climatechangedispatch--2020-06-01--Paris Climate Accord: A Suicide Pact Among Western Democracies

Written by Craig Kelly on .
Posted in Latest news It is now four and a half years since the euphoria of the Paris Climate Accord .
At the time , United States President Obama hailed it as “ a turning point for the world.
” The then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon labeled it “ a monumental success for the planet and its people.
” And such was the exhilaration and excitement amongst the fourth estate after the Conference , my jesting comments ( in an attempt to highlight the absurdity of the whole thing ) were taken and reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the time and as the euphoria has died down , the world has had a chance to consider the devil in the detail .
For under the Paris Climate Accord , Western nations have agreed to punish their economies , limit their growth , and incur tens of billions in unnecessary costs – all in the belief that this will somehow reduce the incidents of bad weather .
While in contrast under Paris , the Chinese Communist Party has agreed to : “ Achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ….. to create a prosperous , strong , democratic , culturally developed and harmonious modern socialist country by the middle of this century.
” In other words , under the Paris Climate Accord , while the Western democracies have signed up to an immediate economic self-flagellation , China is free to expand its industrial output ; to produce as much steel , aluminum & concrete , and to build as many new coal-fired power stations as the mandarins of the Chinese Communist Party see fit up – all the way up until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have not committed to reducing the emissions of even a single molecule of CO2 .
The terms of the Climate Accord also provide an incentive for a transfer of industrial production ( and wealth ) from the Western democracies to China .
Yet simply transferring industrial production from one nation to another , doesn ’ t result in any net reduction in C02 emissions .
In fact , it is more likely to increase CO2 emissions when production is moved to China as their electrical grid has a higher carbon dioxide intensity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Paris Climate Accord , Western democracies have little choice than to force-feed solar/wind power into their electricity grids , making their grids less efficient and more costly .
Therefore , as the world ’ s largest exporter of solar panels and wind turbines , China wins again and becomes even wealthier from selling these to western democracies .
For example , in 2018/19 Australia paid China $ 1,674,982,331.00 ( FOB value ) to buy solar panels ( 87 % of our nation ’ s imports ) .
Meanwhile , we made our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( in 2019 alone ) in hidden green taxes to electricity bills to pay for subsidies to encourage people to put solar panels on their roof .
Further still , as a result of the Paris Climate Accord , banks in the Western Democracies are turning their backs on loaning money to developing nations for coal-fired power stations , leaving China ’ s ‘ debt trap ’ Belt & Road fund as the lender of last resort .
This has enabled China to greatly increase its influence throughout Asia , Africa , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over US $ 20 billion in loans for new coal-fired power stations .
China has committed to more than $ 20 billion in funding for coal plants Simply , the terms of the Paris Climate Accord result in China increasing its strength ; economically , politically , and militarily vis-à-vis the Western democracies .
Since the Paris agreement , the world has witnessed China engaging in an unprecedented military build-up , increasing their official military spending by 25 % from US $ 142.4 billion in 2015 to $ 178.6 billion in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its military is widely debated .
The International Institute for Strategic Studies ( IISS ) put China ’ s 2018 military expenditure at $ 225 billion , making it the second-largest spender in the world , behind the United States .
And while the conventional wisdom has been that China ’ s military spending still lags significantly behind that of the USA , Frederico Bartels , a policy analyst for defense budgeting at the Davis Institute for National Security & Foreign Policy notes in Defence One , Bartels argues that accounting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and labor costs , you find that Beijing ’ s Military budget is already about 87 % of America ’ s .
And if there was any doubt , last year ’ s military parade in Beijing left little question that the Chinese People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) now ranks among the world ’ s leading militaries .
At this military parade , China showed off to the world its advanced supersonic drones , hypersonic glide vehicles , supersonic anti-ship missiles , ballistic missile systems , stealth fighters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These included new military hardware such as the DF-41 , an Intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) with a range of up to 15,000 km and capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads that can each further maneuver independently – giving one missile the ability to nuke 10 targets simultaneously .
( And some are worried that the greatest danger we face is that an average global temperature of 14C ( 57.2F ) is too hot . )
Also , China ’ s navy has expanded to become the world ’ s largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the year after the Paris Climate Accord , China commissioned 18 ships , while the US Navy commissioned only five .
