined, and the power sector has proposed some 40GW of new coal plants, the two groups said in a report in June.
The surge in new coal-fired power plant approvals is being driven in large part by a glut of local government infrastructure projects facilitated by easy access to bank loans and central government support for stimulus spending, analysts said. […]
But the acceleration of coal plant construction this year highlights the tension at the heart of China’s energy planning, one which often pits the strategic interests of Beijing against the immediate goals of cash-strapped provincial governments.
Read more at South China Morning Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--How Deceptive Eco-Journalism Is Shaped By The Media

Written by Rich Trzupek on .
Posted in Latest news A recent edition of the Sunday Chicago Tribune featured a story with the provocative headline “ Chicago Air Dirtier in July than Notoriously Smoggy LA ” , with the subhead : “ It didn ’ t improve during the lockdown , and more unhealthy days are coming.
” The story that followed was equal parts dishonest , foolish , and lazy .
But it provides this writer with a stellar example with which to demonstrate how deceptive environmental journalism is routinely fashioned by today ’ s mainstream media .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage of politics is unapologetically agenda-driven these days , but I ’ m not sure the public realizes how deeply that cancer has infected the MSM ’ s coverage of science and environmental topics .
Let ’ s put “ climate change ” to the side for a moment .
Politically-correct climate change coverage is a symptom of the disease that metastasized decades ago when legacy journalists grew blind to the distinctions that separate healthy environmental protection from irrational , ecological puritanism .
The dishonesty that infects MSM coverage of science and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public .
Why should it be ?
Most of the deceptions involve technical points that appear too complex or obscure to pore over .
Worse , the most skilled deceptions don ’ t involve outright lies , but a skillful arrangement of only those facts that support the narrative .
It ’ s not fake news so much as it is selective storytelling .
The author of the doomsday yarn featured in the Sunday Trib , environmental writer Michael Hawthorne , is a master of this particular art .
In his piece , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now chronically unhealthy and is doomed to be so for a long time to come .
He concludes that usual suspects are to blame for this sorry state of affairs : Donald Trump and climate change .
And , of course , there is no shortage of supporting quotes from hand-picked “ experts ” and selective use of data to buttress the argument .
So , let ’ s start with that headline , is Chicago ’ s air quality now worse than the chronically smog-filled L.A. basin ?
To find out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To do that , we should start by understanding what the data is telling us .
A convenient way to look at air quality data is a metric the EPA has long used called the Air Quality Index , or AQI .
The AQI is a comparison between actual readings by air quality monitors in the EPA system and the target concentrations that officially define what is clean air for a variety of air pollutants .
These target concentrations are known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS .
An AQI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest monitor readings that day did not exceed the applicable NAAQS .
Such days are described as “ good ” or “ moderate ” depending on how far below the NAAQS the worst-case monitoring data proved to be .
An AQI score of greater than 100 is described as some degree of “ unhealthy.
” There are really only two air pollutants that routinely cause NAAQS exceedances in urban areas : fine particulate and ozone .
Fine particulate , officially known as PM2.5 and for some reason known only to Hawthorne and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of very , very small airborne particles about 1/40th the diameter of a human hair .
Ozone , sometimes called smog , is produced from an interaction between two air pollutants .
The first is oxides of nitrogen or NOx , which is generated by forms of combustion , be it industrial boilers , your car ’ s engine , a forest fire , etc .
The second is Volatile Organic Compounds , or VOC , which describes organic vapors of all kinds , from gasoline fumes , to paint thinners to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these two pollutants have an opportunity to interact and a relatively hot and windless day provides the energy and environment for the right reactions to occur , ozone forms .
Ozone in the upper stratosphere is a good thing , protecting us from ultraviolet light .
This sort of ozone , much of which stays low in the troposphere where it can be inhaled is not desirable .
It should be noted at this point that the reason ozone and fine particulate are the most problematic pollutants in urban areas is not that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decades .
The opposite is true : emission rates of ozone precursors and fine particulate have steadily and dramatically dropped in the United States since the Clean Air Act was first passed in 1970 .
It ’ s the definition of clean air that has changed .
Administrations of both parties have steadily reduced NAAQS for these pollutants , again and again , effectively moving the goalposts to points that make compliance a distant speck on the horizon .
Now that you have earned your official air quality ranger merit badge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims .
Let ’ s start with fine particulate .
Here is a plot of worst-case fine particulate PM2.5 data for the greater Chicagoland metropolitan area for 2020 , through July 13 : And here ’ s the Los Angeles basin for the same time period : The LA monitors pop the limit seven times in the selected time period , while Chicago monitors do so only twice .
And what might be the cause of that big peak that makes for the two days in July that both LA and Chicago monitors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceedances might provide a clue : July 4 and July 5 .
In his story , Hawthorne observes that “ Independence Day celebrations added to the ( air quality ) problem.
” A more realistic appraisal would be that Independence Day celebrations were the problem .
It ’ s also important to note that neither industry nor transportation sources contribute much to PM2.5 pollution any longer .
According to EPA data assembled during the Obama administration , about 80 percent of PM2.5 emissions are generated by “ miscellaneous ” sources like natural activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consumer products , etc .
This brings us to ozone .
While it is true that June and July have been warmer on average than mean temperatures in Chicago over the last twenty years , temperatures have not been outside of normal bounds .
And though Chicago has seen a jump in ozone concentrations , there ’ s really no comparison to L.A. area ozone concentrations : Through July 13 , the Chicagoland area logged 16 “ unhealthy ” days based on ozone AQI .
The L.A. Basin had 46 such days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which exceeded the single worst ozone AQI day recorded in Chicago in 2020 .
One question should remain in a genuinely curious journalist ’ s mind : even if Chicago ’ s air quality isn ’ t worse than Los Angeles ’ – which it clearly is not – there has been a blip in ozone concentrations in the Chicagoland area .
If that ’ s not the result of climate change or the president that MSM journalists are sworn to hate , what is the cause ?
To quote Bob Dylan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the wind .
We learned earlier that ozone forms when NOx , VOC , and sunlight interact on relatively hot , windless days .
In most places , the sum of the complex chemical reactions that produce ozone can be thought of as NOx playing the role of the “ ore ” that yields ozone , while VOC acts as the “ pick ” that “ mines ” the ore .
In most places .
Not in Chicago .
In Chicago , the prevailing winds and the location of Lake Michigan on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patterns can change this equation substantially .
In many circumstances , NOx emissions don ’ t matter all that much and in some of those , they are even beneficial , reducing rather than increasing ozone formation in the Chicagoland air-shed .
In recognition of this unique atmospheric chemistry , the USEPA issued a “ NOx waiver ” to Illinois back in the ’ 90s that allowed the Agency to ignore NOx emissions as they related to ozone formation in the Chicagoland metropolitan area .
The waiver has since been revoked , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown in Illinois began , monitoring data shows that ambient concentrations of NO2 ( the portion of NOx that EPA monitors ) dropped by about two-thirds compared to seasonal norms , as would be expected with the corresponding drop in traffic and industrial activity .
The evidence thus strongly suggests that neither climate change nor the Trump administration is responsible for the odd spike in Chicago area ozone , but rather the odd meteorology of the area itself .
