climatechangedispatch--2020-04-15--Pandemic Shows The Hollow Fantasies Of Greta And Extinction Rebellion

Written by Tim Worstall on .
Posted in Latest news How glorious it is that the demands of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are coming true .
We are putting a significant brake on carbon emissions by strongly limiting the rampant overconsumption of our society .
Granted , no one seems very happy at those carbon dioxide emissions falling by 5 % – or 2.5 billion tonnes – this year , but we can ’ t have everything , can we ?
This gets to the nub of the problem with the climate change movement .
We know pretty well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all agree to become as poor as church mice or return to being peasants in the fields .
It is the understandable resistance to such reversion which causes the problem itself .
We like being able to heat our food , warm our bodies , travel and generally enjoy civilization .
That , at this current level of technological advance , means the use of fossil fuels – at the cost of changes to the climate in the future .
The question is not whether we should do something about it , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a neat experiment in what happens when humans suddenly dramatically reduce both production and consumption .
And , to put it mildly , most of us are not enjoying it one bit .
That suggests that instead of the hair shirty favored by the Gretas of this world , our best solution is creating the technologies that allow us to keep consuming while also keeping the planet cool with our doing so .
This is not particularly controversial stuff .
The economist William Nordhaus got his Nobel for demonstrating how innovation can produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same is true of Nicholas Stern , whose name adorns one of the best-known reports on the consequences of climate change .
Sure , there are differences between the two approaches .
Stern says do lots now – as a very rough pencil sketch you understand – while Nordhaus says only do what we ’ re ready for .
More specifically , Nordhaus says work with the capital cycle .
Only replace things with the newer non-emitting technology when they are already worn out and ready for replacement anyway .
That would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany ’ s nuclear plants when they have decades of useful life left – a policy that has simply made energy more expensive while doing worse than nothing to save the planet .
Instead , things should be shut down when they are no longer functional and replaced with newer , cleaner tech .
The underlying point here is that both Nordhaus and Stern thinking like economists whose aim is to maximize human utility – essentially , the joy of being here and alive at this time .
As Ryan Bourne noted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever thinking in terms of costs and benefits and trying to balance them out .
They know too that with a great many facets of our lives there is no simple ‘ solution ’ , just a variety of trade-offs that need to be managed .
That ’ s quite a different approach to the currently fashionable claim that we must eviscerate modern society right now and retreat back to a much lower standard of living as our method of reducing those emissions .
For that is what a ‘ zero carbon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is liable to mean in real terms – the guarantee of immediate penury for millions of people .
There are few silver linings to the current ghastly pandemic .
But one of the benefits is we ’ re testing the St. Greta method of beating climate change and not liking it very much at all .
Let ’ s hope that means policymakers focus on the technological and economic solutions to climate change , rather than the shrill eschatology of the modern green movement .

Written by Tim Worstall on Apr 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
How glorious it is that the demands of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are coming true. We are putting a significant brake on carbon emissions by strongly limiting the rampant overconsumption of our society.
Granted, no one seems very happy at those carbon dioxide emissions falling by 5% – or 2.5 billion tonnes – this year, but we can’t have everything, can we?
This gets to the nub of the problem with the climate change movement. We know pretty well we could reverse the problem if we all agree to become as poor as church mice or return to being peasants in the fields.
It is the understandable resistance to such reversion which causes the problem itself. We like being able to heat our food, warm our bodies, travel and generally enjoy civilization.
That, at this current level of technological advance, means the use of fossil fuels – at the cost of changes to the climate in the future.
The question is not whether we should do something about it, but what?
The coronavirus outbreak gives us a neat experiment in what happens when humans suddenly dramatically reduce both production and consumption. And, to put it mildly, most of us are not enjoying it one bit.
That suggests that instead of the hair shirty favored by the Gretas of this world, our best solution is creating the technologies that allow us to keep consuming while also keeping the planet cool with our doing so.
This is not particularly controversial stuff. The economist William Nordhaus got his Nobel for demonstrating how innovation can produce better outcomes with lower consumption.
The same is true of Nicholas Stern, whose name adorns one of the best-known reports on the consequences of climate change.
Sure, there are differences between the two approaches. Stern says do lots now – as a very rough pencil sketch you understand – while Nordhaus says only do what we’re ready for.
More specifically, Nordhaus says work with the capital cycle. Only replace things with the newer non-emitting technology when they are already worn out and ready for replacement anyway.
That would not mean, for example, closing down Germany’s nuclear plants when they have decades of useful life left – a policy that has simply made energy more expensive while doing worse than nothing to save the planet.
Instead, things should be shut down when they are no longer functional and replaced with newer, cleaner tech.
The underlying point here is that both Nordhaus and Stern thinking like economists whose aim is to maximize human utility – essentially, the joy of being here and alive at this time.
As Ryan Bourne noted in a recent CapX piece, economists are forever thinking in terms of costs and benefits and trying to balance them out.
They know too that with a great many facets of our lives there is no simple ‘solution’, just a variety of trade-offs that need to be managed.
That’s quite a different approach to the currently fashionable claim that we must eviscerate modern society right now and retreat back to a much lower standard of living as our method of reducing those emissions.
For that is what a ‘zero carbon’ society by 2030, or even 2050 is liable to mean in real terms – the guarantee of immediate penury for millions of people.
There are few silver linings to the current ghastly pandemic. But one of the benefits is we’re testing the St. Greta method of beating climate change and not liking it very much at all.
Let’s hope that means policymakers focus on the technological and economic solutions to climate change, rather than the shrill eschatology of the modern green movement.
Read more at CapX
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-15--NASA Fights To Keep Debunked 97% Climate-Consensus Claim On Website

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news Nothing sends climate skeptics into orbit faster than seeing NASA repeat the 97 % climate-consensus claim , but the effort to have the Obama-era declaration removed from the government website is suffering from a failure to launch .
NASA officials rejected the Competitive Enterprise Institute ’ s July 9 request for correction under the Information Quality Act , concluding that “ changes to the Web site are not needed at this time , ” prompting the free-market group to file an appeal Tuesday .
On its Global Climate Change page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree : Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
” CEI attorney Devin Watkins , who called the statement “ inaccurate , unreliable , and biased , ” said that NASA has refused to budge even though President Trump has expressed reservations about the consensus argument on anthropogenic global warming .
In 2017 , for example , Mr. Trump told The Associated that “ you have scientists on both sides of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really weird when the President of the United States seems to say the 97 % figure is incorrect , but an agency he is responsible for overseeing continues to say on their website that the President is wrong , ” Mr. Watkins said in an email .
In her reply to the CEI , NASA chief information officer Renee P. Wynn said that the Global Climate Change website “ presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change and honors the role that NASA has played and plays in researching and communicating climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this information to be accurate and clear as it does not rely on results of a single peer-reviewed publication for facts , which is why a number of peer-reviewed papers are listed on the Web site to capture the robust nature of the scientific debate , ” Ms. Wynn said in the March 11 letter .
Mr. Watkins countered that the “ single sentence response says next to nothing , ” and that instead of giving a point-by-point response as required by Office of Management and Budget rules , “ her denial does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of our request.
” “ Ms .
Wynn totally ignores the requirements of reliability and lack of bias , ” said the CEIappeal .
The CEI ’ s original request for correction ran 11 pages and included specific methodological challenges to the studies cited by NASA , but the NASA response was barely two pages .
The Washington Times has reached out to NASA for comment .
The research papers cited by NASA to bolster the 97 % claim “ don ’ t actually make the claims that NASA ’ s claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excluding — or including — scientists “ who don ’ t have an opinion or say they ’ re uncertain or don ’ t know , ” Mr. Watkins said .
He said the statement was posted by NASA at some point during the Obama administration .
“ I just think there was political pressure to get it added , and no one questioned NASA directly on it at the time , ” he said .
“ As the political winds shifted and the Trump administration came in , I suspect NASA didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The debate over the scientific consensus on climate change has raged since at least 2004 when Science magazine published an essay by the now-Harvard history of science professor Naomi Oreskes , “ The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.
” She reviewed 928 study abstracts with the words “ climate change ” published in journals from 1993-2003 , concluding that 75 % implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus view and 25 % took no position , but “ none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
” The 97 % figure took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Cook , now an assistant research professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University , who reviewed peer-reviewed paper abstracts with the words “ global warming ” or “ global climate change ” from 1991-2011 .
“ The first thing we noticed was that a lot of papers don ’ t even bother to mention whether humans are causing global warming or not .
It ’ s like , you look at astronomy papers : Not many of them would bother mentioning that the earth revolves around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Mr. Cook told Yale Climate Connections in a 2017 interview .
“ But amongst the papers that did mention it — there were about 4,000 papers amongst the 12,000 papers we looked at — 97.1 % of them endorsed human-caused global warming in their abstract , ” Mr. Cook said .
The pushback was immediate .
PopularTechnology.com interviewed a half-dozen prominent scientists who said the study mischaracterized their work , while other academics , including Richard Tol of the University of Sussex and the University of Delaware ’ s David Legates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s methodology .
For example , “ Legates ’ peer-reviewed independent study reevaluating the 64 articles that Cook said explicitly endorsed AGW ( that more than half of the warming was caused by humans ) found that actually only 41 made such claims , ” said the CEI .
The debate has left little room for middle ground .
In 2017 , Yale Climate Communications rated the 97 % figure as “ true , ” while Mr. Tol said in 2014 that it was “ essentially pulled from thin air.
” NASA also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the American Association for the Advancement of Science , which said in 2014 , “ Based on well-established evidence , about 97 % of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.
” On the other hand , CEI noted that NASA failed to take into account documents signed by researchers rejecting the climate-catastrophe scenario , such as the Oregon Petition , which has more than 31,000 signatures of self-identified scientists , including more than 9,000 with doctoral degrees .
The SkepticalScience blog , founded by Mr. Cook , slammed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no consensus ” argument “ one of the most popular climate myths ” perpetrated by “ fossil fuel-funded think tanks.
” “ That so-called ‘ consensus gap ’ between public perception and the reality of expert agreement is largely due to a sustained misinformation campaign , ” said the Aug. 15 post .
At the other end of the spectrum , Climate Depot ’ s Marc Morano , author of “ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change , ” took a jab at the consensus “ myth , ” saying it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confront its part in repeating the 97 % claim.
” “ NASA is likely to fight tooth and nail over this false 97 % claim because NASA has a vested interest in keeping up the ‘ consensus ’ myth , ” Mr. Morano said in an email .
“ Sadly , NASA has long been overrun with many scientists who are willing to bend the truth for the climate cause .
”