China ’ s naval modernization priorities include commissioning more nuclear submarines and a third aircraft carrier which is expected to be operational by 2022 .
And then there is China ’ s space program .
China is targeting a launch for its Mars mission later this year , which will include landing a remote-controlled robot on the surface of the red planet .
In addition , China is planning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as having a fully operational space station by 2022 .
During the heady days and the euphoria of the Paris Climate Conference , many may have turned a blind eye to China ’ s military build-up and their territorial ambitions in the South China Sea — all in a desire to achieve a ‘ photo opportunity ’ of a consensus agreement .
While fools like the champagne-socialist Christina Figueres looked upon China ’ s authoritarian model of governance with envy , delegates at the Paris Conference were so drunk with the delusional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ saving the world ” , they failed to question the naively optimistic view that in increasingly globalized world , China ’ s continuing rapid economic growth would lead to China integrating peacefully into a rules-based international order .
And they gave little or no thought , that terms of the Paris Climate Accord ( that they gleefully celebrated ) would increase China ’ s strength ; economically , politically and militarily vis-à-vis the Western democracies – and how dangerous this potentially was .
But that was before the Wuhan Flu .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authoritarian rule under which China operates –- and the danger this poses .
• International health regulations require countries to report the risk of a health emergency within 24 hours .
Yet China failed to inform the World Health Organization of Wuhan ’ s several cases of pneumonia , of unknown origin , until December 31 , 2019 , even though it likely knew of these cases days or weeks earlier .
• While boasting about “ transparency ” , China silenced and punished several doctors for speaking out about the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it .
• In January , in direct conflict with censored reports from Wuhan , China claimed that the coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans .
The World Health Organisation parroted China ’ s claim stating : “ Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus ( 2019-nCov ) identified in Wuhan , China.
” • At the very same time they were telling the world there was nothing to worry about , staff from Chinese government-backed companies working Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on hold and go and buy up in bulk ; surgical masks , thermometers , antibacterial wipes , hand sanitizers , gloves and Panadol for airfreight back to China .
• While China implemented strict internal domestic travel restrictions , they vigorously objected to the international travel bans from China implemented by Australia and the USA .
And as of February 3 , 2020 , China was still strongly pressuring countries to lift or forestall travel restrictions to and from China .
And yet , we have a Paris Climate Accord that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem to enable China to greatly strengthen itself vis-à-vis the Western democracies ; economically , politically and militarily over the next decade , on the wing and a prayer hope that post-2030 that China might then voluntarily agree to surrender the advantages its has obtained and start reducing its CO2 , to stop bad weather .
Number nine in Craig Kelly ’ s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists ’ coffin .

Written by Craig Kelly on Jun 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It is now four and a half years since the euphoria of the Paris Climate Accord. At the time, United States President Obama hailed it as “a turning point for the world.”
The then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon labeled it “a monumental success for the planet and its people.”
And such was the exhilaration and excitement amongst the fourth estate after the Conference, my jesting comments (in an attempt to highlight the absurdity of the whole thing) were taken and reported seriously:
“At home in Australia, there were more Kumbaya statements from local politicians. Leading the charge, Liberal MP Craig Kelly, seemingly overwhelmed with joy exclaimed ‘Hallelujah. The world is saved … The polar bears can sleep soundly tonight’.”
However, with the passage of the time and as the euphoria has died down, the world has had a chance to consider the devil in the detail.
For under the Paris Climate Accord, Western nations have agreed to punish their economies, limit their growth, and incur tens of billions in unnecessary costs – all in the belief that this will somehow reduce the incidents of bad weather.
While in contrast under Paris, the Chinese Communist Party has agreed to: “Achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early ….. to create a prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally developed and harmonious modern socialist country by the middle of this century.”
In other words, under the Paris Climate Accord, while the Western democracies have signed up to an immediate economic self-flagellation, China is free to expand its industrial output; to produce as much steel, aluminum & concrete, and to build as many new coal-fired power stations as the mandarins of the Chinese Communist Party see fit up – all the way up until the year 2030.
