climatechangedispatch--2020-05-18--Trudeau Hikes Global-Warming Tax During Height Of Pandemic

Written by Rex Murphy on .
Posted in Latest news Everyone to their cost knows Canada has been more or less shut down for over two months .
Hardly any part of business or industry has been spared .
I read somewhere that the talismanic barometer so beloved by the Greens — our so-called “ carbon emissions ” — is expected to be down by eight percent globally this year .
It sounds right .
Countries idle .
Less energy burned .
Less CO2 .
What then was the logic in the midst of the pandemic , when almost all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were virtually turned off , for the government to hike its so-called carbon tax ?
Oil prices were already at rock bottom thanks to the Russia-Saudi Arabia forced glut , gasoline cheaper than any time since Noah got off the Ark and started the first motorboat .
So from the point of view of revenue collection , the timing was certainly off .
Regardless , with so many people out of work and with personal budgets strained , more than a million jobs disappearing but still rents to be paid and bills to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to raise a tax .
And recall there were still some “ essential services ” — farming and trucking to name the two most obvious — that would require energy , fuels , to provide the rest of us with necessities like food .
The government in every other way was throwing billions of dollars out the Cottage door , but it still wanted to ping Canadians with the global-warming tax .
What was it thinking ?
Perhaps it was on the advice of its best astrologers that it selected April 1st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the bizarre announcement .
Still , the announcement itself , as I shall demonstrate , contributed more fog than daylight to the prime minister ’ s decision to go ahead with it .
Justin Trudeau : “ Our plan on pricing pollution puts more money upfront into people ’ s pockets than they would pay with the new price on pollution .
We ’ re going to continue to focus on putting more money in people ’ s pockets to support them right across the country.
” Give that a read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentence can possibly mean .
Let ’ s take it apart .
Pricing pollution ?
What does that mean ?
Well , we know what “ pricing ” means .
In Trudeau-speak , pricing means “ to put a tax on , to make more expensive , to enlarge the cost of any and all industrial activity that uses oil or gas as its necessary energy.
” And now “ pollution.
” We all know what pollution is .
It ’ s sewage dumped into lake and harbor , poisonous chemicals sluiced into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on any city outskirts .
We are , alas , familiar with pollution .
But is carbon dioxide , part of our life-giving air , a pollutant ?
Well , if Mr. Trudeau says he ’ s “ pricing pollution ” and if it ’ s carbon dioxide he ’ s pricing , then Q.E.D.
, it ’ s a pollutant .
Probably right up there with that other hell gas , oxygen .
The rest of us , however , are open to the question : when did life-animating carbon dioxide , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green tree on the planet , not a blade of grass , not a flower with its blossoms or bee to visit it , join ranks with industrial effluents , garbage , and human excrement ?
CO2 is the very Santa Claus of gases , it puts the green in our green planet .
I ’ ll bet you didn ’ t know this : when roses hear carbon-dioxide is wafting by , they smile and blush and lay on the perfume .
Thus , when Trudeau talks of “ taxing pollution ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dioxide , he is not only mangling language , he is maligning one of nature ’ s most beneficent miracles .
If carbon dioxide was a person , it would sue him for misrepresentation .
Now let us get back to the first sentence as a whole : “ Our plan on pricing pollution puts more money upfront into people ’ s pockets than they would pay with the new price on pollution.
” I am tempted to offer any reader who can decipher this all the Canadian Tire money I have in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Air Miles , now that the planes are not flying , I have collected at Sobeys .
Does it say anything , does it bump into coherence , even by chance , at any point ?
Is this some form of code ?
He goes on .
“ We ’ re going to continue to focus on putting more money in people ’ s pockets to support them right across the country.
” And how do you keep “ putting money in people ’ s pockets ” by imposing a tax hike on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an insight — takes money out of people ’ s pockets .
It can not be passed back to them in a greater amount than it takes out , or it is a subsidy .
If that was the way taxes worked , that you got more back than you paid in , well , in the words of the world ’ s most illustrious economist — “ Hit me baby , one more time.
” The logic , rather the illogic , of the announcement was at one with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
Why during a period that is witnessing a historic downturn in almost every sector of the economy , does the government of Canada increase a tax on the energy needed for the very few , but absolutely essential services , that keep us going ?
An increased tax on those who produce it , and those who have to use it , if our country is to continue to operate during a crisis .
The only answer has to be , that even during this most exceptional of crises , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , abandon its obsession with the global-warming cause .
It is that same obsession that makes it a condition for large industrial concerns applying for emergency relief “ to demonstrate some degree of environmental commitment and vow to report annually on its climate and sustainability initiatives.
” Why is the government ’ s climate-change agenda being imposed with such rigor , and being made a condition of emergency support , during a crisis ?
That is a good question .
And if we had a Parliament in Canada maybe someone would ask it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax on fuel six weeks ago .
It is a kind of extortion to demand subservience to a climate-change agenda as an entry condition on a decision whether a company will live or die .

Written by Rex Murphy on May 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Everyone to their cost knows Canada has been more or less shut down for over two months. Hardly any part of business or industry has been spared.
I read somewhere that the talismanic barometer so beloved by the Greens — our so-called “carbon emissions” — is expected to be down by eight percent globally this year.
It sounds right. Countries idle. Less energy burned. Less CO2.
What then was the logic in the midst of the pandemic, when almost all the motors that drive industry in Canada were virtually turned off, for the government to hike its so-called carbon tax?
Oil prices were already at rock bottom thanks to the Russia-Saudi Arabia forced glut, gasoline cheaper than any time since Noah got off the Ark and started the first motorboat. So from the point of view of revenue collection, the timing was certainly off.
Regardless, with so many people out of work and with personal budgets strained, more than a million jobs disappearing but still rents to be paid and bills to be met, it was not a time to raise a tax.
And recall there were still some “essential services” — farming and trucking to name the two most obvious — that would require energy, fuels, to provide the rest of us with necessities like food.
The government in every other way was throwing billions of dollars out the Cottage door, but it still wanted to ping Canadians with the global-warming tax.
What was it thinking? Perhaps it was on the advice of its best astrologers that it selected April 1st, that being an auspicious day, to make the bizarre announcement.
Still, the announcement itself, as I shall demonstrate, contributed more fog than daylight to the prime minister’s decision to go ahead with it.
Justin Trudeau: “Our plan on pricing pollution puts more money upfront into people’s pockets than they would pay with the new price on pollution. We’re going to continue to focus on putting more money in people’s pockets to support them right across the country.”
Give that a read. Now please explain what the first sentence can possibly mean. Let’s take it apart. Pricing pollution? What does that mean?
Well, we know what “pricing” means. In Trudeau-speak, pricing means “to put a tax on, to make more expensive, to enlarge the cost of any and all industrial activity that uses oil or gas as its necessary energy.”
And now “pollution.” We all know what pollution is. It’s sewage dumped into lake and harbor, poisonous chemicals sluiced into pristine streams, mounds of rotting garbage on any city outskirts. We are, alas, familiar with pollution.
But is carbon dioxide, part of our life-giving air, a pollutant? Well, if Mr. Trudeau says he’s “pricing pollution” and if it’s carbon dioxide he’s pricing, then Q.E.D., it’s a pollutant. Probably right up there with that other hell gas, oxygen.
The rest of us, however, are open to the question: when did life-animating carbon dioxide, without which there would not be a green tree on the planet, not a blade of grass, not a flower with its blossoms or bee to visit it, join ranks with industrial effluents, garbage, and human excrement?
CO2 is the very Santa Claus of gases, it puts the green in our green planet. I’ll bet you didn’t know this: when roses hear carbon-dioxide is wafting by, they smile and blush and lay on the perfume.
Thus, when Trudeau talks of “taxing pollution” in his peculiar vocabulary, meaning carbon dioxide, he is not only mangling language, he is maligning one of nature’s most beneficent miracles.
If carbon dioxide was a person, it would sue him for misrepresentation.
Now let us get back to the first sentence as a whole:
“Our plan on pricing pollution puts more money upfront into people’s pockets than they would pay with the new price on pollution.”
I am tempted to offer any reader who can decipher this all the Canadian Tire money I have in the home safe. And all the Air Miles, now that the planes are not flying, I have collected at Sobeys.
Does it say anything, does it bump into coherence, even by chance, at any point? Is this some form of code?
He goes on. “We’re going to continue to focus on putting more money in people’s pockets to support them right across the country.”
And how do you keep “putting money in people’s pockets” by imposing a tax hike on those people?
A tax — here’s an insight — takes money out of people’s pockets. It cannot be passed back to them in a greater amount than it takes out, or it is a subsidy.
If that was the way taxes worked, that you got more back than you paid in, well, in the words of the world’s most illustrious economist — “Hit me baby, one more time.”
The logic, rather the illogic, of the announcement was at one with the utter illogic of the ill-named carbon tax itself.
Why during a period that is witnessing a historic downturn in almost every sector of the economy, does the government of Canada increase a tax on the energy needed for the very few, but absolutely essential services, that keep us going?
An increased tax on those who produce it, and those who have to use it, if our country is to continue to operate during a crisis.
The only answer has to be, that even during this most exceptional of crises, the government will not, for a second, abandon its obsession with the global-warming cause.
It is that same obsession that makes it a condition for large industrial concerns applying for emergency relief “to demonstrate some degree of environmental commitment and vow to report annually on its climate and sustainability initiatives.”
Why is the government’s climate-change agenda being imposed with such rigor, and being made a condition of emergency support, during a crisis? That is a good question. And if we had a Parliament in Canada maybe someone would ask it.
It was folly to hike the tax on fuel six weeks ago. It is a kind of extortion to demand subservience to a climate-change agenda as an entry condition on a decision whether a company will live or die.
Read more at National Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-18--Greta The Psychic Warns Of Climate Doom In Pearl Jam Music Vid