Don ’ t expect Michael Hawthorne or the Chicago Tribune to consider that possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s all about the narrative or it ’ s about nothing at all .
Rich Trzupek is a chemist and air quality expert who has worked with industry and the EPA for over thirty-five years .
He is the author of Regulators Gone Wild : How the EPA is Ruining American Industry and other works .
He lives in the Chicago area .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Rich Trzupek on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A recent edition of the Sunday Chicago Tribune featured a story with the provocative headline “Chicago Air Dirtier in July than Notoriously Smoggy LA”, with the subhead: “It didn’t improve during the lockdown, and more unhealthy days are coming.”
The story that followed was equal parts dishonest, foolish, and lazy. But it provides this writer with a stellar example with which to demonstrate how deceptive environmental journalism is routinely fashioned by today’s mainstream media.
It’s no secret that mainstream media coverage of politics is unapologetically agenda-driven these days, but I’m not sure the public realizes how deeply that cancer has infected the MSM’s coverage of science and environmental topics.
Let’s put “climate change” to the side for a moment. Politically-correct climate change coverage is a symptom of the disease that metastasized decades ago when legacy journalists grew blind to the distinctions that separate healthy environmental protection from irrational, ecological puritanism.
The dishonesty that infects MSM coverage of science and the environment is rarely apparent to the general public. Why should it be? Most of the deceptions involve technical points that appear too complex or obscure to pore over.
Worse, the most skilled deceptions don’t involve outright lies, but a skillful arrangement of only those facts that support the narrative. It’s not fake news so much as it is selective storytelling.
The author of the doomsday yarn featured in the Sunday Trib, environmental writer Michael Hawthorne, is a master of this particular art.
In his piece, Hawthorne implies that Chicago’s air is now chronically unhealthy and is doomed to be so for a long time to come.
He concludes that usual suspects are to blame for this sorry state of affairs: Donald Trump and climate change.
And, of course, there is no shortage of supporting quotes from hand-picked “experts” and selective use of data to buttress the argument.
So, let’s start with that headline, is Chicago’s air quality now worse than the chronically smog-filled L.A. basin? To find out, we have to examine relevant data. To do that, we should start by understanding what the data is telling us.
A convenient way to look at air quality data is a metric the EPA has long used called the Air Quality Index, or AQI.
The AQI is a comparison between actual readings by air quality monitors in the EPA system and the target concentrations that officially define what is clean air for a variety of air pollutants.
These target concentrations are known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS.
An AQI score of less than 100 means that the highest monitor readings that day did not exceed the applicable NAAQS.
Such days are described as “good” or “moderate” depending on how far below the NAAQS the worst-case monitoring data proved to be. An AQI score of greater than 100 is described as some degree of “unhealthy.”
There are really only two air pollutants that routinely cause NAAQS exceedances in urban areas: fine particulate and ozone.
Fine particulate, officially known as PM2.5 and for some reason known only to Hawthorne and God as “soot,” consists of very, very small airborne particles about 1/40th the diameter of a human hair.
Ozone, sometimes called smog, is produced from an interaction between two air pollutants. The first is oxides of nitrogen or NOx, which is generated by forms of combustion, be it industrial boilers, your car’s engine, a forest fire, etc.
The second is Volatile Organic Compounds, or VOC, which describes organic vapors of all kinds, from gasoline fumes, to paint thinners to the solvents used in nail polish.
When these two pollutants have an opportunity to interact and a relatively hot and windless day provides the energy and environment for the right reactions to occur, ozone forms.
Ozone in the upper stratosphere is a good thing, protecting us from ultraviolet light. This sort of ozone, much of which stays low in the troposphere where it can be inhaled is not desirable.
It should be noted at this point that the reason ozone and fine particulate are the most problematic pollutants in urban areas is not that emissions related to either have increased over the decades.
The opposite is true: emission rates of ozone precursors and fine particulate have steadily and dramatically dropped in the United States since the Clean Air Act was first passed in 1970.
It’s the definition of clean air that has changed. Administrations of both parties have steadily reduced NAAQS for these pollutants, again and again, effectively moving the goalposts to points that make compliance a distant speck on the horizon.
Now that you have earned your official air quality ranger merit badge, we can dive into Hawthorne’s claims. Let’s start with fine particulate.
Here is a plot of worst-case fine particulate PM2.5 data for the greater Chicagoland metropolitan area for 2020, through July 13:
And here’s the Los Angeles basin for the same time period:
The LA monitors pop the limit seven times in the selected time period, while Chicago monitors do so only twice.
And what might be the cause of that big peak that makes for the two days in July that both LA and Chicago monitors showed exceedances? The dates of the exceedances might provide a clue: July 4 and July 5.
In his story, Hawthorne observes that “Independence Day celebrations added to the (air quality) problem.” A more realistic appraisal would be that Independence Day celebrations were the problem.
It’s also important to note that neither industry nor transportation sources contribute much to PM2.5 pollution any longer.
According to EPA data assembled during the Obama administration, about 80 percent of PM2.5 emissions are generated by “miscellaneous” sources like natural activity, forest fires, agriculture, use of consumer products, etc.
This brings us to ozone. While it is true that June and July have been warmer on average than mean temperatures in Chicago over the last twenty years, temperatures have not been outside of normal bounds.
And though Chicago has seen a jump in ozone concentrations, there’s really no comparison to L.A. area ozone concentrations:
Through July 13, the Chicagoland area logged 16 “unhealthy” days based on ozone AQI. The L.A. Basin had 46 such days in the same time period, six of which exceeded the single worst ozone AQI day recorded in Chicago in 2020.
One question should remain in a genuinely curious journalist’s mind: even if Chicago’s air quality isn’t worse than Los Angeles’ – which it clearly is not – there has been a blip in ozone concentrations in the Chicagoland area.
If that’s not the result of climate change or the president that MSM journalists are sworn to hate, what is the cause? To quote Bob Dylan: the answer my friends is blowing in the wind.
We learned earlier that ozone forms when NOx, VOC, and sunlight interact on relatively hot, windless days.
In most places, the sum of the complex chemical reactions that produce ozone can be thought of as NOx playing the role of the “ore” that yields ozone, while VOC acts as the “pick” that “mines” the ore. In most places. Not in Chicago.
In Chicago, the prevailing winds and the location of Lake Michigan on the normally downwind side of local weather patterns can change this equation substantially.
In many circumstances, NOx emissions don’t matter all that much and in some of those, they are even beneficial, reducing rather than increasing ozone formation in the Chicagoland air-shed.
In recognition of this unique atmospheric chemistry, the USEPA issued a “NOx waiver” to Illinois back in the ’90s that allowed the Agency to ignore NOx emissions as they related to ozone formation in the Chicagoland metropolitan area.
The waiver has since been revoked, but the science remains unchanged. Once the lockdown in Illinois began, monitoring data shows that ambient concentrations of NO2 (the portion of NOx that EPA monitors) dropped by about two-thirds compared to seasonal norms, as would be expected with the corresponding drop in traffic and industrial activity.
The evidence thus strongly suggests that neither climate change nor the Trump administration is responsible for the odd spike in Chicago area ozone, but rather the odd meteorology of the area itself.
Don’t expect Michael Hawthorne or the Chicago Tribune to consider that possibility, however. For them, it’s all about the narrative or it’s about nothing at all.
Rich Trzupek is a chemist and air quality expert who has worked with industry and the EPA for over thirty-five years. He is the author of Regulators Gone Wild: How the EPA is Ruining American Industry and other works. He lives in the Chicago area.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--Media Run Wild With Latest Polar Bear Death Scare