And post- 2030, they have not committed to reducing the emissions of even a single molecule of CO2.
The terms of the Climate Accord also provide an incentive for a transfer of industrial production (and wealth) from the Western democracies to China.
Yet simply transferring industrial production from one nation to another, doesn’t result in any net reduction in C02 emissions.
In fact, it is more likely to increase CO2 emissions when production is moved to China as their electrical grid has a higher carbon dioxide intensity.
Further, as a result of the Paris Climate Accord, Western democracies have little choice than to force-feed solar/wind power into their electricity grids, making their grids less efficient and more costly.
Therefore, as the world’s largest exporter of solar panels and wind turbines, China wins again and becomes even wealthier from selling these to western democracies.
For example, in 2018/19 Australia paid China $1,674,982,331.00 (FOB value) to buy solar panels (87% of our nation’s imports).
Meanwhile, we made our electricity more expensive by adding $1,740,000,000.00 (in 2019 alone) in hidden green taxes to electricity bills to pay for subsidies to encourage people to put solar panels on their roof.
Further still, as a result of the Paris Climate Accord, banks in the Western Democracies are turning their backs on loaning money to developing nations for coal-fired power stations, leaving China’s ‘debt trap’ Belt & Road fund as the lender of last resort.
This has enabled China to greatly increase its influence throughout Asia, Africa, and the Balkans where China has already committed over US$20 billion in loans for new coal-fired power stations.
China has committed to more than $20 billion in funding for coal plants
Simply, the terms of the Paris Climate Accord result in China increasing its strength; economically, politically, and militarily vis-à-vis the Western democracies.
Since the Paris agreement, the world has witnessed China engaging in an unprecedented military build-up, increasing their official military spending by 25% from US$142.4 billion in 2015 to $178.6 billion in 2020.
However, how much China actually spends on its military is widely debated. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) put China’s 2018 military expenditure at $225 billion, making it the second-largest spender in the world, behind the United States.
And while the conventional wisdom has been that China’s military spending still lags significantly behind that of the USA, Frederico Bartels, a policy analyst for defense budgeting at the Davis Institute for National Security & Foreign Policy notes in Defence One,
”It’s misleading to make comparisons of military spending based on simply converting Beijing’s reported defense budget from yuan to dollars by applying a market exchange rate”.
Bartels argues that accounting for differences in reporting structures, purchasing power, and labor costs, you find that Beijing’s Military budget is already about 87% of America’s.
And if there was any doubt, last year’s military parade in Beijing left little question that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) now ranks among the world’s leading militaries.
At this military parade, China showed off to the world its advanced supersonic drones, hypersonic glide vehicles, supersonic anti-ship missiles, ballistic missile systems, stealth fighters, numerous tanks, and armored fighting vehicles.
These included new military hardware such as the DF-41, an Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of up to 15,000 km and capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads that can each further maneuver independently – giving one missile the ability to nuke 10 targets simultaneously. (And some are worried that the greatest danger we face is that an average global temperature of 14C (57.2F) is too hot.)
Also, China’s navy has expanded to become the world’s largest naval force in terms of ship numbers. In the year after the Paris Climate Accord, China commissioned 18 ships, while the US Navy commissioned only five.
China’s naval modernization priorities include commissioning more nuclear submarines and a third aircraft carrier which is expected to be operational by 2022.
And then there is China’s space program. China is targeting a launch for its Mars mission later this year, which will include landing a remote-controlled robot on the surface of the red planet.
In addition, China is planning to put Chinese astronauts on the moon as well as having a fully operational space station by 2022.
During the heady days and the euphoria of the Paris Climate Conference, many may have turned a blind eye to China’s military build-up and their territorial ambitions in the South China Sea — all in a desire to achieve a ‘photo opportunity’ of a consensus agreement.
While fools like the champagne-socialist Christina Figueres looked upon China’s authoritarian model of governance with envy, delegates at the Paris Conference were so drunk with the delusional belief and near-religious zealotry that they were “saving the world”, they failed to question the naively optimistic view that in increasingly globalized world, China’s continuing rapid economic growth would lead to China integrating peacefully into a rules-based international order.