Written by Ben Kew on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Greta Thunberg stars in the music video for Pearl Jam ’ s environmental doom tune “ Retrograde.
” The teenage climate alarmist plays a fortune-teller warning of imminent climate destruction , the video ’ s director revealed .
The animated music video sees a man visit a fortune-teller who presents him with a crystal ball .
As the man gazes into it , he envisions melting glaciers and devastating floods decimating Manhattan , Paris , Seattle , and London , while wildfires sweep across Australia .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s director Josh Wakely confirmed that the physic was in fact , Thunberg .
Wakely added that the band had planned to film live footage but were forced to scrap those plans as a result of the Chinese coronavirus pandemic .
“ Something Pearl Jam has done so extraordinarily well for 30 years is to speak truth to power and fire warning shots , ” he said .
“ Several other Gigaton songs spoke to me , but this one kept me up at night.
” Wakely explained that he chose Thunberg because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for the video to work , describing her as “ an absolute stone-cold hero ” for her climate change crusade .
Because of the circumstances surrounding its productions , he used existing footage of the 17-year-old and then super-imposed her face onto an actor .
“ She never had to act a frame , but she provided that emotion I was looking for , ” Wakely continued .
“ It was a huge thrill to see an email in my inbox from her saying that she loved it.
” Pearl Jam ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power ” has generally involved advocating left-wing and progressive causes .
In 2018 , the rock group sparked condemnation after releasing a promotional poster featuring a dead President Donald Trump and an American bald eagle eating the remains of his corpse .

Written by Ben Kew on May 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Greta Thunberg stars in the music video for Pearl Jam’s environmental doom tune “Retrograde.” The teenage climate alarmist plays a fortune-teller warning of imminent climate destruction, the video’s director revealed.
The animated music video sees a man visit a fortune-teller who presents him with a crystal ball.
As the man gazes into it, he envisions melting glaciers and devastating floods decimating Manhattan, Paris, Seattle, and London, while wildfires sweep across Australia.
In an interview with Variety, the video’s director Josh Wakely confirmed that the physic was in fact, Thunberg. Wakely added that the band had planned to film live footage but were forced to scrap those plans as a result of the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.
“Something Pearl Jam has done so extraordinarily well for 30 years is to speak truth to power and fire warning shots,” he said. “Several other Gigaton songs spoke to me, but this one kept me up at night.”
Wakely explained that he chose Thunberg because her presence provided the necessary “emotion” for the video to work, describing her as “an absolute stone-cold hero” for her climate change crusade.
Because of the circumstances surrounding its productions, he used existing footage of the 17-year-old and then super-imposed her face onto an actor.
“She never had to act a frame, but she provided that emotion I was looking for,” Wakely continued. “It was a huge thrill to see an email in my inbox from her saying that she loved it.”
Pearl Jam’s habit of speaking “truth to power” has generally involved advocating left-wing and progressive causes.
In 2018, the rock group sparked condemnation after releasing a promotional poster featuring a dead President Donald Trump and an American bald eagle eating the remains of his corpse.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-18--‘Snowpiercer’: Climate ‘Deniers’ ‘Doomed Us With Their Lies’

Written by Lindsay Kornick on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos These days , the last thing we want to think about is being cooped inside for what seems like forever .
Unfortunately for us , that happens to be the plot of TNT ’ s Snowpiercer which premiered May 17 .
Based on the 1982 French graphic novel Le Transperceneige as well as the 2013 movie Snowpiercer , we follow a post-apocalyptic society that doesn ’ t forget to remind us about the true horror : climate deniers .
The pilot “ First , the Weather Changed ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future .
Scientists attempted to fire chemicals into the atmosphere to fight against global warming , but the result instead led to a massive , uninhabitable Ice Age .
To survive , a wealthy industrialist designed and constructed a massive perpetual-motion train called “ Snowpiercer ” to house the remnants of humanity .
Very quickly , a caste system forms on the train , with the wealthy elite housed in the front and the starving poor at the tail end .
Riots , we soon see , are frequent as the tail-end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions from the hoarding rich .
Amid the obvious class allegories and an entire apocalypse happening outside , the show throws several characters and conflicts into the mix to keep this engine going .
There ’ s Layton ( Daveed Diggs ) , a former homicide detective who now leads the rebellion among the “ Taillies , ” along with Melanie ( Jennifer Connelly ) , a first-class passenger who helps keep order within the train .
However , none of the characters compare to the horror brought upon by the “ deniers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an animated prologue , Layton describes the background of the train as well as what caused the new Ice Age .
Some of the very first words we hear from the episode emphasize how the climate change deniers “ doomed us with their lies.
” In a way , everything bad that happens in this series can now be attributed to them .
Layton : First , the weather changed .
The deniers knew why , but still they doomed us with their lies .
War made the Earth even hotter .
Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crashed .
So , the men of Science tried to cool the Earth , to reverse the damage they had sown .
But instead , they froze her to the core .
Contrary to what this show and every other leftist politician would have you believe , “ deniers ” are not “ dooming ” us with their “ lies.
” In fact , a lot of the so-called “ deniers ” have actually exposed many lies from the climate activists including but not limited to melting polar ice caps , rising temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know it .
It ’ s almost more plausible to believe in a perpetually moving train than a cohesive climate change argument at this point .
As far as the show goes , blaming global warming deniers for the end of the world is hardly anything new .
Neither is complaining that the rich are hoarding everything from the starving poor for that matter .
We still have a long way to go with Snowpiercer , but my interest has already left the station .

Written by Lindsay Kornick on May 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
These days, the last thing we want to think about is being cooped inside for what seems like forever. Unfortunately for us, that happens to be the plot of TNT’s Snowpiercer which premiered May 17.
Based on the 1982 French graphic novel Le Transperceneige as well as the 2013 movie Snowpiercer, we follow a post-apocalyptic society that doesn’t forget to remind us about the true horror: climate deniers.
The pilot “First, the Weather Changed” introduces us to what it conceives as the future. Scientists attempted to fire chemicals into the atmosphere to fight against global warming, but the result instead led to a massive, uninhabitable Ice Age.
To survive, a wealthy industrialist designed and constructed a massive perpetual-motion train called “Snowpiercer” to house the remnants of humanity.
Very quickly, a caste system forms on the train, with the wealthy elite housed in the front and the starving poor at the tail end.
Riots, we soon see, are frequent as the tail-end passengers fight for more food and better conditions from the hoarding rich.
Amid the obvious class allegories and an entire apocalypse happening outside, the show throws several characters and conflicts into the mix to keep this engine going.
There’s Layton (Daveed Diggs), a former homicide detective who now leads the rebellion among the “Taillies,” along with Melanie (Jennifer Connelly), a first-class passenger who helps keep order within the train.
However, none of the characters compare to the horror brought upon by the “deniers” of the old Earth.
In an animated prologue, Layton describes the background of the train as well as what caused the new Ice Age.
Some of the very first words we hear from the episode emphasize how the climate change deniers “doomed us with their lies.” In a way, everything bad that happens in this series can now be attributed to them.
Layton: First, the weather changed. The deniers knew why, but still they doomed us with their lies. War made the Earth even hotter. Her ice melted, and all her species crashed. So, the men of Science tried to cool the Earth, to reverse the damage they had sown. But instead, they froze her to the core.
Contrary to what this show and every other leftist politician would have you believe, “deniers” are not “dooming” us with their “lies.”
In fact, a lot of the so-called “deniers” have actually exposed many lies from the climate activists including but not limited to melting polar ice caps, rising temperatures, and the end of life as we know it.
It’s almost more plausible to believe in a perpetually moving train than a cohesive climate change argument at this point.
As far as the show goes, blaming global warming deniers for the end of the world is hardly anything new. Neither is complaining that the rich are hoarding everything from the starving poor for that matter.
We still have a long way to go with Snowpiercer, but my interest has already left the station.
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--2020-05-18--The Wuhan Flu Would Have Beat Us Without Fossil Fuels