Written by Valerie Richardson on Apr 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Nothing sends climate skeptics into orbit faster than seeing NASA repeat the 97% climate-consensus claim, but the effort to have the Obama-era declaration removed from the government website is suffering from a failure to launch.
NASA officials rejected the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s July 9 request for correction under the Information Quality Act, concluding that “changes to the Web site are not needed at this time,” prompting the free-market group to file an appeal Tuesday.
On its Global Climate Change page, NASA states: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
CEI attorney Devin Watkins, who called the statement “inaccurate, unreliable, and biased,” said that NASA has refused to budge even though President Trump has expressed reservations about the consensus argument on anthropogenic global warming.
In 2017, for example, Mr. Trump told The Associated that “you have scientists on both sides of the picture.”
“It’s really weird when the President of the United States seems to say the 97% figure is incorrect, but an agency he is responsible for overseeing continues to say on their website that the President is wrong,” Mr. Watkins said in an email.
In her reply to the CEI, NASA chief information officer Renee P. Wynn said that the Global Climate Change website “presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change and honors the role that NASA has played and plays in researching and communicating climate science.”
“NASA also still finds this information to be accurate and clear as it does not rely on results of a single peer-reviewed publication for facts, which is why a number of peer-reviewed papers are listed on the Web site to capture the robust nature of the scientific debate,” Ms. Wynn said in the March 11 letter.
Mr. Watkins countered that the “single sentence response says next to nothing,” and that instead of giving a point-by-point response as required by Office of Management and Budget rules, “her denial does not even respond to even a single point of our request.”
“Ms. Wynn totally ignores the requirements of reliability and lack of bias,” said the CEIappeal.
The CEI’s original request for correction ran 11 pages and included specific methodological challenges to the studies cited by NASA, but the NASA response was barely two pages.
The Washington Times has reached out to NASA for comment.
The research papers cited by NASA to bolster the 97% claim “don’t actually make the claims that NASA’s claiming they make,” in some cases excluding — or including — scientists “who don’t have an opinion or say they’re uncertain or don’t know,” Mr. Watkins said.
He said the statement was posted by NASA at some point during the Obama administration.
“I just think there was political pressure to get it added, and no one questioned NASA directly on it at the time,” he said. “As the political winds shifted and the Trump administration came in, I suspect NASA didn’t really even look at it.”
Consensus gap or myth?
The debate over the scientific consensus on climate change has raged since at least 2004 when Science magazine published an essay by the now-Harvard history of science professor Naomi Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.”
She reviewed 928 study abstracts with the words “climate change” published in journals from 1993-2003, concluding that 75% implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus view and 25% took no position, but “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
The 97% figure took off following a 2013 study led by John Cook, now an assistant research professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, who reviewed peer-reviewed paper abstracts with the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991-2011.
“The first thing we noticed was that a lot of papers don’t even bother to mention whether humans are causing global warming or not. It’s like, you look at astronomy papers: Not many of them would bother mentioning that the earth revolves around the sun. It’s established consensus,” Mr. Cook told Yale Climate Connections in a 2017 interview.
“But amongst the papers that did mention it — there were about 4,000 papers amongst the 12,000 papers we looked at — 97.1% of them endorsed human-caused global warming in their abstract,” Mr. Cook said.
The pushback was immediate. PopularTechnology.com interviewed a half-dozen prominent scientists who said the study mischaracterized their work, while other academics, including Richard Tol of the University of Sussex and the University of Delaware’s David Legates, published challenges to the study’s methodology.
For example, “Legates’ peer-reviewed independent study reevaluating the 64 articles that Cook said explicitly endorsed AGW (that more than half of the warming was caused by humans) found that actually only 41 made such claims,” said the CEI.
The debate has left little room for middle ground. In 2017, Yale Climate Communications rated the 97% figure as “true,” while Mr. Tol said in 2014 that it was “essentially pulled from thin air.”
NASA also cited statements from 18 scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which said in 2014, “Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.”
On the other hand, CEI noted that NASA failed to take into account documents signed by researchers rejecting the climate-catastrophe scenario, such as the Oregon Petition, which has more than 31,000 signatures of self-identified scientists, including more than 9,000 with doctoral degrees.
The SkepticalScience blog, founded by Mr. Cook, slammed the CEI challenge, calling the “no consensus” argument “one of the most popular climate myths” perpetrated by “fossil fuel-funded think tanks.”
“That so-called ‘consensus gap’ between public perception and the reality of expert agreement is largely due to a sustained misinformation campaign,” said the Aug. 15 post.
At the other end of the spectrum, Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” took a jab at the consensus “myth,” saying it was “about time NASA is forced to confront its part in repeating the 97% claim.”
“NASA is likely to fight tooth and nail over this false 97% claim because NASA has a vested interest in keeping up the ‘consensus’ myth,” Mr. Morano said in an email. “Sadly, NASA has long been overrun with many scientists who are willing to bend the truth for the climate cause.”
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-15--Politicians, Activists, Others Use Pandemic To Push EU’s Green Deal

Written by Gabriela Baczynska and Kate Abnett on .
Posted in Latest news European politicians , companies , lawmakers , and activists called on Tuesday for green investment to restart growth after the coronavirus pandemic , saying fighting climate change and promoting biodiversity would rebuild stronger economies .
The European Union is headed for a steep recession triggered by the outbreak , but divided on how to finance economic recovery , with the ailing south advocating issuing joint debt against the opposition of the fiscally conservative north .
With EU leaders due to meet next week to discuss the recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision-makers , business leaders , trade unions , campaign groups , and think tanks urged the bloc to adopt green stimulus measures .
“ After the crisis , the time will come to rebuild , ” they said in a letter .
“ The transition to a climate-neutral economy , the protection of biodiversity and the transformation of agri-food systems have the potential to rapidly deliver jobs , growth … and to contribute to building more resilient societies.
” Signatories included ministers from 10 countries from Italy to Luxembourg , 79 EU lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oreal ’ s Jean-Paul Agon to IKEA ’ s Jesper Brodin and Danone ’ s Emmanuel Faber .
Calling fallout from the coronavirus pandemic a shock worse than the 2008 financial crisis , the signatories said rescue measures should advance the EU ’ s landmark Green Deal policy package , which aims to bring the 27-nation bloc to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 .
Calls for a green EU recovery have grown louder in recent days after European finance ministers on Thursday agreed on support for their coronavirus-battered economies but left open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bloc ’ s recovery .
Ten EU countries , joined by Germany , France , and Greece over the weekend , have signed a separate open letter urging the EU to ensure its rescue package supports the Green Deal .
Poland and the Czech Republic are among countries asking the EU to ease climate policies amid the pandemic .