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Google News and the establishment media are attempting to frighten people today with claims that polar bears may go extinct by 2100 .
The claims are absolute rubbish and fail the laugh test .
BBC , CBS , New Scientist , the New York Times , and Science Alert are among the many media outlets hyping the scare today .
The scare is based on a new Nature Climate Change paper titled , “ Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence.
” In the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model captures demographic trends observed during 1979–2016 , showing that recruitment and survival impact thresholds may already have been exceeded in some subpopulations .
… It also suggests that , with high greenhouse gas emissions , steeply declining reproduction and survival will jeopardize the persistence of all but a few high-Arctic subpopulations by 2100.
” BBC ’ s uncritical coverage of the report is typical of establishment media coverage .
In a story titled “ Climate change : Polar bears could be lost by 2100 , ” the authors write in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polar bears will be wiped out by the end of the century unless more is done to tackle climate change , a study predicts .
Scientists say some populations have already reached their survival limits as the Arctic sea ice shrinks.
” However , as polar bear scientist Susan Crockford points out , the study ’ s claims are not based on data , but rather on projections based on extreme , unrealistic warming scenarios .
Also , the authors extrapolate population declines from small segments of the polar bear population across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warming Policy Foundation recently published Crockford ’ s report , The State of the Polar Bear 2019 .
Crockford , a zoologist specializing in polar bear research and population trends , provides comprehensive evidence and data showing polar bears are doing quite fine as temperatures continue their modest warming .
Indeed , polar bear populations have been rising for more than half a century , and are likely quadruple the number that existed in the 1950s .
As real-world evidence shows something unalarming – in this case , substantial growth in polar bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usual bag of tricks and conjure up dubious computer models , projections , and speculation to trick the general populace into believing global warming is causing a polar bear crisis .
Very dishonest , and very sad .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Google News and the establishment media are attempting to frighten people today with claims that polar bears may go extinct by 2100. The claims are absolute rubbish and fail the laugh test.
BBC, CBS, New Scientist, the New York Times, and Science Alert are among the many media outlets hyping the scare today.
The scare is based on a new Nature Climate Change paper titled, “Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence.”
In the paper, the authors claim,
“Our model captures demographic trends observed during 1979–2016, showing that recruitment and survival impact thresholds may already have been exceeded in some subpopulations. … It also suggests that, with high greenhouse gas emissions, steeply declining reproduction and survival will jeopardize the persistence of all but a few high-Arctic subpopulations by 2100.”
BBC’s uncritical coverage of the report is typical of establishment media coverage.
In a story titled “Climate change: Polar bears could be lost by 2100,” the authors write in the first two sentences of the story,
“Polar bears will be wiped out by the end of the century unless more is done to tackle climate change, a study predicts. Scientists say some populations have already reached their survival limits as the Arctic sea ice shrinks.”
However, as polar bear scientist Susan Crockford points out, the study’s claims are not based on data, but rather on projections based on extreme, unrealistic warming scenarios.
Also, the authors extrapolate population declines from small segments of the polar bear population across the entire polar bear range.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently published Crockford’s report, The State of the Polar Bear 2019.
Crockford, a zoologist specializing in polar bear research and population trends, provides comprehensive evidence and data showing polar bears are doing quite fine as temperatures continue their modest warming.
Indeed, polar bear populations have been rising for more than half a century, and are likely quadruple the number that existed in the 1950s.
As real-world evidence shows something unalarming – in this case, substantial growth in polar bear populations – climate alarmists go to their usual bag of tricks and conjure up dubious computer models, projections, and speculation to trick the general populace into believing global warming is causing a polar bear crisis.
Very dishonest, and very sad.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--Australia’s Federal Court Delivers Devastating Blow To Free Speech

Written by Gideon Rozner on .
Posted in Latest news The Federal Court issued a devastating blow against mainstream Australians , against freedom of speech , and against freedom of speech on climate change by overturning the earlier decision in the Federal Circuit Court which held that Dr. Peter Ridd was unlawfully dismissed by James Cook University .
Alarmingly , this decision shows that contractual provisions guaranteeing intellectual freedom do not protect academics against censorship by university administrators .
The time has come for the Morrison Government to intervene .
This has been Australia ’ s David vs Goliath battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , backed by thousands of ordinary Australians , and JCU on the other side who secured some of the most expensive legal representation in the country in Bret Walker SC to stifle the free speech of one of its own staff .
Dr. Ridd , a professor of physics at JCU , was sacked by the university for misconduct for questioning the IPA ’ s publication Climate Change : The Facts 2017 , the climate change science around the Great Barrier Reef , and for public statements made on the Jones & Co @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently considering his legal options in relation to a challenge in the High Court of Australia .
If he does decide to take up that fight , the Institute of Public Affairs – as well as thousands on mainstream Australians – will continue to support his fight for freedom of speech on climate change .
JCU has engaged some of the most expensive legal representation in the country to stifle the free speech of one of its own staff , despite crying poor about university funding in the wake of coronavirus .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic engaging in public debate in Australia .
The University ’ s shameful actions prove without a doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian universities .
Many academics are censured , but few are prepared to speak out and risk their career , particularly if faced with the prospect of legal battles and possible bankruptcy .
The case has identified a culture of censorship when it comes to challenging claims surrounding climate change and the Great Barrier Reef .
JCU to this date has never attempted to disprove claims made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reef .