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news Number six in Craig Kelly ’ s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists ’ coffin .
Imagine if you will , that you have a close family member that has come down with the Wuhan Flu , and they are unfortunately one of the small percentages that end up in hospital on a mechanical ventilator .
And the only thing keeping them alive is the constant flow of electrons powering the ventilator , moving breathable air into and out of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want those electrons generated by consistent , reliable baseload power generated by fossil fuels ( or nuclear power ) or would you be happy to swap for unreliable intermittent sources of generation , solar and wind , hoping that a cloud doesn ’ t come across to block the sun or the wind eases off , putting the flow of electrons in jeopardy ?
Imagine how front line medical staff would go trying to protect themselves from the virus without fossil fuels when personal protection equipment such as surgical masks , goggles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made from polypropylene — a fossil fuel product ?
And when hospitals around the world are crying out for urgent deliveries of PPE , where would we be without airfreight powered by fossil fuels ?
In a recent study published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases , Swiss and German researchers found that alcohol-based hand sanitizers are effective in killing the Wuhan Flu .
Most hand sanitizers come in liquid or gel form and are made from isopropyl alcohol .
And the basic material used in the production of isopropyl alcohol is Propene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , typically petroleum and natural gas .
And what hope would we have of developing a vaccine and other medicines to fight the virus without fossil fuels , when they are the foundation for between 80 % to 90 % of the pharmaceuticals we use ?
If we are smart , the Wuhan Flu will help give us a true appreciation of the value of fossil fuels and how vital they are in the medical industry – driving another nail in the alarmists ’ coffin .

Written by Craig Kelly on May 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Number six in Craig Kelly’s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists’ coffin.
Imagine if you will, that you have a close family member that has come down with the Wuhan Flu, and they are unfortunately one of the small percentages that end up in hospital on a mechanical ventilator.
And the only thing keeping them alive is the constant flow of electrons powering the ventilator, moving breathable air into and out of their lungs.
In these circumstances would you want those electrons generated by consistent, reliable baseload power generated by fossil fuels (or nuclear power) or would you be happy to swap for unreliable intermittent sources of generation, solar and wind, hoping that a cloud doesn’t come across to block the sun or the wind eases off, putting the flow of electrons in jeopardy?
Imagine how front line medical staff would go trying to protect themselves from the virus without fossil fuels when personal protection equipment such as surgical masks, goggles, coveralls, and gowns, are all made from polypropylene — a fossil fuel product?
And when hospitals around the world are crying out for urgent deliveries of PPE, where would we be without airfreight powered by fossil fuels?
In a recent study published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, Swiss and German researchers found that alcohol-based hand sanitizers are effective in killing the Wuhan Flu.
Most hand sanitizers come in liquid or gel form and are made from isopropyl alcohol. And the basic material used in the production of isopropyl alcohol is Propene, which is derived from fossil fuels, typically petroleum and natural gas.
And what hope would we have of developing a vaccine and other medicines to fight the virus without fossil fuels, when they are the foundation for between 80% to 90% of the pharmaceuticals we use?
If we are smart, the Wuhan Flu will help give us a true appreciation of the value of fossil fuels and how vital they are in the medical industry – driving another nail in the alarmists’ coffin.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-18--Climate Change, The WHO, And An Epidemic Of Lies

Written by Andrew Montford on .
Posted in Latest news The health establishment was looking away when the coronavirus struck ; it had other priorities .
If you look at the World Health Organization ’ s list of health threats , number one is climate change .
Pandemics were down in third place , behind ‘ non-communicable diseases ’ such as diabetes and obesity .
Wherever you look , you will find some of the biggest names in the public health establishment declaiming on the risks of climate change to world health .
On the eve of the outbreak , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hygiene declared that we would be seeing ‘ mass migration , emerging infectious diseases such as dengue and a shortage of food.
’ As the first people fell ill in Wuhan , the WHO announced that in ten years we would be seeing 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition , malaria , diarrhea , and heat stress as a result of global warming .
Epidemiologist Professor Andy Haines told readers of the Telegraph that ‘ climate change is a threat to global and national security that is costing lives and livelihoods right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ career out of promoting the idea that global warming is going to bring about a public health disaster .
As part of this effort , he was instrumental in setting up the Lancet Countdown , a coalition of 35 universities and UN agencies that produces a report to keep these ideas in the public eye .
In 2018 , it said unequivocally that climate change ‘ the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.
’ In current circumstances , this claim looks rather foolish , but a new forensic review of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that .
You can not come away from reading Indur Goklany ’ s The Lancet Countdown on Climate Change : The need for context , published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation , without concluding that the Countdown ’ s authors didn ’ t set out to tell the whole story .
For example , Goklany observes that the Countdown ’ s Executive Summary makes a lot of vague insinuations that climate is causing serious public health problems .
It says there are ‘ downward trends in global yield potential for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in climate suitability for disease transmission are particularly concerning.
’ Apparently ‘ the number of days suitable for Vibrio ( a pathogen responsible for part of the burden of diarrhoeal disease ) has doubled ’ and ‘ families and livelihoods are put at risk from increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather conditions.
’ If that weren ’ t bad enough , ‘ 77 percent of countries experienced an increase in daily population exposure to wildfires.
’ But when you look at the dataset used by the Countdown , you uncover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is unequivocal : climate-related mortality has collapsed , and is now less than half the level it was in 1990 when the dataset starts .
This is nothing less than a public-health triumph .
The improvement is seen pretty much across the board , but diseases of the gut ( ‘ enteric infections ’ in the jargon ) are a good example .
The data shows that mortality from these conditions has more than halved over the last 30 years .
But the only mention in the Countdown ’ s executive summary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of days suitable for Vibrio ’ noted above .
And what do they mean by ‘ a number of days suitable for ’ anyway ?
This is a trick that is employed repeatedly in the report , namely the use of ‘ proxy ’ measures when perfectly good real measures are available .
So when considering hunger , the Countdown ignores crop yields , preferring to talk about falls in ‘ global yield potential ’ .
In other words , we are being told a tale about what a mathematical model tells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would anyone use a mathematical model when there is hard real-world data available ?
Suffice it to say that food is plentiful , yields continue to rise , and hunger is almost a thing of the past outside war zones and egalitarian paradises such as North Korea and Venezuela .
We are not just winning the battle against enteric diseases and hunger .
Another good example is tropical diseases , where mortality has fallen dramatically too .
So once again , the Countdown resorts to a proxy measure , ‘ suitability for disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Nelsonian focus on dengue , a relatively rare disease which has worsened .
The executive summary fails to mention malaria at all , despite the fact that it is a much bigger killer than dengue , and despite the fact , this is another healthcare war we are winning , with mortality down between 30 percent and 67 percent in various regions of sub-Saharan Africa .
It ’ s a sorry tale , and an indication of how far the vast sums of money that are available for climate change research are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they are in so many fields .
As we look at the destruction wrought by the pandemic , it ’ s hard not to wonder if people in the field should have spent less time poring over dubious , unvalidated mathematical models about the spread of malaria and more about whether we had the wherewithal to respond to a major pandemic .