Written by Gabriela Baczynska and Kate Abnett on Apr 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
European politicians, companies, lawmakers, and activists called on Tuesday for green investment to restart growth after the coronavirus pandemic, saying fighting climate change and promoting biodiversity would rebuild stronger economies.
The European Union is headed for a steep recession triggered by the outbreak, but divided on how to finance economic recovery, with the ailing south advocating issuing joint debt against the opposition of the fiscally conservative north.
With EU leaders due to meet next week to discuss the recovery plan, a group of 180 political decision-makers, business leaders, trade unions, campaign groups, and think tanks urged the bloc to adopt green stimulus measures.
“After the crisis, the time will come to rebuild,” they said in a letter.
“The transition to a climate-neutral economy, the protection of biodiversity and the transformation of agri-food systems have the potential to rapidly deliver jobs, growth … and to contribute to building more resilient societies.”
Signatories included ministers from 10 countries from Italy to Luxembourg, 79 EU lawmakers, and chief executives from L’Oreal’s Jean-Paul Agon to IKEA’s Jesper Brodin and Danone’s Emmanuel Faber.
Calling fallout from the coronavirus pandemic a shock worse than the 2008 financial crisis, the signatories said rescue measures should advance the EU’s landmark Green Deal policy package, which aims to bring the 27-nation bloc to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Calls for a green EU recovery have grown louder in recent days after European finance ministers on Thursday agreed on support for their coronavirus-battered economies but left open the question of how to finance the bloc’s recovery.
Ten EU countries, joined by Germany, France, and Greece over the weekend, have signed a separate open letter urging the EU to ensure its rescue package supports the Green Deal.
Poland and the Czech Republic are among countries asking the EU to ease climate policies amid the pandemic.
Read rest at Reuters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-15--Inconvenient Truth: Diesel Car Pollution Grossly Overhyped By German Activists

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Roland Tichy ’ s site here reports that although car traffic in the German city of Stuttgart has decreased significantly due to COVID-19 , the drop in NO2 content has only been “ slight ” .
So it can not be the evil diesel engine cars that are “ choking ” our cities .
“ The Corona crisis is bringing it to light : car traffic has decreased significantly , but the air quality in city centers has hardly changed , ” Tichy comments .
Recall that a major reduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air quality .
After all , experts at the Baden-Württemberg State Institute for the Environment ( LUBW ) , for example , have attributed a large 80 percent share of air pollutants especially to diesel vehicles – so they have to be banned soon .
Yet Tichy notes : “ If this is true , the ‘ shutdown ’ would have to have a drastic effect .
But it does not.
” It turns out that the involuntary “ corona experiment ” with its widespread stop of car traffic has exposed bare the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diesel cars are responsible for polluting the air of German cities .
According to Tichy , the “ Corona Experiment ” exposes just how pointless driving bans issued by the green transport ministers can be .
“ They obviously have no effect on the NO2 concentrations in the air.
” “ The measured values , for example , at the Am Neckartor station in the Stuttgart city center were already below the limit value of 40 µg/m3 in February and March , ” writes Tichy .
“ At that time , traffic was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet been announced.
” Tichy adds that engineer and measurement expert Martin Schraag accuses proponents of car bans of data “ manipulation ” and reminds that today ’ s “ newer vehicles and those retrofitted with software updates hardly emit any exhaust gases .
This should also have been reflected in the results.
” Schraag notes that NO2 values fluctuate strongly and depend heavily on Stuttgart ’ s weather conditions and wintertime heating can be the cause .
“ The weather , if you look at the data , has a decisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The experts of the LUBW environment office obviously did not care about these influences and officially know nothing about them .
They still assume that traffic accounts for 80 percent of air pollutants.
” Now they are facing difficulties in explaining the situation .
As Schraag suspects , the 80 percent figure can not be correct if there are significantly fewer cars on the road and yet the values have not changed .
The Bavarian State Office for the Environment also confirmed that the air pollutants in the city of Würzburg – the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – had hardly changed either although traffic has decreased significantly .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Apr 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Roland Tichy’s site here reports that although car traffic in the German city of Stuttgart has decreased significantly due to COVID-19, the drop in NO2 content has only been “slight”.
So it cannot be the evil diesel engine cars that are “choking” our cities.
“The Corona crisis is bringing it to light: car traffic has decreased significantly, but the air quality in city centers has hardly changed,” Tichy comments.
Environmental claim exposed as false
Recall that a major reduction of diesel engines was supposed to improve air quality.
After all, experts at the Baden-Württemberg State Institute for the Environment (LUBW), for example, have attributed a large 80 percent share of air pollutants especially to diesel vehicles – so they have to be banned soon.
Yet Tichy notes: “If this is true, the ‘shutdown’ would have to have a drastic effect. But it does not.”
It turns out that the involuntary “corona experiment” with its widespread stop of car traffic has exposed bare the false claim made by environmental activists: Diesel cars are responsible for polluting the air of German cities.
Diesel car bans “pointless”
According to Tichy, the “Corona Experiment” exposes just how pointless driving bans issued by the green transport ministers can be. “They obviously have no effect on the NO2 concentrations in the air.”
“The measured values, for example, at the Am Neckartor station in the Stuttgart city center were already below the limit value of 40 µg/m3 in February and March,” writes Tichy. “At that time, traffic was still flowing and ‘shutdown’ had not yet been announced.”
Other larger factors
Tichy adds that engineer and measurement expert Martin Schraag accuses proponents of car bans of data “manipulation” and reminds that today’s “newer vehicles and those retrofitted with software updates hardly emit any exhaust gases. This should also have been reflected in the results.”
Schraag notes that NO2 values fluctuate strongly and depend heavily on Stuttgart’s weather conditions and wintertime heating can be the cause.
“The weather, if you look at the data, has a decisive influence,” Tichy comments. “The experts of the LUBW environment office obviously did not care about these influences and officially know nothing about them. They still assume that traffic accounts for 80 percent of air pollutants.”
At a loss for words
Now they are facing difficulties in explaining the situation. As Schraag suspects, the 80 percent figure cannot be correct if there are significantly fewer cars on the road and yet the values have not changed.
The Bavarian State Office for the Environment also confirmed that the air pollutants in the city of Würzburg – the hometown of former NBA superstar Dirk Nowitzki – had hardly changed either although traffic has decreased significantly.
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--2020-04-15--Earth’s Atmosphere Far Dustier Than What’s Used By Climate Models

Written by Lisa Y. Garibay on .
Posted in Latest news Dust is a key component of Earth ’ s climate system .
When it interacts with clouds , oceans and the sun ’ s radiation , it has an overall impact on our planet ’ s living systems , affecting everything from weather and rainfall to global warming .
There are two types of dust in the atmosphere , both kicked up by high-velocity winds in dry areas .
Fine dust tends to cool because it scatters sunlight , much like clouds do .
Coarse dust , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the Sahara Desert , tends to warm the atmosphere , much like greenhouse gases .
Knowing precisely how much coarse dust is in the atmosphere is essential for understanding not only the atmospheric phenomena that dust influences but also the degree to which dust may be warming the planet .
Now , UCLA scientists report that there is four times the amount of coarse dust in Earth ’ s atmosphere than is currently simulated by climate models .
Their findings appear in the journal Science Advances .
The researchers found that Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tons of coarse dust—equivalent to 17 million elephants or the mass of every person in America put together .
“ To properly represent the impact of dust as a whole on the Earth system , climate models must include an accurate treatment of coarse dust in the atmosphere , ” said the study ’ s first author , Adeyemi Adebiyi , a postdoctoral researcher in UCLA ’ s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a recipient of the University of California President ’ s Postdoctoral Fellowship .
By plugging this amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , it increases the likelihood that the net amount of dust overall—both fine and coarse—is warming rather than cooling the Earth ’ s climate system , from air to oceans .
Coarse dust particles warm the Earth ’ s entire climate system by absorbing both incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth ’ s surface .
These particles can impact stability and circulation within our atmosphere , which may affect atmospheric phenomena like hurricanes .
Adebiyi worked with Jasper Kok , a UCLA associate professor of atmospheric and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of coarse dust in the atmosphere by analyzing dozens of published aircraft-based observations , including recent measurements taken over the Sahara Desert , and comparing those with half a dozen widely used global atmospheric model simulations .
“ When we compared our results with what is predicted by current climate models , we found a drastic difference , ” Kok said .
“ State-of-the-art climate models account for only 4 million metric tons , but our results showed more than four times that amount.
” In addition , Adebiyi and Kok found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly than current climate models predict .
Air has a tendency to mix more turbulently when dust is present .
In the case of the Sahara , air and dust mix in ways that push the dust upward , which can work against gravity and keep the dust in the air much longer , they said .
The scientists ’ findings also show that because dust particles stay in the atmosphere longer , they are ultimately deposited further from their source than has been predicted by these models or explained by current theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Sahara can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere , reaching as far as the Caribbean and the United States .
When desert dust ends up in oceans , it may stimulate the productivity of ocean ecosystems and increase the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans .
Due to the way coarse dust interacts with the sun ’ s energy and clouds , it can also have a major impact on the timing of precipitation , as well as how much , or how little , rain falls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for scientists , ” said Adebiyi , “ but when they miss most of the coarse dust in the atmosphere , it underestimates the impact that this type of dust has on critical aspects of life on Earth , from precipitation to cloud cover to ocean ecosystems to global temperature .
”