Written by Gideon Rozner on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Federal Court issued a devastating blow against mainstream Australians, against freedom of speech, and against freedom of speech on climate change by overturning the earlier decision in the Federal Circuit Court which held that Dr. Peter Ridd was unlawfully dismissed by James Cook University.
Alarmingly, this decision shows that contractual provisions guaranteeing intellectual freedom do not protect academics against censorship by university administrators.
The time has come for the Morrison Government to intervene.
This has been Australia’s David vs Goliath battle, with Peter Ridd on one side, backed by thousands of ordinary Australians, and JCU on the other side who secured some of the most expensive legal representation in the country in Bret Walker SC to stifle the free speech of one of its own staff.
Dr. Ridd, a professor of physics at JCU, was sacked by the university for misconduct for questioning the IPA’s publication Climate Change: The Facts 2017, the climate change science around the Great Barrier Reef, and for public statements made on the Jones & Co Sky News program.
He is now apparently considering his legal options in relation to a challenge in the High Court of Australia.
If he does decide to take up that fight, the Institute of Public Affairs – as well as thousands on mainstream Australians – will continue to support his fight for freedom of speech on climate change.
JCU has engaged some of the most expensive legal representation in the country to stifle the free speech of one of its own staff, despite crying poor about university funding in the wake of coronavirus.
It creates a massive chilling effect for any academic engaging in public debate in Australia.
The University’s shameful actions prove without a doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian universities.
Many academics are censured, but few are prepared to speak out and risk their career, particularly if faced with the prospect of legal battles and possible bankruptcy.
The case has identified a culture of censorship when it comes to challenging claims surrounding climate change and the Great Barrier Reef.
JCU to this date has never attempted to disprove claims made by Dr. Ridd about the Great Barrier Reef.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--Princess Anne Blasts Prince Charles’s Views On Climate Change, More

Written by Rebecca English on .
Posted in Latest news Enthusing about genetically modified crops and dismissing the effects of climate change and veganism couldn ’ t be further away from the green views of Prince Charles .
But these are the very forthright opinions of his sister , Princess Anne .
Giving a rare interview to mark her 70th birthday next month , the Queen ’ s fiercely independent daughter jokes that her conversations with her elder brother are by necessity ‘ short ’ due to their wildly differing opinions .
Charles has openly lobbied against genetically modified crops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been an enormous advantage in many parts of the world to use GM wisely for very specific environments .
‘ It makes it much more likely to be able to grow what you need .
‘ I have to remind people that rapeseed oil was only made non-toxic to humans by the Canadians after the Second World War by genetically modifying the plant .
‘ It ’ s [ ironically ] quite popular with all those people who don ’ t like GM.
’ Asked if she and Charles have conversations about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasionally , but rather short.
’ ‘ I don ’ t go down the climate change route ’ The princess was speaking to Australian Women ’ s Weekly magazine via a video call from Gatcombe Park , the 500-acre Gloucestershire estate and farm where she has spent lockdown .
Princes William and Harry as well as Charles have linked last year ’ s devastating Australian bushfires to climate change , but Anne said : ‘ I don ’ t even go down the climate change route .
‘ I think the way people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate changes all the time .
It has done so throughout the globe ’ s history , so there ’ s nothing new under the sun .
‘ Somehow , we ’ ve got to learn that our kind of life is changing .
We ’ ve got to remember to respect what ’ s out there and how to live with it.
’ Talking with admiration of Australia ’ s indigenous population , she said : ‘ They ’ ve got a lot more knowledge and I suspect their ability to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
‘ First Nations people have a much better understanding of what the dangers are , and fire would have been a massive danger throughout their existence .
‘ They know Australia a lot better than anybody else .
I suspect they existed in quite a lot of climate changes already .
’

Written by Rebecca English on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Enthusing about genetically modified crops and dismissing the effects of climate change and veganism couldn’t be further away from the green views of Prince Charles.
But these are the very forthright opinions of his sister, Princess Anne.
Giving a rare interview to mark her 70th birthday next month, the Queen’s fiercely independent daughter jokes that her conversations with her elder brother are by necessity ‘short’ due to their wildly differing opinions.
Charles has openly lobbied against genetically modified crops, but Anne counters: ‘It has been an enormous advantage in many parts of the world to use GM wisely for very specific environments.
‘It makes it much more likely to be able to grow what you need.
‘I have to remind people that rapeseed oil was only made non-toxic to humans by the Canadians after the Second World War by genetically modifying the plant.
‘It’s [ironically] quite popular with all those people who don’t like GM.’
Asked if she and Charles have conversations about farming, she quips: ‘Yes… occasionally, but rather short.’
‘I don’t go down the climate change route’
The princess was speaking to Australian Women’s Weekly magazine via a video call from Gatcombe Park, the 500-acre Gloucestershire estate and farm where she has spent lockdown.
Princes William and Harry as well as Charles have linked last year’s devastating Australian bushfires to climate change, but Anne said: ‘I don’t even go down the climate change route.
‘I think the way people manage ground is part of the discussion… Climate changes all the time. It has done so throughout the globe’s history, so there’s nothing new under the sun.
‘Somehow, we’ve got to learn that our kind of life is changing. We’ve got to remember to respect what’s out there and how to live with it.’
Talking with admiration of Australia’s indigenous population, she said: ‘They’ve got a lot more knowledge and I suspect their ability to pass on the relevant knowledge is better than us.
‘First Nations people have a much better understanding of what the dangers are, and fire would have been a massive danger throughout their existence.
‘They know Australia a lot better than anybody else. I suspect they existed in quite a lot of climate changes already.’
Read rest at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-22--EU Leaders Slash Climate Funding To Save COVID Relief Package