Written by Andrew Montford on May 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The health establishment was looking away when the coronavirus struck; it had other priorities. If you look at the World Health Organization’s list of health threats, number one is climate change.
Pandemics were down in third place, behind ‘non-communicable diseases’ such as diabetes and obesity.
Wherever you look, you will find some of the biggest names in the public health establishment declaiming on the risks of climate change to world health.
On the eve of the outbreak, the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene declared that we would be seeing ‘mass migration, emerging infectious diseases such as dengue and a shortage of food.’
As the first people fell ill in Wuhan, the WHO announced that in ten years we would be seeing 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress as a result of global warming.
Epidemiologist Professor Andy Haines told readers of the Telegraph that ‘climate change is a threat to global and national security that is costing lives and livelihoods right now’.
Haines has made a career out of promoting the idea that global warming is going to bring about a public health disaster.
As part of this effort, he was instrumental in setting up the Lancet Countdown, a coalition of 35 universities and UN agencies that produces a report to keep these ideas in the public eye.
In 2018, it said unequivocally that climate change ‘the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.’
In current circumstances, this claim looks rather foolish, but a new forensic review of the Countdown suggests that it is actually worse than that.
You cannot come away from reading Indur Goklany’s The Lancet Countdown on Climate Change: The need for context, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, without concluding that the Countdown’s authors didn’t set out to tell the whole story.
For example, Goklany observes that the Countdown’s Executive Summary makes a lot of vague insinuations that climate is causing serious public health problems.
It says there are ‘downward trends in global yield potential for all major crops’ and that ‘trends in climate suitability for disease transmission are particularly concerning.’
Apparently ‘the number of days suitable for Vibrio (a pathogen responsible for part of the burden of diarrhoeal disease) has doubled’ and ‘families and livelihoods are put at risk from increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather conditions.’
If that weren’t bad enough, ‘77 percent of countries experienced an increase in daily population exposure to wildfires.’
But when you look at the dataset used by the Countdown, you uncover a very different story, and one that is unequivocal: climate-related mortality has collapsed, and is now less than half the level it was in 1990 when the dataset starts.
This is nothing less than a public-health triumph.
The improvement is seen pretty much across the board, but diseases of the gut (‘enteric infections’ in the jargon) are a good example.
The data shows that mortality from these conditions has more than halved over the last 30 years. But the only mention in the Countdown’s executive summary is that dark warning about the ‘number of days suitable for Vibrio’ noted above.
And what do they mean by ‘a number of days suitable for’ anyway? This is a trick that is employed repeatedly in the report, namely the use of ‘proxy’ measures when perfectly good real measures are available.
So when considering hunger, the Countdown ignores crop yields, preferring to talk about falls in ‘global yield potential’.
In other words, we are being told a tale about what a mathematical model tells us about food availability. But why would anyone use a mathematical model when there is hard real-world data available?
Suffice it to say that food is plentiful, yields continue to rise, and hunger is almost a thing of the past outside war zones and egalitarian paradises such as North Korea and Venezuela.
We are not just winning the battle against enteric diseases and hunger. Another good example is tropical diseases, where mortality has fallen dramatically too.
So once again, the Countdown resorts to a proxy measure, ‘suitability for disease transmission,’ as well as adopting a Nelsonian focus on dengue, a relatively rare disease which has worsened.
The executive summary fails to mention malaria at all, despite the fact that it is a much bigger killer than dengue, and despite the fact, this is another healthcare war we are winning, with mortality down between 30 percent and 67 percent in various regions of sub-Saharan Africa.
It’s a sorry tale, and an indication of how far the vast sums of money that are available for climate change research are distorting public health research priorities, just as they are in so many fields.
As we look at the destruction wrought by the pandemic, it’s hard not to wonder if people in the field should have spent less time poring over dubious, unvalidated mathematical models about the spread of malaria and more about whether we had the wherewithal to respond to a major pandemic.
Read more at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-18--German Virologists, Doctors Fear For Their Freedom Of Expression

Written by ccdeditor on .
Posted in Latest news The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how scientific dissent is not only being suppressed and marginalized in Germany when it comes to climate science but with virology and public health .
The online German national daily Die Welt here writes , “ Virologists and physicians fear for their freedom of expression in the Corona crisis.
” Climate scientists are getting some company !
Citing the results of a recent survey , to Die Welt reports “ many experts believe that freedom of expression in science is under threat ” and “ virologists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measures taken by the German government.
” As the economy reels from the stringent restrictions enacted by authorities across Europe , the discussion about how to respond to the spread of the virus has become bitter .
Public health experts opposing the restrictions and lockdowns have found themselves marginalized and attacked by the media , other virologists , and most politicians .
Using a survey , “ Researchers at the University Hospital Eppendorf in Hamburg ( UKE ) , the Society for Virology ( GfV ) and the University of Tübingen have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Die Welt reports .
“ 178 experts from the fields of virology , immunology , hygiene , internal medicine , and intensive care medicine ” were surveyed anonymously .
The results show that “ more than more than 70 percent of the participants support the distance rule of two meters and the prohibition of major events ” but that the other restrictions were “ far more controversial ” .
What ’ s surprising : “ One third even see freedom of expression in science as being threatened ” and today 63 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to restore public and economic life.
” Also : “ social distancing ” is apparently losing support , according to the survey .
Overall , the findings show that the pandemic skeptics are finally beginning to assert their views to the public .
Unfortunately , this is not even close to happening in climate science , wherein Germany the ultra-alarmists continue to control the message .
That freedom to express science is under threat , “ is probably what many climate scientists secretly think , ” Die kalte Sonne site here commented .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ change quickly once restrictions start eroding freedom and prosperity .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Thomas Richard on May 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how scientific dissent is not only being suppressed and marginalized in Germany when it comes to climate science but with virology and public health.
The online German national daily Die Welt here writes, “Virologists and physicians fear for their freedom of expression in the Corona crisis.” Climate scientists are getting some company!
Scientific freedom “under threat”
Citing the results of a recent survey, to Die Welt reports “many experts believe that freedom of expression in science is under threat” and “virologists have begun to change their attitude towards the measures taken by the German government.”
As the economy reels from the stringent restrictions enacted by authorities across Europe, the discussion about how to respond to the spread of the virus has become bitter.
Public health experts opposing the restrictions and lockdowns have found themselves marginalized and attacked by the media, other virologists, and most politicians.
Shift: COVID-19 alarmism waning, frustration growing
Using a survey, “Researchers at the University Hospital Eppendorf in Hamburg (UKE), the Society for Virology (GfV) and the University of Tübingen have tried to determine the mood among experts,” Die Welt reports.
“178 experts from the fields of virology, immunology, hygiene, internal medicine, and intensive care medicine” were surveyed anonymously.
The results show that “more than more than 70 percent of the participants support the distance rule of two meters and the prohibition of major events” but that the other restrictions were “far more controversial”.
One-third feel freedom in science is “being threatened”
What’s surprising: “One third even see freedom of expression in science as being threatened” and today 63 percent think “it would be sensible to restore public and economic life.”
Also: “social distancing” is apparently losing support, according to the survey.
Overall, the findings show that the pandemic skeptics are finally beginning to assert their views to the public.
Unfortunately, this is not even close to happening in climate science, wherein Germany the ultra-alarmists continue to control the message.
That freedom to express science is under threat, “is probably what many climate scientists secretly think,” Die kalte Sonne site here commented.
Perhaps COVID-19 tells us how moods can change quickly once restrictions start eroding freedom and prosperity.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-19--Pandemic Modeling Fiasco Reveals Science Is Never Settled

Written by Margaret Ashworth on .
Posted in Latest news There is a silver lining to the coronavirus fiasco , which is that the public can now see that there is no such thing as ‘ the science is settled ’ , as the man-made climate-change brigade parrot at every opportunity .
The computer model devised by Professor Neil Ferguson ’ s team at Imperial College London has been torn to shreds .
Other teams who ran it found that identical inputs resulted in different results and that running the code on different computers changed the results .
They warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested .
One expert has speculated that they simply averaged the results of multiple runs to cover up the variation .
Imperial , we should remember , is ranked ninth-best in the world in the 2020 QS World University Rankings and tenth best in the 2020 Times Higher Education World University Rankings .
This was the crack team to which the bewildered government turned for advice , yet their ‘ science ’ appears to be have been a little better than you or I could have managed .
Why should it be any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change ?
The Conservative Woman has carried many rebuttals of claims by the man-made climate change lobby that are provable rubbish .
Surely now there must be some skepticism ?
There are two problems .
First , there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear .
For a lot of activists , the cause is their life .
Their social sphere consists solely of those with the same views .
Casting those views aside would mean turning their lives upside down .
My guess is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists than the facts of the case , and they are not willing to listen to any arguments which might destroy that .
The second problem is money .
Research scientists don ’ t work for free : they depend on grants either from industry or government .
Grants are not dispensed impartially : they are given to those who will try to come up with the desired result .
If a government is convinced that black is white , the available research funding will go to scientists submitting projects aligned with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to admit that you are not making much progress and that in fact , you tend to the view that black is black , you may as well forget about the second half of your grant .
In this case , as could be seen when senior politicians fawned over St Greta ( remind yourselves with this embarrassing picture ) the government has accepted that climate change , which has happened continuously over the Earth ’ s 4.5billion-year existence , can and should be reversed .
King Canute !
thou shouldst be living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been stacked for some time in favor of the green mob .
Maybe Neil Ferguson ’ s demonstration of the explosive effect on a reputation of spouting nonsense will give some pause for thought .