And they gave little or no thought, that terms of the Paris Climate Accord (that they gleefully celebrated) would increase China’s strength; economically, politically and militarily vis-à-vis the Western democracies – and how dangerous this potentially was.
But that was before the Wuhan Flu.
The Wuhan Flu has reminded the world of the authoritarian rule under which China operates –- and the danger this poses.
Just a few examples:
International health regulations require countries to report the risk of a health emergency within 24 hours. Yet China failed to inform the World Health Organization of Wuhan’s several cases of pneumonia, of unknown origin, until December 31, 2019, even though it likely knew of these cases days or weeks earlier.
While boasting about “transparency”, China silenced and punished several doctors for speaking out about the virus and restricted Chinese institutions from publishing information about it.
In January, in direct conflict with censored reports from Wuhan, China claimed that the coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans. The World Health Organisation parroted China’s claim stating: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) identified in Wuhan, China.”
At the very same time they were telling the world there was nothing to worry about, staff from Chinese government-backed companies working Australia were instructed to put their normal work on hold and go and buy up in bulk; surgical masks, thermometers, antibacterial wipes, hand sanitizers, gloves and Panadol for airfreight back to China.
While China implemented strict internal domestic travel restrictions, they vigorously objected to the international travel bans from China implemented by Australia and the USA. And as of February 3, 2020, China was still strongly pressuring countries to lift or forestall travel restrictions to and from China.
And yet, we have a Paris Climate Accord that is based upon the premise that is not a problem to enable China to greatly strengthen itself vis-à-vis the Western democracies; economically, politically and militarily over the next decade, on the wing and a prayer hope that post-2030 that China might then voluntarily agree to surrender the advantages its has obtained and start reducing its CO2, to stop bad weather.
Are we barking mad?
Number nine in Craig Kelly’s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists’ coffin.
Read rest at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-01--‘Build Back Better’: U.N. Code For Green Global Tyranny

Written by James Delingpole on .
Posted in Latest news Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised that , once the coronavirus crisis is over , he intends to “ build back better ” for future generations .
It ’ s a catchy , fine-sounding , optimistic phrase but it ’ s not one he invented himself .
And its meaning , unfortunately , is a far cry from what you might hope to hear from a Conservative prime minister rebuilding a wrecked economy .
Many of the people who voted for Boris in the belief that he was a conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” meant things like aesthetic beauty , durability , cost-effectiveness , less clumsy statism , and more private entrepreneurialism , lower taxes , and more liberty .
Unfortunately , the phrase means pretty much the exact opposite .
“ Build back better ” is actually a United Nations invented phrase and what it actually means is more world government , more green taxes and regulation , more expensive energy , more identity politics , more corporatism — and , of course , less freedom and entrepreneurialism .
Thanks , Boris .
Just what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this mess which you helped create by keeping us locked down so unnecessarily long .
Dennis Ambler has been keeping tabs on how often this mantra is being used .
It ’ s everywhere and it ’ s frightening .
Here are some recent examples : We Mean Business Coalition .
Global companies join the bandwagon .
Local government authorities join in .
Press release from Invest in Manchester .
Governments and others will spend trillions of dollars responding to the effects of the coronavirus .
Rebuilding the old-fashioned way — by investing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and exacerbates inequality — is a dangerous proposition .
Future prosperity demands that countries build back better .
To build back better , countries must harness low-carbon investment opportunities to reboot economies while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution that jeopardize lives .
The phrase has been knocking around for a while .
Here is the UN using it in 2017 in the context of disaster recovery : Apparently it now also embraces identity politics – and a feminist green new deal .
Here ’ s the BBC , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as far as the eye can see , with a link that says , somewhat ironically , “ Our Planet Matters ” .
If you thought the nightmare was going to end once the coronavirus scare passed , think again : it ’ s only just beginning .

Written by James Delingpole on Jun 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised that, once the coronavirus crisis is over, he intends to “build back better” for future generations.
It’s a catchy, fine-sounding, optimistic phrase but it’s not one he invented himself. And its meaning, unfortunately, is a far cry from what you might hope to hear from a Conservative prime minister rebuilding a wrecked economy.