Written by GWPF News on .
Posted in Latest news After four days of bitter wrangling , EU leaders have struck a deal on a coronavirus recovery package after they agreed to cut climate funding by more than half .
According to Reuters , the Just Transition Fund ( which intends to wean member states of using fossil fuels ) will only receive 17.5 billion euros from the EU recovery fund and budget – down from the 37.5 billion euros set aside the original proposal .
The EU ’ s heads of government agreed on a €750bn package aimed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economies which are facing mass unemployment and a deep recession .
According to news reports , nearly half of all climate funding from the EU ’ s 2021-2027 budget will be handed out to farmers .
In recent days , the European Court of Auditors has criticized the European Commission ’ s accounting tricks of so-called climate funding .
It revealed that the Commission substantially overestimated the amount it spent on preventing global warming — by handing out billions of Euros in cash subsidies to farmers , and simply counting these agricultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BRUSSELS ( Reuters ) – Cuts to climate funding were on the menu as European Union leaders sat down to negotiate over dinner , aiming to clinch a deal after four days of summit wrangling over a huge stimulus plan to help rebuild their coronavirus-hit economies .
EU Council President Charles Michel presented a new proposal to the 27 leaders on Monday evening before talks resumed , tabling cuts to climate change schemes as part of a bid to rework the overall package into something all countries could agree to .
The proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget and a new 750 billion euro coronavirus recovery fund for climate protection , and said all spending must comply with a principle to “ do no harm ” to EU green goals .
But it slashed the size of the EU ’ s Just Transition Fund , its flagship pot of money to help wean countries off fossil fuels .
The Just Transition Fund will now receive a combined 17.5 billion euros from the EU recovery fund and budget – down from the 37.5 billion euros set aside in a previous proposal @

Written by GWPF News on Jul 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
After four days of bitter wrangling, EU leaders have struck a deal on a coronavirus recovery package after they agreed to cut climate funding by more than half.
According to Reuters, the Just Transition Fund (which intends to wean member states of using fossil fuels) will only receive 17.5 billion euros from the EU recovery fund and budget – down from the 37.5 billion euros set aside the original proposal.
The EU’s heads of government agreed on a €750bn package aimed at funding post-pandemic efforts to revive Europe’s economies which are facing mass unemployment and a deep recession.
According to news reports, nearly half of all climate funding from the EU’s 2021-2027 budget will be handed out to farmers.
In recent days, the European Court of Auditors has criticized the European Commission’s accounting tricks of so-called climate funding.
It revealed that the Commission substantially overestimated the amount it spent on preventing global warming — by handing out billions of Euros in cash subsidies to farmers, and simply counting these agricultural subsidies as ‘climate funding’.
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Cuts to climate funding were on the menu as European Union leaders sat down to negotiate over dinner, aiming to clinch a deal after four days of summit wrangling over a huge stimulus plan to help rebuild their coronavirus-hit economies. EU Council President Charles Michel presented a new proposal to the 27 leaders on Monday evening before talks resumed, tabling cuts to climate change schemes as part of a bid to rework the overall package into something all countries could agree to. The proposal earmarked 30% of both the EU budget and a new 750 billion euro coronavirus recovery fund for climate protection, and said all spending must comply with a principle to “do no harm” to EU green goals. But it slashed the size of the EU’s Just Transition Fund, its flagship pot of money to help wean countries off fossil fuels. The Just Transition Fund will now receive a combined 17.5 billion euros from the EU recovery fund and budget – down from the 37.5 billion euros set aside in a previous proposal.
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--2020-07-23--The Growing Desperation Of Greta Thunberg

Written by Tom Finnerty on .
Posted in Latest news We ’ ve joked before here at The Pipeline about how COVID-19 came at the worst possible time for Greta Thunberg because , well , she ’ s not getting any younger .
She ’ ll be 18 in a few months , and we ’ re not too far away from the pigtails being kind of creepy , but the attention of the public is focused elsewhere these past few months .
Her whole shtick is built off of being a kid who ’ s sacrificing her education to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of climate change , but that ’ s going to get old pretty quick once she stops being a kid .
So Greta ’ s understandably desperate to get her name back into the headlines .
In May we reported on one such attempt when she signed on to a U.N. lawsuit against nations purportedly not doing enough to lower emissions .
Now she ’ s involved in an effort to get world leaders to — what else ?
— “ transform [ our ] whole economic system ” to combat the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is to convince them by saying the word “ crisis ” a lot : We need to see it as , above all , an existential crisis .
And as long as it ’ s not being treated as a crisis , we can have as many of these climate change negotiations and talks , conferences as possible .
It won ’ t change a thing , ” Thunberg said… .
“ Above all , we are demanding that we need to treat this crisis as a crisis , because if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we won ’ t be able to do anything .
The letter demands governments immediately divest from fossil fuels and for the E.U .
to impose a “ carbon budget ” specifying how much carbon they may emit per year .
Same old , same old ; got ta play the hits for the fans .
But it did contain one thing I found interesting — a call for lefties to rally ’ round the red flag , you might say , specifying that the governments of the world adopt climate policies “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable and reduce economic , racial and gender inequalities , ” as well as moves to “ safeguard and protect democracy.
” Leaving aside whether democracies should be protected in their right to reject heavy-handed climate policies , this too strikes me as a mark of desperation .
Identity politics has recently moved beyond its first-among-equals status to become the dominant theme of leftist discourse , leaving very little oxygen for anything else .
What ’ s left is necessarily subsumed by economic questions — you ’ re hearing increasing calls for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our lockdown-related contractions .
The authors of this letter seem hopeful that environmentalism can piggyback on those causes , but I ’ m not sure that follows .
I ’ ve said before that I believe environmentalism is increasingly becoming a luxury we can ’ t afford , and it might be that the Left is beginning to realize that as well .
Notwithstanding the €1 million she was recently awarded for her activism , the same could increasingly be said for Greta herself .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Tom Finnerty on Jul 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
We’ve joked before here at The Pipeline about how COVID-19 came at the worst possible time for Greta Thunberg because, well, she’s not getting any younger.
She’ll be 18 in a few months, and we’re not too far away from the pigtails being kind of creepy, but the attention of the public is focused elsewhere these past few months.
Her whole shtick is built off of being a kid who’s sacrificing her education to call attention to the supposedly disastrous effects of climate change, but that’s going to get old pretty quick once she stops being a kid.
So Greta’s understandably desperate to get her name back into the headlines. In May we reported on one such attempt when she signed on to a U.N. lawsuit against nations purportedly not doing enough to lower emissions.
Now she’s involved in an effort to get world leaders to — what else? — “transform [our] whole economic system” to combat the climate crisis.
Her approach, as usual, is to convince them by saying the word “crisis” a lot:
We need to see it as, above all, an existential crisis. And as long as it’s not being treated as a crisis, we can have as many of these climate change negotiations and talks, conferences as possible. It won’t change a thing,” Thunberg said…. “Above all, we are demanding that we need to treat this crisis as a crisis, because if we don’t do that, then we won’t be able to do anything.
The letter demands governments immediately divest from fossil fuels and for the E.U. to impose a “carbon budget” specifying how much carbon they may emit per year.
Same old, same old; gotta play the hits for the fans.
But it did contain one thing I found interesting — a call for lefties to rally ’round the red flag, you might say, specifying that the governments of the world adopt climate policies “designed to protect workers and the most vulnerable and reduce economic, racial and gender inequalities,” as well as moves to “safeguard and protect democracy.”
Leaving aside whether democracies should be protected in their right to reject heavy-handed climate policies, this too strikes me as a mark of desperation.
Identity politics has recently moved beyond its first-among-equals status to become the dominant theme of leftist discourse, leaving very little oxygen for anything else.
What’s left is necessarily subsumed by economic questions — you’re hearing increasing calls for the imposition of Universal Basic Income — because of our lockdown-related contractions.
The authors of this letter seem hopeful that environmentalism can piggyback on those causes, but I’m not sure that follows.
I’ve said before that I believe environmentalism is increasingly becoming a luxury we can’t afford, and it might be that the Left is beginning to realize that as well.
Notwithstanding the €1 million she was recently awarded for her activism, the same could increasingly be said for Greta herself.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-23--Democrat AGs Sue Trump For Trying To Help Coal Industry