Written by Margaret Ashworth on May 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
There is a silver lining to the coronavirus fiasco, which is that the public can now see that there is no such thing as ‘the science is settled’, as the man-made climate-change brigade parrot at every opportunity.
The computer model devised by Professor Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London has been torn to shreds.
Other teams who ran it found that identical inputs resulted in different results and that running the code on different computers changed the results.
They warned the Ferguson team, who were not interested.
One expert has speculated that they simply averaged the results of multiple runs to cover up the variation.
Imperial, we should remember, is ranked ninth-best in the world in the 2020 QS World University Rankings and tenth best in the 2020 Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
This was the crack team to which the bewildered government turned for advice, yet their ‘science’ appears to be have been a little better than you or I could have managed.
Why should it be any different for the ‘science’ of climate change? The Conservative Woman has carried many rebuttals of claims by the man-made climate change lobby that are provable rubbish. Surely now there must be some skepticism?
There are two problems. First, there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. For a lot of activists, the cause is their life.
Their social sphere consists solely of those with the same views. Casting those views aside would mean turning their lives upside down.
My guess is that the social side is more important for many activists than the facts of the case, and they are not willing to listen to any arguments which might destroy that.
The second problem is money. Research scientists don’t work for free: they depend on grants either from industry or government.
Grants are not dispensed impartially: they are given to those who will try to come up with the desired result.
If a government is convinced that black is white, the available research funding will go to scientists submitting projects aligned with that idea.
If halfway through you have to admit that you are not making much progress and that in fact, you tend to the view that black is black, you may as well forget about the second half of your grant.
In this case, as could be seen when senior politicians fawned over St Greta (remind yourselves with this embarrassing picture) the government has accepted that climate change, which has happened continuously over the Earth’s 4.5billion-year existence, can and should be reversed.
King Canute! thou shouldst be living at this hour!
The cards have been stacked for some time in favor of the green mob. Maybe Neil Ferguson’s demonstration of the explosive effect on a reputation of spouting nonsense will give some pause for thought.
Read more at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-19--Miami Herald Botches Encouraging NOAA Hurricane Study

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Among the top Google News search results this morning for “ climate change , ” the Miami Herald published an article asserting a new study shows global warming is causing more Atlantic hurricanes .
In reality , the new study shows there is a declining trend in hurricanes in many parts of the world and concludes there will likely be a declining trend globally during the 21st century .
Moreover , objective data show the number of Atlantic hurricanes is declining , just like the forecast global trend .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pollution impacts hurricane formation in the Atlantic , NOAA study says , ” claims , The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) study referenced by the Herald reports , The NOAA study reported a trend of “ substantial decreases ” in the Indian Ocean and North Pacific hurricanes is already detected in the record .
The study asserts there has been an increase in Atlantic hurricanes since 1980 , which “ anthropogenic aerosols could have also influenced.
” The major takeaway from the NOAA study is there will be fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming .
That is good news .
Rather than reporting good climate news , however , the Herald goes to great lengths to try to pull some bad news from a good-news study .
Even the study ’ s one asserted drawback , that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased , is quite a stretch .
A 2017 article in The Economist , titled “ Hurricanes in America have become less frequent , ” documents how Atlantic hurricanes have become much less frequent during recent decades compared to the first half of the 20th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1900 and 1960 , there was an average of 19 Atlantic hurricanes each decade .
In the six decades since , there has been an average of only 14 Atlantic hurricanes per decade .
In fact , there has not been a single decade since 1960 in which more hurricanes formed than the average decade between 1900 and 1960 .
The only reason the authors of the NOAA study could report an increase in Atlantic hurricanes since 1980 is because the decade ending in 1980 was an abnormally low year , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , any trend line starting at the record-low point of 1980 will show more frequent hurricanes .
However , a more complete and representative record shows a long-term and ongoing decline in Atlantic hurricanes .
The graph below illustrates that point .
Located in Florida , the Miami Herald surprisingly did not mention two very important facts about hurricanes and Florida .
As documented in Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes , Florida recently concluded an 11-year period ( 2005 through 2016 ) without a landfalling hurricane of any size—the longest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gulf of Mexico also recently benefited from its longest hurricane-free period in recorded history ( 2013 through 2016 ) .
For completely misleading its readers about the recent NOAA study , and for asserting the exact opposite of the truth regarding hurricane frequency and Atlantic hurricane frequency , the Miami Herald earns a gigantic Pinocchio award .

Written by James Taylor on May 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Among the top Google News search results this morning for “climate change,” the Miami Herald published an article asserting a new study shows global warming is causing more Atlantic hurricanes.
In reality, the new study shows there is a declining trend in hurricanes in many parts of the world and concludes there will likely be a declining trend globally during the 21st century.
Moreover, objective data show the number of Atlantic hurricanes is declining, just like the forecast global trend.
The Herald article, titled “Climate change, pollution impacts hurricane formation in the Atlantic, NOAA study says,” claims,
“In the last 40 years, the East Coast, including Florida, has been hit by dozens of hurricanes. New NOAA research suggests human pollution may have increased the likelihood of those Atlantic basin storms….”
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study referenced by the Herald reports,
“our climate models project decreases in the number of global TCs [tropical cyclones] toward the end of the 21st century due to the dominant effect of greenhouse gases on decreasing TC occurrence in most of the tropics, consistent with many previous studies.”
The NOAA study reported a trend of “substantial decreases” in the Indian Ocean and North Pacific hurricanes is already detected in the record.
The study asserts there has been an increase in Atlantic hurricanes since 1980, which “anthropogenic aerosols could have also influenced.”
The major takeaway from the NOAA study is there will be fewer hurricanes as the world continues its modest warming. That is good news.
Rather than reporting good climate news, however, the Herald goes to great lengths to try to pull some bad news from a good-news study.
Even the study’s one asserted drawback, that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased, is quite a stretch.
A 2017 article in The Economist, titled “Hurricanes in America have become less frequent,” documents how Atlantic hurricanes have become much less frequent during recent decades compared to the first half of the 20th century.
In the six decades between 1900 and 1960, there was an average of 19 Atlantic hurricanes each decade.
In the six decades since, there has been an average of only 14 Atlantic hurricanes per decade.
In fact, there has not been a single decade since 1960 in which more hurricanes formed than the average decade between 1900 and 1960.
The only reason the authors of the NOAA study could report an increase in Atlantic hurricanes since 1980 is because the decade ending in 1980 was an abnormally low year, with the fewest number of Atlantic hurricanes on record.
So, any trend line starting at the record-low point of 1980 will show more frequent hurricanes.
However, a more complete and representative record shows a long-term and ongoing decline in Atlantic hurricanes. The graph below illustrates that point.
Located in Florida, the Miami Herald surprisingly did not mention two very important facts about hurricanes and Florida.
As documented in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, Florida recently concluded an 11-year period (2005 through 2016) without a landfalling hurricane of any size—the longest such period in recorded history.
The Gulf of Mexico also recently benefited from its longest hurricane-free period in recorded history (2013 through 2016).
For completely misleading its readers about the recent NOAA study, and for asserting the exact opposite of the truth regarding hurricane frequency and Atlantic hurricane frequency, the Miami Herald earns a gigantic Pinocchio award.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-19--Biden Vows To Stop Keystone XL Pipeline ‘For Good’ If Elected

Written by Joel B. Pollak on .
Posted in Latest news Former Vice President Joe Biden vowed Monday to stop the Keystone XL pipeline “ for good ” if elected president .
The pipeline , to carry oil from Canada ’ s tar sands into the United States , was blocked by President Barack Obama for years , even though it had passed an environmental review .
The Obama administration stopped the project under pressure from radical environmentalists over concerns about climate change — though the alternative to the Keystone XL was simply that the oil would be exported from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. , and used there instead .
The Obama administration ’ s hostility to the pipeline complicated relations with Canada and led to a 2016 lawsuit by TransCanada , the company involved in the project , claiming Obama breached the terms of the NAFTA trade deal .
There was substantial public support for the Keystone XL project among local residents along the pipeline route .
Organized labor also supported the project , anticipating the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs .
At one point the Teamsters union withheld support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the Keystone XL .
President Donald Trump signed an executive order moving the Keystone XL project forward in his first week in office .
He has also taken other actions to advance construction .
However , Biden would cancel that policy .
He said in a statement to Politico on Monday : There could be important political repercussions for Biden ’ s stance , which appears aimed at appeasing the left-wing of the Democratic Party .
Minnesota benefits from the oil industry and will be a key swing state in the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shoemake wrote at RealClearPolitics last year about another pipeline project : Democrats need to be cautious about blindly joining this fight [ against the local Line 3 pipeline ] for a few important reasons .
First , the project is supported by local labor unions and leaders , as well as lawmakers in both parties in the state .
Second , as we ’ ve seen from past protests over pipelines , they usually have a costly and negative impact on local residents , taxpayers , law enforcement and government – and therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is supporting the protests .
Finally , Democratic candidates wading into the issue are automatically aligning themselves with the organizations that are leading the battle .
Notably , Minnesota was one of the few brights spots for Republicans in the 2018 House elections , where Pete Stauber won the 8th congressional district , in the Iron Range .