Written by Lisa Y. Garibay on Apr 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Dust is a key component of Earth’s climate system. When it interacts with clouds, oceans and the sun’s radiation, it has an overall impact on our planet’s living systems, affecting everything from weather and rainfall to global warming.
There are two types of dust in the atmosphere, both kicked up by high-velocity winds in dry areas.
Fine dust tends to cool because it scatters sunlight, much like clouds do. Coarse dust, which is larger in size and originates in places like the Sahara Desert, tends to warm the atmosphere, much like greenhouse gases.
Knowing precisely how much coarse dust is in the atmosphere is essential for understanding not only the atmospheric phenomena that dust influences but also the degree to which dust may be warming the planet.
Now, UCLA scientists report that there is four times the amount of coarse dust in Earth’s atmosphere than is currently simulated by climate models. Their findings appear in the journal Science Advances.
The researchers found that Earth’s atmosphere contains 17 million metric tons of coarse dust—equivalent to 17 million elephants or the mass of every person in America put together.
“To properly represent the impact of dust as a whole on the Earth system, climate models must include an accurate treatment of coarse dust in the atmosphere,” said the study’s first author, Adeyemi Adebiyi, a postdoctoral researcher in UCLA’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a recipient of the University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship.
By plugging this amount of missing coarse dust into models, Adebiyi said, it increases the likelihood that the net amount of dust overall—both fine and coarse—is warming rather than cooling the Earth’s climate system, from air to oceans.
Coarse dust particles warm the Earth’s entire climate system by absorbing both incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface.
These particles can impact stability and circulation within our atmosphere, which may affect atmospheric phenomena like hurricanes.
Adebiyi worked with Jasper Kok, a UCLA associate professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, to determine the actual amount of coarse dust in the atmosphere by analyzing dozens of published aircraft-based observations, including recent measurements taken over the Sahara Desert, and comparing those with half a dozen widely used global atmospheric model simulations.
“When we compared our results with what is predicted by current climate models, we found a drastic difference,” Kok said. “State-of-the-art climate models account for only 4 million metric tons, but our results showed more than four times that amount.”
In addition, Adebiyi and Kok found that coarse dust leaves the atmosphere less quickly than current climate models predict. Air has a tendency to mix more turbulently when dust is present.
In the case of the Sahara, air and dust mix in ways that push the dust upward, which can work against gravity and keep the dust in the air much longer, they said.
The scientists’ findings also show that because dust particles stay in the atmosphere longer, they are ultimately deposited further from their source than has been predicted by these models or explained by current theory.
For example, dust particles blown from the Sahara can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere, reaching as far as the Caribbean and the United States.
When desert dust ends up in oceans, it may stimulate the productivity of ocean ecosystems and increase the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans.
Due to the way coarse dust interacts with the sun’s energy and clouds, it can also have a major impact on the timing of precipitation, as well as how much, or how little, rain falls.
“Models have been an invaluable tool for scientists,” said Adebiyi, “but when they miss most of the coarse dust in the atmosphere, it underestimates the impact that this type of dust has on critical aspects of life on Earth, from precipitation to cloud cover to ocean ecosystems to global temperature.”
Read more at Phys.org
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-14--EPA’s New Emission Rules Will Save American Lives And Money

Written by Jason Isaac on .
Posted in Latest news In a time when millions have been laid off in the wake of the coronavirus and too many families are struggling to make ends meet , the Trump administration ’ s new vehicle emission standards are a step in the right direction that America needs .
The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ( SAFE ) Vehicles Rule will cut the average price of new vehicles by $ 1,000 without compromising the rigorous environmental standards that have made America a world leader in clean air .
During my nearly two decades of working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that regulations like fuel economy and emissions standards significantly increase the cost of getting goods from warehouses and factories to stores .
Those costs are ultimately passed along to all of us in the form of higher prices .
Heavy-handed emissions regulations have the same unintended consequence on passenger cars .
Increasing fuel economy may seem like a noble idea — and it ’ s an idea that many support — but it ends up tying manufacturers ’ hands and driving prices up .
Manufacturers are forced to produce cars most customers don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make their fleets meet emission standards , and charge more for the cars they make .
Car prices have been rising significantly faster than income in recent years , thanks in large part to these constantly escalating regulations .
Rather than take out hefty loans for more expensive vehicles , many people choose to keep their old cars longer .
The average American drives a car that ’ s nearly 12 years old , the highest since researchers began tracking this data in 2002 .
Though continuing to drive an old car that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and many families living paycheck-to-paycheck have no other choice — older vehicles also come with serious safety risks .
Given the new safety features and better overall design of new cars , the SAFE Rule is projected to save 3,300 lives over the next 10 years and keep 46,000 people out of the hospital following a crash—all because they were able to afford a newer car that was previously out of reach .
Even before the coronavirus struck our economy , far too many families were trapped in what public policy experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inability to comfortably afford the energy we rely on every day , including electricity and natural gas bills as well as gasoline .
Though many may assume energy poverty is rare or at least confined to those below the federal poverty limit , data on energy poverty is sobering .
Nearly a third of households have struggled to pay their electric bills .
Over 20 % chose to forego other necessities like food or medication to keep the lights on , and more than 7 million families face that devastating choice nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe when it comes to transportation .
Driving costs are among the least elastic expenses due to the need to get to and from work , and they affect low-income families the most .
That savings of $ 1,000 per car is significant for households living paycheck-to-paycheck .
Ultimately , any action to reduce the burden of energy poverty does a great service to low-income Americans and to our economy as a whole .
President Trump ’ s opponents will quickly retort that environmental protection should be the government ’ s priority and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions regulations would yield more long-term benefits .
They ’ re wrong on both counts .
Though many claim the impact of vehicle emissions on the climate will result in communities ravaged by storms , wildfires , and floods , historical weather data shows no increase in the number or severity of natural disasters .
In fact , 98.9 % fewer people die in climate-related weather events than a century ago .
Even if reducing CO2 emissions had some direct impact on human health , reducing emissions by 1.5 % instead of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have literally no measurable effect .
Even totally eliminating emissions nationwide by 2030 , as called for in the Green New Deal , would reduce global temperatures by a measly 0.139° Celsius at the end of the century — and that ’ s if historically overly sensitive climate data models turned out to be accurate .
Meanwhile , America is leading the world in clean air — a statistic that surprises many .
The nation has cut the six “ criteria pollutants ” that harm human health by 74 % since 1970 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traveled more than doubled , not to mention dramatic economic and population growth , and the trend is continuing upward .
Ultimately , the SAFE Rule doesn ’ t prohibit auto manufacturers from increasing fuel efficiency by more than 1.5 % or cutting CO2 emissions more than required — it simply affirms that the poorest among us shouldn ’ t be forced to subsidize the virtue-signaling liberal climate change agenda .
As time and innovation progress , emission-reducing technology will become more efficient and cheaper for those who choose it .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always be the safety of their constituents .
The EPA ’ s work to roll back needlessly expensive regulations puts money back into the pockets of the families who need it most .
The SAFE Rule is a good move for the American people .

Written by Jason Isaac on Apr 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In a time when millions have been laid off in the wake of the coronavirus and too many families are struggling to make ends meet, the Trump administration’s new vehicle emission standards are a step in the right direction that America needs.
The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule will cut the average price of new vehicles by $1,000 without compromising the rigorous environmental standards that have made America a world leader in clean air.
During my nearly two decades of working with the trucking industry, I learned that regulations like fuel economy and emissions standards significantly increase the cost of getting goods from warehouses and factories to stores. Those costs are ultimately passed along to all of us in the form of higher prices.
Heavy-handed emissions regulations have the same unintended consequence on passenger cars. Increasing fuel economy may seem like a noble idea — and it’s an idea that many support — but it ends up tying manufacturers’ hands and driving prices up.
Manufacturers are forced to produce cars most customers don’t want, in order to make their fleets meet emission standards, and charge more for the cars they make. Car prices have been rising significantly faster than income in recent years, thanks in large part to these constantly escalating regulations.
Rather than take out hefty loans for more expensive vehicles, many people choose to keep their old cars longer. The average American drives a car that’s nearly 12 years old, the highest since researchers began tracking this data in 2002.
Though continuing to drive an old car that still runs might be the frugal choice — and many families living paycheck-to-paycheck have no other choice — older vehicles also come with serious safety risks.
Given the new safety features and better overall design of new cars, the SAFE Rule is projected to save 3,300 lives over the next 10 years and keep 46,000 people out of the hospital following a crash—all because they were able to afford a newer car that was previously out of reach.
Even before the coronavirus struck our economy, far too many families were trapped in what public policy experts call “energy poverty,” meaning the inability to comfortably afford the energy we rely on every day, including electricity and natural gas bills as well as gasoline.
Though many may assume energy poverty is rare or at least confined to those below the federal poverty limit, data on energy poverty is sobering.
Nearly a third of households have struggled to pay their electric bills. Over 20% chose to forego other necessities like food or medication to keep the lights on, and more than 7 million families face that devastating choice nearly every month.
Energy poverty is particularly severe when it comes to transportation. Driving costs are among the least elastic expenses due to the need to get to and from work, and they affect low-income families the most.
That savings of $1,000 per car is significant for households living paycheck-to-paycheck. Ultimately, any action to reduce the burden of energy poverty does a great service to low-income Americans and to our economy as a whole.
President Trump’s opponents will quickly retort that environmental protection should be the government’s priority and the Obama administration’s slightly stricter emissions regulations would yield more long-term benefits. They’re wrong on both counts.
Though many claim the impact of vehicle emissions on the climate will result in communities ravaged by storms, wildfires, and floods, historical weather data shows no increase in the number or severity of natural disasters. In fact, 98.9% fewer people die in climate-related weather events than a century ago.
Even if reducing CO2 emissions had some direct impact on human health, reducing emissions by 1.5% instead of the Obama administration’s preferred 5% would have literally no measurable effect.
Even totally eliminating emissions nationwide by 2030, as called for in the Green New Deal, would reduce global temperatures by a measly 0.139° Celsius at the end of the century — and that’s if historically overly sensitive climate data models turned out to be accurate.
Meanwhile, America is leading the world in clean air — a statistic that surprises many. The nation has cut the six “criteria pollutants” that harm human health by 74% since 1970.
Those gains occurred while total miles traveled more than doubled, not to mention dramatic economic and population growth, and the trend is continuing upward.
Ultimately, the SAFE Rule doesn’t prohibit auto manufacturers from increasing fuel efficiency by more than 1.5% or cutting CO2 emissions more than required — it simply affirms that the poorest among us shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the virtue-signaling liberal climate change agenda.
As time and innovation progress, emission-reducing technology will become more efficient and cheaper for those who choose it. However, our elected leaders’ first priority should always be the safety of their constituents.
The EPA’s work to roll back needlessly expensive regulations puts money back into the pockets of the families who need it most. The SAFE Rule is a good move for the American people.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-14--WHO Official Peddles False Pandemic Link To Climate Change