Written by Penny Starr on .
Posted in Latest news President Donald Trump is trying to keep his promise to help the American coal industry , but Democrats in four states hope to thwart that effort by filing a lawsuit that claims environmental concerns should halt leases on public land .
Xavier Becerra in California , Hector Balderas in New Mexico , Letitia James in New York , and Bob Ferguson in Washington state filed the lawsuit in federal court on Monday .
The lawsuit calls for an environmental review before any mining could begin , the Hill reported : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviewing four newer coal leases , saying more of the approximately 300 existing leases should have been examined .
It also said that the government ’ s Final Environmental Assessment ( EA ) , issued by the Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ) this year , did not look at these four leases thoroughly enough .
“ [ The ] Final EA ignores many of the impacts and concerns that warrant consideration in an updated environmental review of the program , such as harm to public lands and wildlife from coal mining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and combustion , the disposal of coal ash , which contains hazardous constituents , as well as environmental justice impacts related to such activities , ” their lawsuit argues .
“ Further , the Final EA ’ s failure to consider any alternatives other than its so-called ‘ no action ’ alternative or the proposed action … violates NEPA ’ s mandate to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and is arbitrary and without basis in fact , ” it continued , referring to the National Environmental Policy Act .
The Northern Cheyenne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental charges .
Trump was first thwarted in 2017 when he tried to end Barack Obama ’ s ban on new coal leasing on public lands .
The Hill reported : But he also said new suits could be filed , leading to Monday ’ s filings .
Becerra said in a statement : We ’ re taking the Trump Administration to court over its haphazard decision to restart the federal coal leasing program without any consideration of the serious consequences for environmental justice communities and climate change .
The Trump Administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to benefit super polluting coal companies .
It ’ s not only immoral — it ’ s illegal , and we intend to prove it .
But Department of Interior spokesman Conner Swanson said he believes the Trump administration will prevail in a statement to the Hill : The Department is confident the court will agree that the analysis by our career experts is lawful and based on the best available science .
The Department will continue to implement President Trump ’ s agenda to create more American jobs , protect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy production and conserve our environment .
Trump has consistently backed the U.S. coal industry and wants it to be part of the country ’ s energy independence portfolio .

Written by Penny Starr on Jul 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
President Donald Trump is trying to keep his promise to help the American coal industry, but Democrats in four states hope to thwart that effort by filing a lawsuit that claims environmental concerns should halt leases on public land.
Xavier Becerra in California, Hector Balderas in New Mexico, Letitia James in New York, and Bob Ferguson in Washington state filed the lawsuit in federal court on Monday.
The lawsuit calls for an environmental review before any mining could begin, the Hill reported:
The states take issue with the government reviewing four newer coal leases, saying more of the approximately 300 existing leases should have been examined. It also said that the government’s Final Environmental Assessment (EA), issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) this year, did not look at these four leases thoroughly enough. “[The] Final EA ignores many of the impacts and concerns that warrant consideration in an updated environmental review of the program, such as harm to public lands and wildlife from coal mining, air quality impacts from coal transport and combustion, the disposal of coal ash, which contains hazardous constituents, as well as environmental justice impacts related to such activities,” their lawsuit argues. “Further, the Final EA’s failure to consider any alternatives other than its so-called ‘no action’ alternative or the proposed action … violates NEPA’s mandate to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and is arbitrary and without basis in fact,” it continued, referring to the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Northern Cheyenne Tribe also sued Monday, with similar environmental charges.
Trump was first thwarted in 2017 when he tried to end Barack Obama’s ban on new coal leasing on public lands. The Hill reported:
A federal judge ruled last year that the Trump administration did not take the required steps to comply with environmental laws. However, the judge, Brian Morris ruled in May that the federal government had “remedied the violation” after the BLM completed an assessment this year.
But he also said new suits could be filed, leading to Monday’s filings. Becerra said in a statement:
We’re taking the Trump Administration to court over its haphazard decision to restart the federal coal leasing program without any consideration of the serious consequences for environmental justice communities and climate change. The Trump Administration has repeatedly thrown out the rule book in order to benefit super polluting coal companies. It’s not only immoral — it’s illegal, and we intend to prove it.
But Department of Interior spokesman Conner Swanson said he believes the Trump administration will prevail in a statement to the Hill:
The Department is confident the court will agree that the analysis by our career experts is lawful and based on the best available science. The Department will continue to implement President Trump’s agenda to create more American jobs, protect the safety of American workers, support domestic energy production and conserve our environment.
Trump has consistently backed the U.S. coal industry and wants it to be part of the country’s energy independence portfolio.
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--2020-07-23--Aussie Politicians Fight Three Wars At Once: Climate, COVID, And China