Many of the people who voted for Boris in the belief that he was a conservative might hope that “build back better” meant things like aesthetic beauty, durability, cost-effectiveness, less clumsy statism, and more private entrepreneurialism, lower taxes, and more liberty.
“We owe it to future generations to build back better” PM @BorisJohnson on the importance of a green and resilient recovery at the @UN Financing for Development event today. “The UK will take this forward by hosting the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow” 👇 👇 👇#COP26 pic.twitter.com/hnKV3Fz5Z0 — COP26 (@COP26) May 28, 2020
Unfortunately, the phrase means pretty much the exact opposite.
“Build back better” is actually a United Nations invented phrase and what it actually means is more world government, more green taxes and regulation, more expensive energy, more identity politics, more corporatism — and, of course, less freedom and entrepreneurialism.
Thanks, Boris. Just what we need to get us out of this mess which you helped create by keeping us locked down so unnecessarily long.
Dennis Ambler has been keeping tabs on how often this mantra is being used. It’s everywhere and it’s frightening.
Here are some recent examples:
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Building Back Better: why we must think of the next generation.
UNEP financial arm:
…how the banking sector can ensure financial inclusion is not forgotten as economies recover from the crisis and build back better.
We Mean Business Coalition. Global companies join the bandwagon.
They list ‘The businesses urging governments to build back better from COVID-19′
Local government authorities join in. Press release from Invest in Manchester.
This week, in partnership with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, The Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership has launched the ‘Build Back Better’ campaign – an initiative which sets out to build back the economy and create a better opportunity for a strong and successful recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. World Resources Institute:
Governments and others will spend trillions of dollars responding to the effects of the coronavirus. Rebuilding the old-fashioned way — by investing in fossil fuel-driven growth that threatens human health and exacerbates inequality — is a dangerous proposition. Future prosperity demands that countries build back better. To build back better, countries must harness low-carbon investment opportunities to reboot economies while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution that jeopardize lives.
Australia:
“How Australia can ‘build back better’ after coronavirus”
Friends of the Earth, Europe
“EU Council: Governments must act together to ‘build back better’”
Africa
Africa can build back better after Covid-19. Our guiding frameworks for a better, more sustainable recovery are the Sustainable Development Agenda and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
The phrase has been knocking around for a while. Here is the UN using it in 2017 in the context of disaster recovery:
Disaster impacted countries and communities are oftentimes much better equipped to Build Back Better during the extended period of recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction when they have taken actions to strengthen recovery capacity and decision-making effectiveness prior to the onset of disaster.
Apparently it now also embraces identity politics – and a feminist green new deal.
“Building back better requires building back differently. We need a ‘rainbow recovery’.”
Here’s the BBC, in a report accompanied by solar panels stretching as far as the eye can see, with a link that says, somewhat ironically, “Our Planet Matters”.
“The Covid-19 lockdown has cut climate change emissions – for now. But some governments want to go further by harnessing their economic recovery plans to boost low-carbon industries. Their slogan is “Build Back Better”, but can they succeed?”
If you thought the nightmare was going to end once the coronavirus scare passed, think again: it’s only just beginning.
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-02--New Climate Videos Featuring Naomi Seibt Now Available

Written by Paul Homewood on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Naomi Seibt and Lord Monckton are collaborating on @ @ @ @ @ videos .
The first two are now available and cover the so-called claims of a @ @ @ @ @ first acts as a general introduction , but Part 2 gets into the nitty-gritty .
@ @ @ @ @ on Facebook etc .
The detailed background to Cook ’ s 97 % was analyzed @ @ @ @ @ 2015 , here : https : //notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/

Written by Paul Homewood on Jun 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Naomi Seibt and Lord Monckton are collaborating on a new series of climate videos. The first two are now available and cover the so-called claims of a 97% consensus.
The first acts as a general introduction, but Part 2 gets into the nitty-gritty.
They are certainly worth sharing on Facebook etc.
The detailed background to Cook’s 97% was analyzed in my post in October 2015, here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/
H/t Paul Homewood
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-02--Reopening Has Risks. So Did The Industrial Revolution

Written by Ross McKitrick on .