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news World Health Organization ( WHO ) officials are diverting attention away from the real causes of global pandemics and the Chinese government ’ s culpability in the spread of the Wuhan COVID-19 coronavirus by launching propaganda falsely linking pandemics to global warming .
In the latest example , WHO researcher Arthur Wyns authored an article in Scientific American falsely claiming climate change may “ make the effects of a current or future pandemic worse.
” Overwhelming scientific evidence , however , shows a warmer climate reduces the likelihood and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ article , “ Climate Change and Infectious Diseases , ” dismisses without scientific support the likelihood that warmer temperatures inhibit the spread of coronavirus , just as scientists know warm weather inhibits the spread of influenza .
Transmissible diseases like the flu and the coronavirus are far more prevalent during the late-fall , winter , and early spring , when the weather is cold and damp , rather than in the summer months when it is warm and dry .
Everyone knows the “ flu season ” runs from fall through early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unheard of , are less common in the summer as well .
In fact , cold temperatures kill many more people globally than warm or hot temperatures .
In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004 , W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted : “ Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States , Europe , and almost all countries outside the tropics , and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.
” More recently in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 , researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries , accounting for more than 74 million deaths , and found cold weather , directly or indirectly , killed 1,700 % more people than warm or hot weather .
Wyn also tells tall tales when he writes , “ climate change is causing widespread drought and desertification in much of the world , threatening the availability of water for consumption , food production , personal hygiene , and medical care , including for infectious disease.
” Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the supposed ‘ gold standard ’ of scientific consensus , finds no such link .
As reported in Climate at a Glance : Drought , “ The U.N. IPCC reports with ‘ high confidence ’ that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) during the past 70 years , while IPCC has “ low confidence ” about any negative trends globally .
( See here , p .
191 . )
” As reported by Climate Realism , this isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploited the coronavirus to promote climate change extremism and socialism .
In an address for the radical activist group Extinction Rebellion about coronavirus and climate change , Michael Marmot , a commission chairman at the WHO , praised massive government programs that will “ socialize the economy.
” Blaming pandemics on climate change may take attention away from the Chinese government ’ s culpability in the spread of coronavirus and the WHO ’ s incompetent response to coronavirus , but it advances shameful misinformation that is costing people their lives .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Apr 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
World Health Organization (WHO) officials are diverting attention away from the real causes of global pandemics and the Chinese government’s culpability in the spread of the Wuhan COVID-19 coronavirus by launching propaganda falsely linking pandemics to global warming.
In the latest example, WHO researcher Arthur Wyns authored an article in Scientific American falsely claiming climate change may “make the effects of a current or future pandemic worse.”
Overwhelming scientific evidence, however, shows a warmer climate reduces the likelihood and severity of epidemics and pandemics.
Wyns’ article, “Climate Change and Infectious Diseases,” dismisses without scientific support the likelihood that warmer temperatures inhibit the spread of coronavirus, just as scientists know warm weather inhibits the spread of influenza.
Transmissible diseases like the flu and the coronavirus are far more prevalent during the late-fall, winter, and early spring, when the weather is cold and damp, rather than in the summer months when it is warm and dry.
Everyone knows the “flu season” runs from fall through early spring. And colds, while not unheard of, are less common in the summer as well.
In fact, cold temperatures kill many more people globally than warm or hot temperatures.
In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted: “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
More recently in a study published in the Lancet in 2015, researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths, and found cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700% more people than warm or hot weather.
Wyn also tells tall tales when he writes, “climate change is causing widespread drought and desertification in much of the world, threatening the availability of water for consumption, food production, personal hygiene, and medical care, including for infectious disease.”
Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the supposed ‘gold standard’ of scientific consensus, finds no such link.
As reported in Climate at a Glance: Drought, “The U.N. IPCC reports with ‘high confidence’ that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally. (See here, p. 191.)”
As reported by Climate Realism, this isn’t the first time that a WHO official exploited the coronavirus to promote climate change extremism and socialism.
In an address for the radical activist group Extinction Rebellion about coronavirus and climate change, Michael Marmot, a commission chairman at the WHO, praised massive government programs that will “socialize the economy.”
Blaming pandemics on climate change may take attention away from the Chinese government’s culpability in the spread of coronavirus and the WHO’s incompetent response to coronavirus, but it advances shameful misinformation that is costing people their lives.
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--2020-04-14--R.I. Climate Lawsuit Was Always About The Money

Written by Craig Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news Revealing the clandestine interactions between environmental activists and left-leaning state officials who are promoting climate change lawsuits is a challenge , but a clear , disturbing picture has emerged regarding climate litigation filed in Rhode Island .
Make no mistake ; leftist politicians in Rhode Island who are suing energy companies are only in it for the money .
As a way of background , Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin initiated a lawsuit using the legally dubious “ public nuisance ” statute against just 14 energy producers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ climate change ” and for related damages not only alleged to have occurred but for damages that may or may not be sustained at some point in the future .
Never mind that the state itself is a major direct emitter of greenhouse gases through its state buildings , fleets of vehicles , and public works projects .
Using a Narragansett sea wall as a backdrop for his photo-op announcement of the lawsuit , Kilmartin spared no rhetoric vilifying “ Big Oil ” for supposedly “ concealing the dangers ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenues in their pockets.
” But thanks to some astonishingly candid remarks made by a high-ranking state official , we now know this had little to do with sea walls , ocean levels or climate , and everything to do with revenue – lots of it – for the small state with an enormous budget deficit .
Director of Rhode Island ’ s Department of Environmental Management Janet Coit bluntly admitted that her state was “ looking for ( a ) sustainable funding stream.
” This startling confession was made at a July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , backers of the “ climate change ” shakedown effort from the beginning , according to notes from two different sources attending .
The damning notes were obtained by the watchdog group Energy Policy Advocates and submitted within a memo in March accompanying an Amicus brief filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit .
The organization supports the argument that the federal court is the proper venue for hearing the case rather than an activist state court and argues that the suit should be dismissed .
Coit conceded that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assembly of the cash-strapped state to fund global warming-related projects had failed , according to the typed and handwritten notes obtained under a state open records law .
The apparent answer was to circumvent the appropriate legislative channels and seek “ jackpot justice ” through lawsuit abuse .
In suing oil and gas companies , Rhode Island hopes to score a windfall of multiple billions of dollars – a “ sustainable funding stream ” indeed .
The trial lawyers who shopped this lawsuit to Rhode Island and a number of financially troubled states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contingency basis stand to cash in on millions , if not billions .
Ultimately , lawsuits employing the public nuisance tactic typically fall apart up in the appeals process .
And for all practical purposes , the Rhode Island lawsuit was rendered moot even before it started because of the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s 8-0 ruling in the 2011 American Electric Power v. Connecticut case .
The Court found that the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress alone retain the rightful regulatory authority on matters concerning greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Rhode Island from usurping executive and legislative prerogative in suing private corporations for purported global warming impacts .
Cookie-cutter lawsuits by New York City and San Francisco/Oakland ran into that same jurisdictional brick wall when federal judges dismissed their cash-grab attempts in 2018 .
There can be little doubt as to the outcome of Rhode Island ’ s bid to shakedown oil and gas companies .
The only question is how much the companies will have to spend defending themselves , and how much of Rhode Island citizens ’ resources will be @ @