Written by Viv Forbes , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Australian politicians are trying to maintain their never-ending climate war on carbon fuels while waging a lockdown war on the elusive COVID-19 virus and also provoking a trade war with China , our biggest trading partner .
We can not afford three hopeless and costly wars at once .
One would be too many .
The political war on carbon fuels has damaged the environment with forests of “ green ” power poles , flats of ground-sterilizing solar panels , hills of bird-slicing wind turbines plus spider-webs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This mess produces unreliable expensive electricity , sterilizes land , and wastes water to keep solar panels clean .
And imagine the debris when a cyclone sails through a “ farm ” of panels or a “ forest ” of turbines .
This expensive and unreliable power , plus green taxes and regulations , has destroyed much of Australia ’ s manufacturing , processing , and refining industries – all for zero climate benefits .
The lockdown war is crippling many industries ; especially tourism , aviation , education , retail , sports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows , and auctions , and even the famous Brisbane Ekka .
Attempts by politicians to hide their lockdown damage with handouts for everyone have destroyed budgets and will cripple the currency , reward unemployment , and produce another depression generation .
On top of all this , our politicians are stumbling into a trade war with China .
This has produced swift retaliation on Australia ’ s export industries and we will soon discover that most of our manufactured goods now come from China , because we have driven our factories out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs and excessive red and green tape .
What to do ?
Four simple things : Firstly , abandon the climate war on carbon fuels and withdraw from the useless and destructive Paris Climate Agreement .
It will never cool the climate , even if that was a sensible goal .
Abolish all subsidies and taxes supporting intermittent green energy and legislate that any generator feeding into the grid must be able to supply 24/7 power , either from their own backup facilities or under contracts .
Secondly , unlock the gates – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red tape , and bureaucratic barriers .
Lockdown can ’ t stop the virus .
It just slows down its spread , delaying the development of community immunity .
Individuals and families are free to self-isolate should they choose that option .
Keep them informed but don ’ t lock healthy law-abiding people behind barriers , spy cameras , police and troops .
Economic recovery needs to encourage and fast-track sensible infrastructure and development proposals .
We should also abolish stamp duty and capital gains tax and reduce income tax .
Governments should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and water , but allow farmers , fishermen , foresters , explorers , miners , and entrepreneurs to get on with building and expanding their businesses .
Thirdly , spread the recession pain to all protected government sectors .
Cut taxes , and reduce the numbers and benefits for all in politics , bureaucracy , government media , academia , and all able-bodied welfare recipients with no dependents .
Finally , stop publicly poking China with a pointy stick ( as we did in the COVID-19 witch-hunt . )
We do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us dearly .
Wait until Bunnings runs out of Chinese-built Ryobi tools and lithium batteries , the greens run out of Chinese solar panels , and Chinese imports of Australian coal , cattle , wool , barley , wheat , and so forth are hit with tariffs or quotas .
Quiet diplomacy and a more competitive industry will achieve more than populist public posturing and provocation of our powerful neighbor .
We need to quietly restore our secondary industries , diversify our markets , get some real defense capacity and cultivate allies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has scientific and financial qualifications , experience in government and industry , and a long history of observing and participating in Australian politics .

Written by Viv Forbes, guest post on Jul 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Australian politicians are trying to maintain their never-ending climate war on carbon fuels while waging a lockdown war on the elusive COVID-19 virus and also provoking a trade war with China, our biggest trading partner.
We cannot afford three hopeless and costly wars at once. One would be too many.
The political war on carbon fuels has damaged the environment with forests of “green” power poles, flats of ground-sterilizing solar panels, hills of bird-slicing wind turbines plus spider-webs of new power lines and roads.
This mess produces unreliable expensive electricity, sterilizes land, and wastes water to keep solar panels clean. And imagine the debris when a cyclone sails through a “farm” of panels or a “forest” of turbines.
This expensive and unreliable power, plus green taxes and regulations, has destroyed much of Australia’s manufacturing, processing, and refining industries – all for zero climate benefits.
The lockdown war is crippling many industries; especially tourism, aviation, education, retail, sports, local pubs, media, rural shows, and auctions, and even the famous Brisbane Ekka.
Attempts by politicians to hide their lockdown damage with handouts for everyone have destroyed budgets and will cripple the currency, reward unemployment, and produce another depression generation.
On top of all this, our politicians are stumbling into a trade war with China. This has produced swift retaliation on Australia’s export industries and we will soon discover that most of our manufactured goods now come from China, because we have driven our factories out of Australia with uncompetitive power and labor costs and excessive red and green tape.
What to do? Four simple things:
Firstly, abandon the climate war on carbon fuels and withdraw from the useless and destructive Paris Climate Agreement. It will never cool the climate, even if that was a sensible goal.
Abolish all subsidies and taxes supporting intermittent green energy and legislate that any generator feeding into the grid must be able to supply 24/7 power, either from their own backup facilities or under contracts.
Secondly, unlock the gates – dismantle COVID-19 barriers, green gates, red tape, and bureaucratic barriers. Lockdown can’t stop the virus. It just slows down its spread, delaying the development of community immunity.
Individuals and families are free to self-isolate should they choose that option. Keep them informed but don’t lock healthy law-abiding people behind barriers, spy cameras, police and troops.
Economic recovery needs to encourage and fast-track sensible infrastructure and development proposals. We should also abolish stamp duty and capital gains tax and reduce income tax.
Governments should prohibit real pollution of land, air, and water, but allow farmers, fishermen, foresters, explorers, miners, and entrepreneurs to get on with building and expanding their businesses.
Thirdly, spread the recession pain to all protected government sectors. Cut taxes, and reduce the numbers and benefits for all in politics, bureaucracy, government media, academia, and all able-bodied welfare recipients with no dependents.
Finally, stop publicly poking China with a pointy stick (as we did in the COVID-19 witch-hunt.)
We do not need a trade war which will cost us dearly. Wait until Bunnings runs out of Chinese-built Ryobi tools and lithium batteries, the greens run out of Chinese solar panels, and Chinese imports of Australian coal, cattle, wool, barley, wheat, and so forth are hit with tariffs or quotas.
Quiet diplomacy and a more competitive industry will achieve more than populist public posturing and provocation of our powerful neighbor.
We need to quietly restore our secondary industries, diversify our markets, get some real defense capacity and cultivate allies in Asia and the Anglosphere.
Viv Forbes has scientific and financial qualifications, experience in government and industry, and a long history of observing and participating in Australian politics.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-23--Peter Ridd’s Loss Squashes Academic Dissent And Free Speech