Posted in Latest news Some commentators , searching for a parallel between COVID-19 and climate change , argue that the pandemic and lockdown show what we ’ re capable of if only we apply the same determination to the climate .
This ruinous lockdown has thus provided a glimpse of what climate campaigners want our future to look like — permanently .
They point to outlier climate model projections and overheated doomsday warnings as justification .
But in reality , since the Second World War , we have never subjected ourselves to a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was never credibly warranted , certainly not in response to mainstream assessments of climate change .
In the case of COVID-19 , however , the mainstream warnings were credible .
The crisis was real .
COVID is thus a contrast with climate , not a parallel .
The real parallel is in reopening the economy — which means facing and managing downside risks while pursuing growth and prosperity .
For 200 years that has been the modern world ’ s formula for progress .
There ’ s still no vaccine and no treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be building economic activity in an environment with large known benefits but also large potential costs that must be carefully monitored and mitigated .
Sound familiar ?
It is , in miniature , the modern history of the world , in particular the story of fossil fuels .
In the early 1800s , the technology became available to harness energy from the combustion of petroleum products and coal to provide abundant , inexpensive forms of heat , light , and mechanical power .
[ … ] When most economies around the world made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew about the potential benefits and costs .
They knew because they could observe from their own experience ( and the experience of others ) the local air pollution effects .
Moreover , the potential climatic warming effect of carbon dioxide was also understood by the late-1800s , though the knowledge was not widely disseminated until more recently .
Our forebears also knew that safe , inexpensive , and reliable energy was extremely valuable — indeed , pivotal — in making sustained economic progress .
Thus , facing an opportunity to embark on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential benefits and considerable downside risks that would need to be carefully monitored and mitigated , every country around the world chose to “ open.
” They chose to harness the energy , manage and mitigate the downside risks , and enjoy what turned out to be net economic and social benefits beyond the wildest expectations of anyone who had lived in previous generations .
Along the way , many of the downside risks were mitigated to the point that they are hardly noticeable anymore .
In wealthy countries such as Canada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our vehicle fleets and industries are very clean in their operations , and the days of Victorian-style soot , smog , and horse droppings are long gone .
Meanwhile , global atmospheric CO2 levels have accumulated at the bottom end of the ranges projected ever since the 1970s , and although the climatic changes of the past century can in part be attributed to greenhouse gases , they haven ’ t prevented tremendous increases in human well-being .
And we have used some of our gains in wealth to engineer dramatic declines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather disasters .
Now , on a much more compressed timetable , we ’ re witnessing the same dynamic — the same weighing of pluses and minuses and monitoring of risks while pursuing economic gains — and again in the end we are recognizing that we ’ re better off going for growth .
It will be better to mitigate the negative consequences of COVID in an economy that ’ s reliably generating prosperity and well-being than to achieve somewhat reduced infection rates at a cost of widespread long-lasting poverty and destitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was right to embrace fossil fuels .
If we could go back in time to the beginning of that process and teach our predecessors everything we have since learned , including about pollution and the small climatic changes of the 20th century , it almost certainly would only reinforce their original decision .
The gains have far outweighed the costs — which is not to say there have been no costs , although that would be a smaller error than the current fashion of saying there have been no benefits .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cost-free world that somehow also provides jobs and prosperity .
This was true during the world ’ s original embrace of fossil fuels and it remains true today as we begin the post-COVID reopening .
That ’ s the real parallel between climate change and this pandemic .

Written by Ross McKitrick on Jun 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Some commentators, searching for a parallel between COVID-19 and climate change, argue that the pandemic and lockdown show what we’re capable of if only we apply the same determination to the climate.
This ruinous lockdown has thus provided a glimpse of what climate campaigners want our future to look like — permanently.
They point to outlier climate model projections and overheated doomsday warnings as justification.
But in reality, since the Second World War, we have never subjected ourselves to a global shutdown like the current one because it was never credibly warranted, certainly not in response to mainstream assessments of climate change.
In the case of COVID-19, however, the mainstream warnings were credible. The crisis was real. COVID is thus a contrast with climate, not a parallel.