Written by Craig Richardson on Apr 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Revealing the clandestine interactions between environmental activists and left-leaning state officials who are promoting climate change lawsuits is a challenge, but a clear, disturbing picture has emerged regarding climate litigation filed in Rhode Island.
Make no mistake; leftist politicians in Rhode Island who are suing energy companies are only in it for the money.
As a way of background, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin initiated a lawsuit using the legally dubious “public nuisance” statute against just 14 energy producers in 2018, holding them alone financially responsible for “climate change” and for related damages not only alleged to have occurred but for damages that may or may not be sustained at some point in the future.
Never mind that the state itself is a major direct emitter of greenhouse gases through its state buildings, fleets of vehicles, and public works projects.
Using a Narragansett sea wall as a backdrop for his photo-op announcement of the lawsuit, Kilmartin spared no rhetoric vilifying “Big Oil” for supposedly “concealing the dangers” of global warming to promote their “ever-increasing revenues in their pockets.”
But thanks to some astonishingly candid remarks made by a high-ranking state official, we now know this had little to do with sea walls, ocean levels or climate, and everything to do with revenue – lots of it – for the small state with an enormous budget deficit.
Director of Rhode Island’s Department of Environmental Management Janet Coit bluntly admitted that her state was “looking for (a) sustainable funding stream.”
This startling confession was made at a July conference sponsored by The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, backers of the “climate change” shakedown effort from the beginning, according to notes from two different sources attending.
The damning notes were obtained by the watchdog group Energy Policy Advocates and submitted within a memo in March accompanying an Amicus brief filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The organization supports the argument that the federal court is the proper venue for hearing the case rather than an activist state court and argues that the suit should be dismissed.
Coit conceded that efforts to get the publicly elected General Assembly of the cash-strapped state to fund global warming-related projects had failed, according to the typed and handwritten notes obtained under a state open records law.
The apparent answer was to circumvent the appropriate legislative channels and seek “jackpot justice” through lawsuit abuse.
In suing oil and gas companies, Rhode Island hopes to score a windfall of multiple billions of dollars – a “sustainable funding stream” indeed.
The trial lawyers who shopped this lawsuit to Rhode Island and a number of financially troubled states and cities across the country on a contingency basis stand to cash in on millions, if not billions.
Ultimately, lawsuits employing the public nuisance tactic typically fall apart up in the appeals process. And for all practical purposes, the Rhode Island lawsuit was rendered moot even before it started because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-0 ruling in the 2011 American Electric Power v. Connecticut case.
The Court found that the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress alone retain the rightful regulatory authority on matters concerning greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
That determination precludes entities such as Rhode Island from usurping executive and legislative prerogative in suing private corporations for purported global warming impacts.
Cookie-cutter lawsuits by New York City and San Francisco/Oakland ran into that same jurisdictional brick wall when federal judges dismissed their cash-grab attempts in 2018.
There can be little doubt as to the outcome of Rhode Island’s bid to shakedown oil and gas companies. The only question is how much the companies will have to spend defending themselves, and how much of Rhode Island citizens’ resources will be wasted.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-14--Macron’s Climate Panel Wants To Ban Cars, 5G, Big Box Stores, More

Written by Adam Sage on .
Posted in Latest news The yellow‑vest protests spurred President Macron to put 150 random members of the public in charge of his environmental policy .
What could possibly go wrong ?
President Macron ’ s attempt to appease yellow-vest protesters has saddled him with radical ecological policy proposals likely to further damage the wobbling French economy .
They stem from his decision to delegate the fight against climate change to 150 members of the public chosen at random .
That group has now come up with a plan to modify the way the French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the closure of out-of-town hypermarkets to encourage shopping locally , and shelving the 5G network because it uses 30 percent more electricity than previous iterations .
The panel also wants to prohibit the sale of cars that emit more than 110g of CO per kilometer by 2025 — far below that emitted by most existing vehicles , in effect outlawing them — and a ban on advertising hoardings to prevent consumers driving long distances to buy products they do not need .
Television , radio , internet and press advertisements for products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be banned , and those that were authorized would have to carry the wording : “ Do you really need this ?
Overconsumption harms the planet.
” Mr. Macron started his climate change consultation in an attempt to appease yellow-vest protesters , who rioted for weeks from November 2018 .
Many yellow-vests portrayed themselves as victims of representative democracy , which they said was skewed against provincial workers unable to influence policy .
Amid fears in the Élysée that the protests could develop into a fully-fledged revolution , Mr. Macron agreed to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduction of a Citizens ’ Convention for the Climate .
More than 250,000 people were contacted using a random telephone number search and asked if they wanted to join the convention .
Most refused .
But 150 agreed after being told that they would be paid €86.24 a day and have their expenses reimbursed .
When the convention first met in October , Mr. Macron asked its members to put forward proposals that would enable France to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030 compared with 1990 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be binned .
They would be implemented immediately , he said , or put before parliament in legislation , or submitted to the people in a referendum .
But with the French government forecasting that the country ’ s economy will shrink by at least 6 percent this year after the lockdown , Mr. Macron will be under intense pressure to renege on his promise .
Whichever path he chooses is likely to be rocky .
If he jettisons the convention ’ s plan he risks angering yellow-vests who are already threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends .
If he implements it he will be criticized by business leaders for adding to their burdens at the worst possible time .

Written by Adam Sage on Apr 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The yellow‑vest protests spurred President Macron to put 150 random members of the public in charge of his environmental policy. What could possibly go wrong?
President Macron’s attempt to appease yellow-vest protesters has saddled him with radical ecological policy proposals likely to further damage the wobbling French economy.
They stem from his decision to delegate the fight against climate change to 150 members of the public chosen at random.
That group has now come up with a plan to modify the way the French shop, travel and produce food, including the closure of out-of-town hypermarkets to encourage shopping locally, and shelving the 5G network because it uses 30 percent more electricity than previous iterations.
The panel also wants to prohibit the sale of cars that emit more than 110g of CO 2 per kilometer by 2025 — far below that emitted by most existing vehicles, in effect outlawing them — and a ban on advertising hoardings to prevent consumers driving long distances to buy products they do not need.
Television, radio, internet and press advertisements for products generating high levels of CO2 would also be banned, and those that were authorized would have to carry the wording: “Do you really need this? Overconsumption harms the planet.”
Mr. Macron started his climate change consultation in an attempt to appease yellow-vest protesters, who rioted for weeks from November 2018.
Many yellow-vests portrayed themselves as victims of representative democracy, which they said was skewed against provincial workers unable to influence policy.
Amid fears in the Élysée that the protests could develop into a fully-fledged revolution, Mr. Macron agreed to a dose of direct democracy, with the introduction of a Citizens’ Convention for the Climate.
More than 250,000 people were contacted using a random telephone number search and asked if they wanted to join the convention. Most refused.
But 150 agreed after being told that they would be paid €86.24 a day and have their expenses reimbursed.
When the convention first met in October, Mr. Macron asked its members to put forward proposals that would enable France to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030 compared with 1990.
He promised that none of the proposals would be binned. They would be implemented immediately, he said, or put before parliament in legislation, or submitted to the people in a referendum.
But with the French government forecasting that the country’s economy will shrink by at least 6 percent this year after the lockdown, Mr. Macron will be under intense pressure to renege on his promise.
Whichever path he chooses is likely to be rocky. If he jettisons the convention’s plan he risks angering yellow-vests who are already threatening further protests as soon as the lockdown ends.
If he implements it he will be criticized by business leaders for adding to their burdens at the worst possible time.
Read rest at The Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-14--Gov. Northam Sneaks In Bevy Of Lefty Laws On Climate, Guns, More

Written by Tyler O'Neil on .
Posted in Latest news As Virginians celebrated the Christian holidays leading up to Easter and the Jewish Passover , Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D-Va. ) signed a sweeping array of lefty legislation — 45 bills in total , with proposed amendments for even more .
From abortion to voting , from climate to LGBT issues , from guns to collective bargaining , the minimum wage , and Confederate monuments , the governor seemingly attempted to smuggle Democrats ’ radical new laws past Virginians as they celebrated the holidays and hunkered down to fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued no fewer than eight press releases announcing the governor had signed legislation that the Democrat-majority House of Delegates and Senate had signed over the past year .
He signed the Virginia Clean Economic Act , which “ incorporates environmental justice concepts related to the Green New Deal , ” the socialist takeover of the economy that would impose tremendous costs on Americans .
Among other things , the law establishes high renewable energy and energy efficiency standards for local energy companies , advances ineffective wind energy while requiring Dominion Energy Virginia to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disadvantaged communities , ” and encourages solar energy .
The governor also signed the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act , which establishes a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program and a Flood Preparedness Fund .
“ These new clean energy laws propel Virginia to leadership among the states in fighting climate change , ” Northam said .
“ They advance environmental justice and help create clean energy jobs.
” The laws also represent a massive government intrusion in the energy sector at a time when U.S. emissions are already decreasing .
The laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia legislature over a period of months , but the governor announced he had signed these 45 bills over the course of three days .
His decisions on this wide array of causes must have taken months to formulate , but the governor buried them all on a news dump during the most important weekend on the Christian calendar in the middle of a global pandemic .
It may not be entirely clear what he is hiding , but he is definitely hiding something .