Written by Joel B. Pollak on May 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former Vice President Joe Biden vowed Monday to stop the Keystone XL pipeline “for good” if elected president.
The pipeline, to carry oil from Canada’s tar sands into the United States, was blocked by President Barack Obama for years, even though it had passed an environmental review.
The Obama administration stopped the project under pressure from radical environmentalists over concerns about climate change — though the alternative to the Keystone XL was simply that the oil would be exported from Canada to China, rather than to the U.S., and used there instead.
The Obama administration’s hostility to the pipeline complicated relations with Canada and led to a 2016 lawsuit by TransCanada, the company involved in the project, claiming Obama breached the terms of the NAFTA trade deal.
There was substantial public support for the Keystone XL project among local residents along the pipeline route.
Organized labor also supported the project, anticipating the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. At one point the Teamsters union withheld support for Hillary Clinton in 2015 over her flip-flop against the Keystone XL.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order moving the Keystone XL project forward in his first week in office. He has also taken other actions to advance construction.
However, Biden would cancel that policy. He said in a statement to Politico on Monday:
“Biden strongly opposed the Keystone pipeline in the last administration, stood alongside President Obama and Secretary [of State John] Kerry to reject it in 2015, and will proudly stand in the Roosevelt Room again as President and stop it for good by rescinding the Keystone XL pipeline permit.”
There could be important political repercussions for Biden’s stance, which appears aimed at appeasing the left-wing of the Democratic Party.
Minnesota benefits from the oil industry and will be a key swing state in the 2020 presidential election.
As Democratic activist Savannah Shoemake wrote at RealClearPolitics last year about another pipeline project:
Democrats need to be cautious about blindly joining this fight [against the local Line 3 pipeline] for a few important reasons. First, the project is supported by local labor unions and leaders, as well as lawmakers in both parties in the state. Second, as we’ve seen from past protests over pipelines, they usually have a costly and negative impact on local residents, taxpayers, law enforcement and government – and therefore a negative impact on any politician who is supporting the protests. Finally, Democratic candidates wading into the issue are automatically aligning themselves with the organizations that are leading the battle.
Notably, Minnesota was one of the few brights spots for Republicans in the 2018 House elections, where Pete Stauber won the 8th congressional district, in the Iron Range.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-19--‘You Have Stolen My Childhood!’ No, You’ve Never Had It Better

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news Number seven in Craig Kelly ’ s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists ’ coffin .
A child of this century may look at past generations and in their ignorance selfishly snarl “ How dare they ” and ” They have stolen my childhood.
” The Wuhan Flu and comparisons with past pandemics , however , should provide these children with a perspective of how good today ’ s generation have it .
Just compare the lives of two people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other born in the year 2000 .
To start with , both faced a global pandemic around their 19th birthday , the 1918/19 Spanish Flu , and the 2019/20 Wuhan Flu .
While the two diseases are both respiratory infections with common symptoms , deaths from the Spanish Flu totaled an estimated 40 to 100 million people across the world .
In contrast , around 350,000 people have died so far from , with , or suspected of having the Wuhan Flu – and although this number is likely to go higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the deaths from the Spanish flu , despite the world ’ s population increasing fourfold over the century .
In Australia , which had a population of five million in 1918/19 , about 15,000 people died from the Spanish Flu during the pandemic – while in comparison , as of yesterday morning we ’ ve had 101 deaths associated with the Wuhan Flu from a population of 25 million .
And while the Wuhan Flu has caused deaths mainly amongst the elderly ( with an average age around 80 ) with pre-existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the ages of about 20 and 40 were especially vulnerable to the Spanish Flu .
In NSW , more than 52 percent of all deaths from the Spanish Flu occurred in people aged between 20 and 39 years .
How lucky today ’ s generation has it .
And the Spanish Flu was not the only deadly communicable disease someone born in 1900 had to worry about .
For back then , the disfiguring disease of smallpox was still rampant , a disease which would go on to kill 300 million to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Even in the year of their 67th birthday ( 1967 ) , an estimated 15 million people contracted smallpox throughout the world with 2 million deaths .
And it wasn ’ t until their 79th birthday ( 1979 ) that smallpox was certified as ‘ globally eradicated ’ – something that would have been impossible without fossil fuels .
Yes , “ how dare they.
” And consider life expectancy .
Being born in 1900 gave you an average life expectancy of just 32 years – however , if you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the USA that year , your life expectancy would have been around 50 years .
In contrast , for those born in the year 2000 , average global life expectancy had more than doubled to 66 years – and if you were born in Australia or the USA , life expectancy had increased to around 79 years .
Just think , on average someone born in the year 2000 , has been given an additional around 30 years of life compared to someone born in 1900 .
And while some children today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from every 1,000 children born in the year 1900 in Australia , on average 173 would die before their fifth birthday .
And although we might think that number tragically high , 40 years earlier in 1860 for every 1,000 children born in Australia , on average 390 would die before their fifth birthday — meaning that just under forty percent of all Australian children born in 1860 , did not make it to their fifth birthday .
In contrast , thanks to all improvements delivered by free markets and affordable energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year 2000 the rate of child mortality had fallen to just seven per 1000 children .
And today , it ’ s estimated that for every 1000 Australian children born in 2020 , just four will die before their fifth birthday .
And for someone born in the year 2000 , the news just keeps getting better .
A recent study by Indur Golkany has revealed there have been dramatic falls in climate-related mortality over the last 30 years , with study ’ s author noting improvements have been seen in almost every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from comparisons with the Wuhan Flu to past pandemics , should create a realization of not only how good today ’ s generation has it but , importantly , how things continue to improve — and perhaps how we ’ d be better off spending billions on medical research , rather than spending billions on subsidies to import more solar panels and wind turbines from China — should drive another nail into climate alarmists ’ coffin .

Written by Craig Kelly on May 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A child of this century may look at past generations and in their ignorance selfishly snarl “How dare they” and ”They have stolen my childhood.”
The Wuhan Flu and comparisons with past pandemics, however, should provide these children with a perspective of how good today’s generation have it.
Just compare the lives of two people, one born in the year 1900 and the other born in the year 2000. To start with, both faced a global pandemic around their 19th birthday, the 1918/19 Spanish Flu, and the 2019/20 Wuhan Flu.
While the two diseases are both respiratory infections with common symptoms, deaths from the Spanish Flu totaled an estimated 40 to 100 million people across the world.
In contrast, around 350,000 people have died so far from, with, or suspected of having the Wuhan Flu – and although this number is likely to go higher, it still less than one percent of the deaths from the Spanish flu, despite the world’s population increasing fourfold over the century.
In Australia, which had a population of five million in 1918/19, about 15,000 people died from the Spanish Flu during the pandemic – while in comparison, as of yesterday morning we’ve had 101 deaths associated with the Wuhan Flu from a population of 25 million.
And while the Wuhan Flu has caused deaths mainly amongst the elderly (with an average age around 80) with pre-existing medical conditions, in contrast, men between the ages of about 20 and 40 were especially vulnerable to the Spanish Flu.
In NSW, more than 52 percent of all deaths from the Spanish Flu occurred in people aged between 20 and 39 years. How lucky today’s generation has it.
And the Spanish Flu was not the only deadly communicable disease someone born in 1900 had to worry about.
For back then, the disfiguring disease of smallpox was still rampant, a disease which would go on to kill 300 million to 500 million people over the next 79 years.
Even in the year of their 67th birthday (1967), an estimated 15 million people contracted smallpox throughout the world with 2 million deaths.
And it wasn’t until their 79th birthday (1979) that smallpox was certified as ‘globally eradicated’ – something that would have been impossible without fossil fuels. Yes, “how dare they.”
And consider life expectancy. Being born in 1900 gave you an average life expectancy of just 32 years – however, if you were lucky enough to be born in Australia or the USA that year, your life expectancy would have been around 50 years.
In contrast, for those born in the year 2000, average global life expectancy had more than doubled to 66 years – and if you were born in Australia or the USA, life expectancy had increased to around 79 years.
Just think, on average someone born in the year 2000, has been given an additional around 30 years of life compared to someone born in 1900.
And while some children today parrot ”you have stolen my childhood” from every 1,000 children born in the year 1900 in Australia, on average 173 would die before their fifth birthday.
And although we might think that number tragically high, 40 years earlier in 1860 for every 1,000 children born in Australia, on average 390 would die before their fifth birthday — meaning that just under forty percent of all Australian children born in 1860, did not make it to their fifth birthday.
In contrast, thanks to all improvements delivered by free markets and affordable energy provided by fossil fuels, by the year 2000 the rate of child mortality had fallen to just seven per 1000 children.
And today, it’s estimated that for every 1000 Australian children born in 2020, just four will die before their fifth birthday.
And for someone born in the year 2000, the news just keeps getting better.
A recent study by Indur Golkany has revealed there have been dramatic falls in climate-related mortality over the last 30 years, with study’s author noting improvements have been seen in almost every category:
”You see improvement across the board, but most notably there has been a wholesale rolling back of the biggest killers like diarrhea and malaria.”
This new perspective, gained from comparisons with the Wuhan Flu to past pandemics, should create a realization of not only how good today’s generation has it but, importantly, how things continue to improve — and perhaps how we’d be better off spending billions on medical research, rather than spending billions on subsidies to import more solar panels and wind turbines from China — should drive another nail into climate alarmists’ coffin.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-19--California Cancels Billions In Frivolous Climate Spending