Written by Jennifer Marohasy on .
Posted in Latest news On May 2 , 2018 , Professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for serious misconduct .
It all started when he called-out his colleague Terry Hughes for falsely claiming healthy inshore coral reefs were dead from climate change and deteriorating water quality .
Ignoring the first censure in April 2016 , Professor Ridd went on television in August 2017 and explained in an interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin why so much said and written about the Great Barrier Reef , including by scientists at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ untrustworthy ’ .
The interview was to promote a book that I edited , Climate Change : The Facts 2017 .
The book , published by the Institute of Public Affairs , begins with a chapter about the Great Barrier Reef in which the orthodoxy on Great Barrier Reef science is challenged , in particular reporting on coral calcification rates .
In that interview – that contributed directly to Peter Ridd ’ s sacking – the main argument was and continues to be , for better quality assurance of coral reef science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australian Institute of Marine Science refuses to release 15 years of coral growth data – because it contradicts the claims of high-profile activists that coral growth rates are in decline .
They are not .
But the false claims are central to their fundraising strategy .
Never mind the truth .
The first finding handed down by Judge Salvatore Vasta back in April last year case concerned the photographs taken in 1994 that Terry Hughes used to falsely claim Acropora corals that were alive in 1890 are now all dead .
Peter Ridd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Acropora and the need for quality assurance of Hughes ’ claims .
Judge Vasta found in favor of Peter Ridd and ordered that the 17 findings made by the University , the two speech directions , the five confidentiality directions , the no satire direction , the censure and the final censure that was given by the University , and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful .
It was very significant that Peter Ridd won on the issue of academic freedom : that he did have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and continuing to speak out about the lack of quality assurance and explain how and why important scientific institutions had become so untrustworthy .
The University never accepted that decision by the Federal Circuit Court , and they have never conceded that Terry Hughes was wrong to suggest all the corals were dead when a documentary has since been made showing them to be alive .
Further , they have never supported any calls for the coral growth data to be made public .
Instead , the University appealed , and today the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the judgment , Peter Ridd ’ s academic freedom is portrayed as his ‘ personal opinion ’ .
It is not Peter Ridd ’ s personal opinion that the corals are alive , and the Great Barrier Reef resilient to climate change .
It is a fact .
I ’ ve seen the coral reefs whose health is contested with my own eyes : they are very much alive .
What is dead is academic freedom in Australia .
Universities should be understood by the judiciary as different from other workplaces because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , on occasions , there will be vigorous debates on important and controversial issues .
It is essential that academics can engage in these debates without fearing that the use of plain and colloquial English could end their careers .
Yet today , the university ’ s appeal was upheld on the basis Peter Ridd was un-collegial in stating plainly that his own university and the Australian Institute of Marine Science are ‘ untrustworthy ’ because of systemic deficiencies in their quality assurance processes .
Further , it was mentioned that Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s disciplinary processes in a personal email .
Today ’ s decision means that James Cook University , and other Australian universities , will continue to crush dissent and sack academics who campaign for the truth .
The truth is that coral reefs are resilient , and despite the fear-mongering , refuse to die .
Australia ’ s universities may now be corporatist bureaucracies that rigidly enforce an unquestioning orthodoxy but it is the case that one day when the travel restrictions are all lifted , you will be able to visit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your own eyes that Peter Ridd told the truth about the Stone Island corals , while Terry Hughes ’ photographs deceive .

Written by Jennifer Marohasy on Jul 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On May 2, 2018, Professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for serious misconduct.
It all started when he called-out his colleague Terry Hughes for falsely claiming healthy inshore coral reefs were dead from climate change and deteriorating water quality.
Ignoring the first censure in April 2016, Professor Ridd went on television in August 2017 and explained in an interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin why so much said and written about the Great Barrier Reef, including by scientists at the Australian Institution of Marine Science, is ‘untrustworthy’.
The interview was to promote a book that I edited, Climate Change: The Facts 2017. The book, published by the Institute of Public Affairs, begins with a chapter about the Great Barrier Reef in which the orthodoxy on Great Barrier Reef science is challenged, in particular reporting on coral calcification rates.
In that interview – that contributed directly to Peter Ridd’s sacking – the main argument was and continues to be, for better quality assurance of coral reef science.
It is a fact that the Australian Institute of Marine Science refuses to release 15 years of coral growth data – because it contradicts the claims of high-profile activists that coral growth rates are in decline.
They are not. But the false claims are central to their fundraising strategy. Never mind the truth.
The first finding handed down by Judge Salvatore Vasta back in April last year case concerned the photographs taken in 1994 that Terry Hughes used to falsely claim Acropora corals that were alive in 1890 are now all dead.
Peter Ridd had photographs taken in 2015 showing live Acropora and the need for quality assurance of Hughes’ claims.
Judge Vasta found in favor of Peter Ridd and ordered that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure that was given by the University, and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.
It was very significant that Peter Ridd won on the issue of academic freedom: that he did have a right to ignore the university administrators and continuing to speak out about the lack of quality assurance and explain how and why important scientific institutions had become so untrustworthy.
The University never accepted that decision by the Federal Circuit Court, and they have never conceded that Terry Hughes was wrong to suggest all the corals were dead when a documentary has since been made showing them to be alive.
Further, they have never supported any calls for the coral growth data to be made public.
Instead, the University appealed, and today the University won in the Federal Court. In the judgment, Peter Ridd’s academic freedom is portrayed as his ‘personal opinion’.
It is not Peter Ridd’s personal opinion that the corals are alive, and the Great Barrier Reef resilient to climate change. It is a fact. I’ve seen the coral reefs whose health is contested with my own eyes: they are very much alive.
What is dead is academic freedom in Australia.
Universities should be understood by the judiciary as different from other workplaces because it is expected by the ordinary Australian that, on occasions, there will be vigorous debates on important and controversial issues.
It is essential that academics can engage in these debates without fearing that the use of plain and colloquial English could end their careers.
Yet today, the university’s appeal was upheld on the basis Peter Ridd was un-collegial in stating plainly that his own university and the Australian Institute of Marine Science are ‘untrustworthy’ because of systemic deficiencies in their quality assurance processes.
Further, it was mentioned that Peter Ridd did ‘satirize’ the university’s disciplinary processes in a personal email.
Today’s decision means that James Cook University, and other Australian universities, will continue to crush dissent and sack academics who campaign for the truth.
The truth is that coral reefs are resilient, and despite the fear-mongering, refuse to die.
Australia’s universities may now be corporatist bureaucracies that rigidly enforce an unquestioning orthodoxy but it is the case that one day when the travel restrictions are all lifted, you will be able to visit the Great Barrier Reef and see with your own eyes that Peter Ridd told the truth about the Stone Island corals, while Terry Hughes’ photographs deceive.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print