Written by Tyler O'Neil on Apr 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As Virginians celebrated the Christian holidays leading up to Easter and the Jewish Passover, Gov. Ralph Northam (D-Va.) signed a sweeping array of lefty legislation — 45 bills in total, with proposed amendments for even more.
From abortion to voting, from climate to LGBT issues, from guns to collective bargaining, the minimum wage, and Confederate monuments, the governor seemingly attempted to smuggle Democrats’ radical new laws past Virginians as they celebrated the holidays and hunkered down to fight the virus.
While you were celebrating Passover, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter, @GovernorVA Ralph Northam signed radical new laws on: abortion, Confederate monuments, guns, LGBT issues, the minimum wage, voting, and more. Smuggling in radical change under the radar… pic.twitter.com/8BilU1ZeTP — Tyler O’Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 13, 2020
Northam’s office issued no fewer than eight press releases announcing the governor had signed legislation that the Democrat-majority House of Delegates and Senate had signed over the past year.
…snip…
Northam also signed climate legislation on Easter Sunday.
He signed the Virginia Clean Economic Act, which “incorporates environmental justice concepts related to the Green New Deal,” the socialist takeover of the economy that would impose tremendous costs on Americans.
Among other things, the law establishes high renewable energy and energy efficiency standards for local energy companies, advances ineffective wind energy while requiring Dominion Energy Virginia to “prioritize hiring local workers from historically disadvantaged communities,” and encourages solar energy.
The governor also signed the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act, which establishes a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program and a Flood Preparedness Fund.
“These new clean energy laws propel Virginia to leadership among the states in fighting climate change,” Northam said. “They advance environmental justice and help create clean energy jobs.”
The laws also represent a massive government intrusion in the energy sector at a time when U.S. emissions are already decreasing.
…snip…
The laws Northam signed had been passed by the Virginia legislature over a period of months, but the governor announced he had signed these 45 bills over the course of three days.
His decisions on this wide array of causes must have taken months to formulate, but the governor buried them all on a news dump during the most important weekend on the Christian calendar in the middle of a global pandemic.
It may not be entirely clear what he is hiding, but he is definitely hiding something.
Read rest at PJ Media
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-13--The Left Is An Existential Threat, Not The Climate

Written by Jeffrey Folks on .
Posted in Latest news The April 2020 issue of Fortune magazine focused on the “ existential threat ” to the Earth posed by global warming , despite the fact that no significant global warming seems to be taking place .
With its appealing cover art — an image of the Earth tied up in a plastic trash bag — this issue is just what I ’ d expect from a liberal outfit .
It ’ s typical of climate alarmists to begin by assuming their premise : warming is an existential threat because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who questions that premise is a criminal .
Just what is meant by “ existential threat ” is a bit vague .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez famously announced that the Earth would come to an end by 2030 .
No more life on the planet , no more planet .
That means that the planet somehow evaporates or shatters into a billion bits that go flying around in space .
Unless we give up everything to a totalitarian socialist government headed by Ocasio-Cortez and the like .
Is this what Fortune means by declaring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat ” ?
Fortune ’ s editor-in-chief is Clifton Leaf .
In addition to editorial positions at a number of other publications , Leaf has written for the New York Times and appeared on Charlie Rose , CNN , and NPR , among other places .
No mention of Fox News .
An untarnished résumé of life inside the liberal bubble .
It would have been more convincing if Fortune had painstakingly authenticated global warming , documenting just how much and when the Earth ’ s climate has warmed , if it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming .
It would also be more convincing if that analysis had stretched back over a reasonable period of geologic time — say 40,000 years — to demonstrate that current warming , if it exists , is not just a blip in Earth ’ s history , but a significant departure , which it is not .
It was warmer than now , for example , in the Medieval Warm Period ( 900–1300 A.D. ) .
As the illustrious historian Norman Cantor has shown , that period coincided with great advances in human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by increased wealth and population resulting from warmer temperatures .
The Medieval Warm Period is estimated to have been one degree Celsius warmer than current temperatures , yet there was no “ existential threat.
” Far from it : 900 to 1300 A.D. was the period in which Europe ’ s monumental cathedrals were built ; its population expanded rapidly ; and humans settled Iceland , Greenland , and , for a short time , North America .
Civilization flourished as a result of global warming .
( England ’ s 11th-century population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ 5 or 6 million by the end of the 13th century.
” ) If human beings prospered during the Medieval Warm Period , why not today ?
Even Fortune acknowledges that many northern regions will flourish if predictions of warming come to pass .
By 2100 , for instance , Canada ’ s GDP will increase by 246.7 % and Russia ’ s by 419.1 % , while warmer regions may suffer .
North Dakota will flourish as seniors migrate from Florida in search of cooler breezes .
How , exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s economy will expand by 419.1 % by 2100 or that India ’ s will decline by 91.8 % ?
That estimate is taken from a 2017 article ( Hsiang et al . )
in Science magazine .
I ’ m sure Hsiang et al .
worked overtime to create such a precise model of the effect of climate change on economic growth .
The problem is that none of those doomsday predictions has worked out in the past .
In the 1970s , Paul and Anne Ehrlich published The Population Bomb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the verge of mass starvation .
According to the Ehrlichs , the Earth ’ s food production could support only eight billion people , and we ’ re already at seven billion .
The Ehrlichs seemed repelled by the masses of people living in China and India and at the purported wastefulness of those in developed countries like the U.S. As another example , Alvin Toffler ’ s series of “ future shock ” books were taken seriously back in the 1970s .
Toffler , by the way , was also an associate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is telling us that the Ehrlichs “ may have underestimated ” the risk : it ’ s not mass starvation , but the planet itself we have to be worried about .
David A. Sinclair is a specialist in human longevity , and he sees catastrophe ahead if we continue to consume and waste .
The solution , as always for such prognosticators , is strict regulation .
No more fossil fuels , no more plastic , no more big homes , and big cars .
According to Sinclair , even monks in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we need to : imagine a brown woolen robe , a bowl of roots , and a bunk in an unheated hovel .
Now , that ’ s what we need to keep things going !
The reality is just the opposite .
Given the evidence that exists for the benefits of warming , what stands behind the environmental movement ’ s claims of an existential threat ?
“ Existential ” means that the Earth will no longer exist .
Yet the Earth was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even thrive .
The false claim of an existential threat is in fact motivated by political considerations .
And those huddled masses in Bombay and Beijing — they ’ re not the risk but the solution .
Every human being born on this planet is precious and is part of the solution to whatever crises we face in the future .
From those beautiful children — “ beggars , ” the Ehrlichs called them — will come the great minds that lead us toward a better future .
As liberals see it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restricted on the pretext that all activity contributes to warming .
Even my personal decision to build a home for my family would be strictly regulated , and not from Washington , but from someplace like Brussels or Geneva .
Likewise , my decision of what car to purchase , how to work , where and when to travel , and thousands of other personal matters would be decided not by me , but by the global state .
Political and economic control is the real goal of environmentalism .
The radical environmentalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the left , whose overarching goal is totalitarian collectivism .
The iconic image for leftists — what leftists really treasure in their hearts — is that of obedient masses marching off to work , row after silent row under the thumb of the State .
Those who rule never see themselves as marching off — they stand on the imperial balconies , basking in the admiration of the workers who pass by .
The achievement of that godlike sense of power underlies all leftist thought .
But capitalism brings economic prosperity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus has temporarily halted our economic progress , but the benefits of capitalism will outlast the epidemic .
Once the virus is under control , economic activity will increase , and extremely low energy prices will spur economic growth .
There is no reason why the benefits of cheap energy should not continue for decades or centuries to come .
The United States possesses huge reserves of coal , natural gas , and oil .
Coupled with nuclear energy , these fossil fuels should render our country largely free of dependence on foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environmentalists don ’ t shut them down , as Biden pledges to do .
Meanwhile , I ’ m waiting for signs of the earth ’ s demise in nine and a half years .
Fortune and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez assure me that the end is near .
Here ’ s my prediction : we ’ ll still be here in 2030 — most of us , anyway .
And the Earth will be doing just fine .
Hopefully , a bit warmer .
And if global temperatures do reach the level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a blessing , but probably not for long .
Remember the first rule of climate change : temperatures rise and fall , and change is inevitable .
In one sense , Fortune is right : we are facing an “ existential crisis , ” but it is a political crisis , not an environmental one .
The future of American democratic capitalism is threatened by the left , whose members want to transform America into a socialist state .
The Earth is not going to cease to exist in 11 years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend it .