Written by AP on .
Posted in Latest news California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s proposed budget cuts include canceling billions of dollars in climate change spending , a blow to environmental advocates who look to the state as a stopgap for the Trump administration ’ s weakening of federal protections .
In January , Newsom proposed a $ 12 billion “ climate budget ” that , over the next five years , would offer incentives for companies to convert to electric vehicles , give low-interest loans to businesses to clean up their practices , and spend billions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wildfires .
But Thursday , Newsom proposed eliminating most of the foundation for those programs to balance a budget that will have an estimated $ 54.3 billion deficit .
The economic downturn has been brought by a statewide stay-at-home order to limit the spread of the coronavirus .
The order has closed most businesses for two months , putting more than 4.5 million people out of work and sending state tax collections plummeting .
The proposed cuts come as the state is battling the Trump administration over water quality and auto emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At a time when the Trump administration is mounting an unprecedented assault on environmental and public health protection , it ’ s absolutely devastating and horrifying , ” said Kassie Siegel , director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity .
The Newsom administration says the cuts represent “ unprecedented times ” that have forced the state to “ make sacrifices that we didn ’ t think six months ago we would have to do.
” The administration chose to protect programs to clean up the air in disadvantaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ All the leaders around the world from Germany to Denmark to Japan are all suffering similar economic fates , ” said Jared Blumenfeld , secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency .
“ What California is doing is prioritizing and making sure , as the governor said , our values come first .
”

Written by AP on May 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget cuts include canceling billions of dollars in climate change spending, a blow to environmental advocates who look to the state as a stopgap for the Trump administration’s weakening of federal protections.
In January, Newsom proposed a $12 billion “climate budget” that, over the next five years, would offer incentives for companies to convert to electric vehicles, give low-interest loans to businesses to clean up their practices, and spend billions on projects preparing for floods, droughts, and wildfires.
But Thursday, Newsom proposed eliminating most of the foundation for those programs to balance a budget that will have an estimated $54.3 billion deficit.
The economic downturn has been brought by a statewide stay-at-home order to limit the spread of the coronavirus.
The order has closed most businesses for two months, putting more than 4.5 million people out of work and sending state tax collections plummeting.
The proposed cuts come as the state is battling the Trump administration over water quality and auto emissions, among other environmental issues.
“At a time when the Trump administration is mounting an unprecedented assault on environmental and public health protection, it’s absolutely devastating and horrifying,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The Newsom administration says the cuts represent “unprecedented times” that have forced the state to “make sacrifices that we didn’t think six months ago we would have to do.”
The administration chose to protect programs to clean up the air in disadvantaged communities and to provide safe drinking water.
“All the leaders around the world from Germany to Denmark to Japan are all suffering similar economic fates,” said Jared Blumenfeld, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. “What California is doing is prioritizing and making sure, as the governor said, our values come first.”
Read rest at KTLA5
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-19--FaceBook Censors Polar Bear Video For Including Factual Info

Written by Susan J. Crockford , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Facebook has labeled a recent short PragerU polar bear video as “ false information ” based on a ClimateFeedback review featuring statements by Andrew Derocher and Ian Stirling published 18 May 2020 .
The video , posted on Facebook 5 May 2020 , is also available here and here .
I was approached yesterday by Nick Coltrain , a reporter for the Des Moines Register and USA Today , asking for a statement about the accuracy of the PragerU video , which cites me as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ inconvenient facts.
’ My comments are below but I reminded Nick that what is going on is a classic conflict that happens all the time in science : it presents no proof that I ’ m wrong or that the PragerU video is ‘ false information ’ .
Climate Feedback is not ‘ fact-checking ’ : it is presenting its preferred side of a disputed science issue .
Thanks for the opportunity to respond .
I stand behind the accuracy of the video but wish they had cited my scientific paper , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened , and/or The State of the Polar Bear Report 2019 , also fully referenced .
[ links provided to Crockford 2017 , 2019 , 2020 ] I will post a full response on my blog but would like to point out the following .
Regarding the challenge of the adjective ‘ thriving ’ used in the video , in the review both Derocher and Stirling referred to Barents and Chukchi Sea polar bears as doing “ OK ” .
I contend this is a gross misrepresentation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There have been a number of papers published on Chukchi Sea bears documenting that body condition and reproduction are better now than in the 1980s and a recent paper on the body condition of female Barents Sea bears stated : “ Unexpectedly , body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005 , although sea ice has retreated by ∼50 % since the late 1990s in the area , and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013 .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas ” [ Lippold et al .
2019:988 ] Biologically speaking , since the premise of the assumption that polar bear populations will decline with reduced summer sea ice is that bears will be in poor condition and reproducing poorly , it is logical to assume that bears with good body condition and reproducing well belong to thriving populations , regardless of the fact that the sea ice in their region is much reduced .
In addition , Stirling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpopulations ] are doing OK , such as Foxe Basin and Davis Straight , and one seems to be increasing ( M ’ Clintock Channel ) .
” It is odd that Stirling fails to mention Kane Basin , shown on the status map provided as also ‘ likely increasing ’ ( as documented in 2016 population survey report ) and yet mentions M ’ Clintock Channel bears seem to be increasing even though the results of a long-awaited population survey , now long overdue , have not yet been made public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrary to predictions , several polar bear subpopulations ( at least four of them ) are indeed thriving despite much reduced summer sea ice .
I have chosen to emphasis that good news , while Stirling and Derocher choose to emphasize the data that seem to fit their predictions .
This is a classic conflict that happens all the time in science but presents no proof that I ’ m wrong or that the PragerU video is inherently ‘ false ’ .
In short , it is indeed true that ‘ Polar bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diminishing.
’ See also my 2018 opinion piece on the National Geographic ‘ starving ’ polar bear video in the Financial Post here .
Climate Feedback reviewed that piece with statements by Steven Amstrup and Andrew Derocher , which I countered here , here , and here .
The review states : “ There is no scientific evidence that the entire polar bear population has been growing , contrary to what this video claims.
” In 2007 the global estimate used by the USGS in their analysis supporting the listing of polar bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 24,500 ( Amstrup et al .
2007 ) and the official IUCN estimate in 2015 ( without the addition of several subpopulation estimates completed since then ) was 26,000 ( 22,000-31,000 ) ( Regehr et al .
2016 ; Wiig et al .
2015 ) .
Do the math : 24,500 bears in 2007 vs. 26,000 bears in 2015 is an increase of 1,500 bears and indicates that overall population numbers have indeed grown by a small amount .
More recent survey results add further to that total .
I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statistically significant increase but it is certainly not the decline that was predicted to occur when sea ice declined to present levels ( Crockford 2017 , 2019 , 2020 ) .
In addition to the thriving condition of Barents Sea bears discussed above ( Aars 2018 ; Aars et al .
2017 ; Lippold et al .
2019 ) , Chukchi Sea polar bears are also doing much better than they were in the 1980s despite much-reduced summer sea ice .
These results are documented in a number of peer-reviewed papers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al .
2018 ; Rode and Regehr 2010 ; Rode et al .
2013 , 2014 , 2018 ) .
Ringed and bearded seals are similarly thriving despite less summer ice ( Crawford et al .
2015 ) .
Despite these results , Stirling and colleagues conclude illogically that both Barents Sea and Chukchi Sea polar bear populations are merely “ likely stable ” ( i.e .
“ OK ” ) rather than increasing .
It is biologically implausible that both populations are merely holding their own : the Svalbard portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % between 2004 and 2015 .
However , this was dismissed as “ statistically insignificant ” even though the similarly “ statistically insignificant ” 17 % decline in Southern Hudson Bay bears in 2018 was deemed valid and represented a ‘ real ’ decline – such games do not instill confidence that these researchers are presenting unbiased scientific results ( Crockford 2019 , 2020 ) .
Stirling states in the review : “ …a couple [ subpopulations ] are doing OK , such as Foxe Basin and Davis Straight , and one seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Channel ) .
” As I mentioned above , he fails to mention the ‘ increasing ’ status of Kane Basin but his mention of M ’ Clintock Channel means we now we know why the report on the latest M ’ Clintock Channel population survey has not yet been released ( see Crockford 2020 ) : it obviously shows the population size has increased .
More games .
I have previously addressed in detail the problems involved in the Southern Beaufort population estimate and those for Western and Southern Hudson Bay which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by ClimateFeedback .
See Crockford 2017 , 2019 , 2020 .
1 ) “ The global polar bear population is currently estimated to be approximately 20,000 – 25,000 bears , distributed among 19 subpopulations.
” This is wrong : it ’ s an out-of-date estimate used in a paper co-authored by reviewer Derocher in 2013 .
The official global population estimate used by the IUCN ( 2015 ) and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group ( 2018 ) is 22,000-31,000 ( or 26,000 on average ) , see Regehr et al .
2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 ) Reference 1 in the citation list : “ Stirling et al .
( 2018 ) ” should be Stirling et al .
( 2012 ) 3 ) Paragraph 3 of the review : “ But as stated in Hunter et al .
( 2015 ) ” should be Hunter et al .
( 2010 ) .
Now 20 years with no trend in ice breakup dates for Western Hudson Bay polar bears [ discusses the Lunn et al .
2016 paper cited in the Climate Feedback review ] Southern Beaufort polar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survival touted in 2008 was invalid , PBSG now admits Great polar bear red herring in the Southern Beaufort [ discussed the repeated starvation events that resulted from thick spring ice conditions unique to the Southern Beaufort , which are now falsely blamed on lack of summer ice ] Global polar bear population larger than previously thought – almost 30,000 [ discusses the polar bear subpopulation estimates that were not included in the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment because they had not yet been published ] Even with Inuit lives at stake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discusses Ian Stirling ’ s oft-repeated claim that the body condition of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay has dropped and that cub survival rates have “ plummetted ” – even though data supporting these claims have not been published – as I pointed out in my 2019 State of the Polar Bear Report ( Crockford 2020 ) ] The Chukchi Sea polar bears number almost 3000 according to new survey results update [ reports the 2016 population estimate that replaces the old ‘ guess ’ of 2,000 bears used in the 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialists double-down on a message of future starving bears [ discusses the claim that Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears are starving due to declining summer sea ice ] Global polar bear abundance ‘ best guess ’ estimate is 39,000 ( 26,000-58,000 ) [ discusses polar bear numbers in 2018 and why I think they are too low , see quote below ] .
“ In 2014 , the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group ( PBSG ) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘ has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific sense , but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.
’ In my new book , The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened , I contend that this situation will probably never change , so it ’ s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘ best guess ’ .
Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this .
These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘ known ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ sea ice ecoregions ’ ( defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey , see Amstrup et al .
2007 ) as shown below , to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.
” Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist ( former adjunct professor , University of Victoria ) specializing in Holocene mammals , including polar bears and walruses .
Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened ( Amazon ) .