Written by Jeffrey Folks on Apr 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The April 2020 issue of Fortune magazine focused on the “existential threat” to the Earth posed by global warming, despite the fact that no significant global warming seems to be taking place.
With its appealing cover art — an image of the Earth tied up in a plastic trash bag — this issue is just what I’d expect from a liberal outfit.
It’s typical of climate alarmists to begin by assuming their premise: warming is an existential threat because, well, it is.
And anyone who questions that premise is a criminal.
Just what is meant by “existential threat” is a bit vague. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez famously announced that the Earth would come to an end by 2030. No more life on the planet, no more planet.
That means that the planet somehow evaporates or shatters into a billion bits that go flying around in space. Unless we give up everything to a totalitarian socialist government headed by Ocasio-Cortez and the like.
Is this what Fortune means by declaring that “our warming earth is an existential threat”? Fortune’s editor-in-chief is Clifton Leaf.
In addition to editorial positions at a number of other publications, Leaf has written for the New York Times and appeared on Charlie Rose, CNN, and NPR, among other places. No mention of Fox News. An untarnished résumé of life inside the liberal bubble.
It would have been more convincing if Fortune had painstakingly authenticated global warming, documenting just how much and when the Earth’s climate has warmed, if it has, and showing the source of that warming.
It would also be more convincing if that analysis had stretched back over a reasonable period of geologic time — say 40,000 years — to demonstrate that current warming, if it exists, is not just a blip in Earth’s history, but a significant departure, which it is not.
It was warmer than now, for example, in the Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 A.D.). As the illustrious historian Norman Cantor has shown, that period coincided with great advances in human civilization in Europe — advances made possible by increased wealth and population resulting from warmer temperatures.
The Medieval Warm Period is estimated to have been one degree Celsius warmer than current temperatures, yet there was no “existential threat.”
Far from it: 900 to 1300 A.D. was the period in which Europe’s monumental cathedrals were built; its population expanded rapidly; and humans settled Iceland, Greenland, and, for a short time, North America.
Civilization flourished as a result of global warming. (England’s 11th-century population is estimated at 2 million, growing to “5 or 6 million by the end of the 13th century.”) If human beings prospered during the Medieval Warm Period, why not today?
Even Fortune acknowledges that many northern regions will flourish if predictions of warming come to pass.
By 2100, for instance, Canada’s GDP will increase by 246.7% and Russia’s by 419.1%, while warmer regions may suffer.
North Dakota will flourish as seniors migrate from Florida in search of cooler breezes.
How, exactly, do climate scientists know that Russia’s economy will expand by 419.1% by 2100 or that India’s will decline by 91.8%?
That estimate is taken from a 2017 article (Hsiang et al.) in Science magazine. I’m sure Hsiang et al. worked overtime to create such a precise model of the effect of climate change on economic growth.
The problem is that none of those doomsday predictions has worked out in the past. In the 1970s, Paul and Anne Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which claimed that humans were on the verge of mass starvation.
According to the Ehrlichs, the Earth’s food production could support only eight billion people, and we’re already at seven billion.
The Ehrlichs seemed repelled by the masses of people living in China and India and at the purported wastefulness of those in developed countries like the U.S.
As another example, Alvin Toffler’s series of “future shock” books were taken seriously back in the 1970s. Toffler, by the way, was also an associate editor of Fortune.
Now another futurist is telling us that the Ehrlichs “may have underestimated” the risk: it’s not mass starvation, but the planet itself we have to be worried about.
David A. Sinclair is a specialist in human longevity, and he sees catastrophe ahead if we continue to consume and waste.
The solution, as always for such prognosticators, is strict regulation. No more fossil fuels, no more plastic, no more big homes, and big cars.
According to Sinclair, even monks in the U.S. are living twice as wastefully as we need to: imagine a brown woolen robe, a bowl of roots, and a bunk in an unheated hovel. Now, that’s what we need to keep things going!
The reality is just the opposite. Given the evidence that exists for the benefits of warming, what stands behind the environmental movement’s claims of an existential threat?
“Existential” means that the Earth will no longer exist. Yet the Earth was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than now, and it continued to exist and even thrive. The false claim of an existential threat is in fact motivated by political considerations.
And those huddled masses in Bombay and Beijing — they’re not the risk but the solution. Every human being born on this planet is precious and is part of the solution to whatever crises we face in the future.
From those beautiful children — “beggars,” the Ehrlichs called them — will come the great minds that lead us toward a better future.
As liberals see it, all human activity can be regulated and restricted on the pretext that all activity contributes to warming.
Even my personal decision to build a home for my family would be strictly regulated, and not from Washington, but from someplace like Brussels or Geneva.
Likewise, my decision of what car to purchase, how to work, where and when to travel, and thousands of other personal matters would be decided not by me, but by the global state.
Political and economic control is the real goal of environmentalism. The radical environmentalist movement is nothing more than another front for the left, whose overarching goal is totalitarian collectivism.
The iconic image for leftists — what leftists really treasure in their hearts — is that of obedient masses marching off to work, row after silent row under the thumb of the State.
Those who rule never see themselves as marching off — they stand on the imperial balconies, basking in the admiration of the workers who pass by. The achievement of that godlike sense of power underlies all leftist thought.
But capitalism brings economic prosperity, not collectivism. The impact of the coronavirus has temporarily halted our economic progress, but the benefits of capitalism will outlast the epidemic.
Once the virus is under control, economic activity will increase, and extremely low energy prices will spur economic growth.
There is no reason why the benefits of cheap energy should not continue for decades or centuries to come. The United States possesses huge reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil.
Coupled with nuclear energy, these fossil fuels should render our country largely free of dependence on foreign energy suppliers — that is, if the environmentalists don’t shut them down, as Biden pledges to do.
Meanwhile, I’m waiting for signs of the earth’s demise in nine and a half years. Fortune and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez assure me that the end is near.
Here’s my prediction: we’ll still be here in 2030 — most of us, anyway. And the Earth will be doing just fine. Hopefully, a bit warmer.
And if global temperatures do reach the level of the Medieval Warm Period, it will be a blessing, but probably not for long. Remember the first rule of climate change: temperatures rise and fall, and change is inevitable.
In one sense, Fortune is right: we are facing an “existential crisis,” but it is a political crisis, not an environmental one. The future of American democratic capitalism is threatened by the left, whose members want to transform America into a socialist state.
The Earth is not going to cease to exist in 11 years, but our liberty could if we fail to defend it.
Read more at American Thinker
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-13--Cher Says Pandemic Gives Us Second Chance To Save Earth

Written by David Ng on .
Posted in Latest news Actress-singer Cher has found a twisted silver lining in the Chinese coronavirus after it ’ s killed more than 22,000 Americans : the pandemic could give mankind a second chance to save Mother Earth .
The Oscar-winning Hollywood star expressed her hope in a tweet on Sunday that alluded to the forced quarantines and lockdowns happening around the world .
The Earth , she wrote , “ is breathing easier because we ’ ve stopped assaulting it.
” She also warned that humans need to change the way we treat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction through natural disasters .
“ [ The planet ] has powers of regeneration , & could 4give us if we make changes , ” Cher tweeted , adding an emoji of a windmill , presumably to indicate green energy .
But if we don ’ t , Earth “ will do what ‘ we ’ do 2 an enemy , destroy it.
” Cher isn ’ t the first entertainment figure to link the Wuhan coronavirus to environmental concerns .
British actor Idris Elba suggested in a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response to damage inflicted by humanity , which he compared to an infection .
“ Our world has been taking a kicking .
We ’ ve damaged our world and , you know , it ’ s no surprise that our world is reacting to the human race , ” the Luther star said .
Last month , Pope Francis told a reporter that the pandemic is nature ’ s way of telling humans to take better care of creation .
Cher recently has used the coronavirus pandemic to call President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear that his administration is willing to sacrifice the lives of elderly people in order to re-start the economy .

Written by David Ng on Apr 13, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Actress-singer Cher has found a twisted silver lining in the Chinese coronavirus after it’s killed more than 22,000 Americans: the pandemic could give mankind a second chance to save Mother Earth.
The Oscar-winning Hollywood star expressed her hope in a tweet on Sunday that alluded to the forced quarantines and lockdowns happening around the world.
The Earth, she wrote, “is breathing easier because we’ve stopped assaulting it.”
She also warned that humans need to change the way we treat the earth or else risk our own destruction through natural disasters.
“[The planet] has powers of regeneration, & could 4give us if we make changes,” Cher tweeted, adding an emoji of a windmill, presumably to indicate green energy. But if we don’t, Earth “will do what ‘we’ do 2 an enemy, destroy it.”
Cher isn’t the first entertainment figure to link the Wuhan coronavirus to environmental concerns.
The🌍Is Breathing Easier Because We’ve Stopped Assaulting It.Look at Statistics. 🌎Has Powers Of Regeneration, & Could 4give Us If We MAKE CHANGES🕊.IF WE CONTINUE 2 DO NOTHING,THE 🌏WILL DO WHAT ”WE” DO 2 AN ENEMY,🔥DESTROY IT🌪🌊.
Pandemic Could Be a 2nd Chance 2 Save Our 🌎 — Cher (@cher) April 12, 2020
British actor Idris Elba suggested in a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey that the global pandemic is Earth’s response to damage inflicted by humanity, which he compared to an infection.
“Our world has been taking a kicking. We’ve damaged our world and, you know, it’s no surprise that our world is reacting to the human race,” the Luther star said.
Last month, Pope Francis told a reporter that the pandemic is nature’s way of telling humans to take better care of creation.
Cher recently has used the coronavirus pandemic to call President Trump a “murderer” and to sew fear that his administration is willing to sacrifice the lives of elderly people in order to re-start the economy.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print