Written by Susan J. Crockford, Ph.D. on May 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Facebook has labeled a recent short PragerU polar bear video as “false information” based on a ClimateFeedback review featuring statements by Andrew Derocher and Ian Stirling published 18 May 2020.
The video, posted on Facebook 5 May 2020, is also available here and here.
I was approached yesterday by Nick Coltrain, a reporter for the Des Moines Register and USA Today, asking for a statement about the accuracy of the PragerU video, which cites me as a source for two of their three ‘inconvenient facts.’
My comments are below but I reminded Nick that what is going on is a classic conflict that happens all the time in science: it presents no proof that I’m wrong or that the PragerU video is ‘false information’.
Climate Feedback is not ‘fact-checking’: it is presenting its preferred side of a disputed science issue.
STATEMENT SENT TO NICK COLTRAIN:
Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I stand behind the accuracy of the video but wish they had cited my scientific paper, my fully referenced new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, and/or The State of the Polar Bear Report 2019, also fully referenced. [links provided to Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020] I will post a full response on my blog but would like to point out the following. Regarding the challenge of the adjective ‘thriving’ used in the video, in the review both Derocher and Stirling referred to Barents and Chukchi Sea polar bears as doing “OK”. I contend this is a gross misrepresentation of the published literature on these bears. There have been a number of papers published on Chukchi Sea bears documenting that body condition and reproduction are better now than in the 1980s and a recent paper on the body condition of female Barents Sea bears stated: “Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013. These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas” [Lippold et al. 2019:988] Biologically speaking, since the premise of the assumption that polar bear populations will decline with reduced summer sea ice is that bears will be in poor condition and reproducing poorly, it is logical to assume that bears with good body condition and reproducing well belong to thriving populations, regardless of the fact that the sea ice in their region is much reduced. In addition, Stirling further stated that “…a couple [subpopulations] are doing OK, such as Foxe Basin and Davis Straight, and one seems to be increasing (M’Clintock Channel).” It is odd that Stirling fails to mention Kane Basin, shown on the status map provided as also ‘likely increasing’ (as documented in 2016 population survey report) and yet mentions M’Clintock Channel bears seem to be increasing even though the results of a long-awaited population survey, now long overdue, have not yet been made public. The polar bear data are contradictory: contrary to predictions, several polar bear subpopulations (at least four of them) are indeed thriving despite much reduced summer sea ice. I have chosen to emphasis that good news, while Stirling and Derocher choose to emphasize the data that seem to fit their predictions. This is a classic conflict that happens all the time in science but presents no proof that I’m wrong or that the PragerU video is inherently ‘false’. Regards, Susan, 18 May 2020
In short, it is indeed true that ‘Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing.’
See also my 2018 opinion piece on the National Geographic ‘starving’ polar bear video in the Financial Post here.
Climate Feedback reviewed that piece with statements by Steven Amstrup and Andrew Derocher, which I countered here, here, and here.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
The review states: “There is no scientific evidence that the entire polar bear population has been growing, contrary to what this video claims.”
In 2007 the global estimate used by the USGS in their analysis supporting the listing of polar bears as ‘threatened’ under the ESA was 24,500 (Amstrup et al. 2007) and the official IUCN estimate in 2015 (without the addition of several subpopulation estimates completed since then) was 26,000 (22,000-31,000)(Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015).
Do the math: 24,500 bears in 2007 vs. 26,000 bears in 2015 is an increase of 1,500 bears and indicates that overall population numbers have indeed grown by a small amount.
More recent survey results add further to that total. I’ve pointed out this may well not be a statistically significant increase but it is certainly not the decline that was predicted to occur when sea ice declined to present levels (Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020).
In addition to the thriving condition of Barents Sea bears discussed above (Aars 2018; Aars et al. 2017; Lippold et al. 2019), Chukchi Sea polar bears are also doing much better than they were in the 1980s despite much-reduced summer sea ice.
These results are documented in a number of peer-reviewed papers on the topic (ACSWG 2018; Regehr et al. 2018; Rode and Regehr 2010; Rode et al. 2013, 2014, 2018).
Ringed and bearded seals are similarly thriving despite less summer ice (Crawford et al. 2015).
Despite these results, Stirling and colleagues conclude illogically that both Barents Sea and Chukchi Sea polar bear populations are merely “likely stable” (i.e. “OK”) rather than increasing.
It is biologically implausible that both populations are merely holding their own: the Svalbard portion of the Barents Sea population increased by 42% between 2004 and 2015.
However, this was dismissed as “statistically insignificant” even though the similarly “statistically insignificant” 17% decline in Southern Hudson Bay bears in 2018 was deemed valid and represented a ‘real’ decline – such games do not instill confidence that these researchers are presenting unbiased scientific results (Crockford 2019, 2020).
Stirling states in the review: “…a couple [subpopulations] are doing OK, such as Foxe Basin and Davis Straight, and one seems to be increasing (M’Clintock Channel).”
As I mentioned above, he fails to mention the ‘increasing’ status of Kane Basin but his mention of M’Clintock Channel means we now we know why the report on the latest M’Clintock Channel population survey has not yet been released (see Crockford 2020): it obviously shows the population size has increased. More games.
I have previously addressed in detail the problems involved in the Southern Beaufort population estimate and those for Western and Southern Hudson Bay which are at odds with the picture presented by ClimateFeedback. See Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020.
ERRORS IN THE REVIEW:
1) “The global polar bear population is currently estimated to be approximately 20,000 – 25,000 bears, distributed among 19 subpopulations.” This is wrong: it’s an out-of-date estimate used in a paper co-authored by reviewer Derocher in 2013. The official global population estimate used by the IUCN (2015) and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2018) is 22,000-31,000 (or 26,000 on average), see Regehr et al. 2016 and Wiig et al. 2015.
2) Reference 1 in the citation list: “Stirling et al. (2018)” should be Stirling et al. (2012)
3) Paragraph 3 of the review: “But as stated in Hunter et al. (2015)” should be Hunter et al. (2010).
SOME RELATED POSTS, WITH REFERENCES:
Now 20 years with no trend in ice breakup dates for Western Hudson Bay polar bears [discusses the Lunn et al. 2016 paper cited in the Climate Feedback review]
Southern Beaufort polar bear ‘decline’ and reduced cub survival touted in 2008 was invalid, PBSG now admits
Great polar bear red herring in the Southern Beaufort [discussed the repeated starvation events that resulted from thick spring ice conditions unique to the Southern Beaufort, which are now falsely blamed on lack of summer ice]
Global polar bear population larger than previously thought – almost 30,000 [discusses the polar bear subpopulation estimates that were not included in the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment because they had not yet been published]
Even with Inuit lives at stake, polar bear specialists make unsupported claims [discusses Ian Stirling’s oft-repeated claim that the body condition of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay has dropped and that cub survival rates have “plummetted” – even though data supporting these claims have not been published – as I pointed out in my 2019 State of the Polar Bear Report (Crockford 2020)]
The Chukchi Sea polar bears number almost 3000 according to new survey results update [reports the 2016 population estimate that replaces the old ‘guess’ of 2,000 bears used in the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment]
Polar bear specialists double-down on a message of future starving bears [discusses the claim that Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears are starving due to declining summer sea ice]
Global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) [discusses polar bear numbers in 2018 and why I think they are too low, see quote below].
“In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’
In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this. These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007) as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.”
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist (former adjunct professor, University of Victoria) specializing in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walruses. Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).
Read rest at Polar Bear Science
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print