The real parallel is in reopening the economy — which means facing and managing downside risks while pursuing growth and prosperity. For 200 years that has been the modern world’s formula for progress.
There’s still no vaccine and no treatment for COVID-19. This means we will be building economic activity in an environment with large known benefits but also large potential costs that must be carefully monitored and mitigated.
Sound familiar? It is, in miniature, the modern history of the world, in particular the story of fossil fuels.
In the early 1800s, the technology became available to harness energy from the combustion of petroleum products and coal to provide abundant, inexpensive forms of heat, light, and mechanical power. […]
When most economies around the world made the decision to harness fossil fuels they knew about the potential benefits and costs.
They knew because they could observe from their own experience (and the experience of others) the local air pollution effects.
Moreover, the potential climatic warming effect of carbon dioxide was also understood by the late-1800s, though the knowledge was not widely disseminated until more recently.
Our forebears also knew that safe, inexpensive, and reliable energy was extremely valuable — indeed, pivotal — in making sustained economic progress.
Thus, facing an opportunity to embark on a path of growth with both enormous potential benefits and considerable downside risks that would need to be carefully monitored and mitigated, every country around the world chose to “open.”
They chose to harness the energy, manage and mitigate the downside risks, and enjoy what turned out to be net economic and social benefits beyond the wildest expectations of anyone who had lived in previous generations.
Along the way, many of the downside risks were mitigated to the point that they are hardly noticeable anymore.
In wealthy countries such as Canada, our air pollution levels are very low, our vehicle fleets and industries are very clean in their operations, and the days of Victorian-style soot, smog, and horse droppings are long gone.
Meanwhile, global atmospheric CO2 levels have accumulated at the bottom end of the ranges projected ever since the 1970s, and although the climatic changes of the past century can in part be attributed to greenhouse gases, they haven’t prevented tremendous increases in human well-being.
And we have used some of our gains in wealth to engineer dramatic declines in our vulnerability to climatic changes and weather disasters.
Now, on a much more compressed timetable, we’re witnessing the same dynamic — the same weighing of pluses and minuses and monitoring of risks while pursuing economic gains — and again in the end we are recognizing that we’re better off going for growth.
It will be better to mitigate the negative consequences of COVID in an economy that’s reliably generating prosperity and well-being than to achieve somewhat reduced infection rates at a cost of widespread long-lasting poverty and destitution.
In the same way, the world was right to embrace fossil fuels.
If we could go back in time to the beginning of that process and teach our predecessors everything we have since learned, including about pollution and the small climatic changes of the 20th century, it almost certainly would only reinforce their original decision.
The gains have far outweighed the costs — which is not to say there have been no costs, although that would be a smaller error than the current fashion of saying there have been no benefits.
It is clearly futile to search for a risk-free, cost-free world that somehow also provides jobs and prosperity.
This was true during the world’s original embrace of fossil fuels and it remains true today as we begin the post-COVID reopening. That’s the real parallel between climate change and this pandemic.
Read rest at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-02--BlackRock’s Green Virtue-Signaling Putting Pensions At Risk

Written by Rupert Darwall on .
Posted in Latest news “ I don ’ t give a damn what these powerful corporations tell us and I don ’ t care about their profit margin .
We need to get out of these fossil fuels before it ’ s too late for everybody.
” These are not the words of a Sunrise Movement activist , though they could easily be mistaken for one , but New York City comptroller Scott Stringer ( pictured ) , speaking at an online People ’ s Assembly on BlackRock last week .
The gathering of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategies for pushing BlackRock , the world ’ s largest asset manager , to make good on its promises to “ place sustainability at the center ” of its investment strategy .
As environmental activists see it , the firm has a long way to go .
Stringer , an anti-fracking campaigner and protégé of Congressman Jerry Nadler , became comptroller in January 2014 when Bill de Blasio took over as mayor .
He wanted to remake his office into “ a think-tank for innovation and ideas , ” Stringer declared on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risky outlook for one assuming a position defined by law as the custodian of the city ’ s five pension funds , which totaled , in February 2020 , $ 221.2 billion in assets .
Early on , Stringer proclaimed devotion to environmental , social , and corporate governance ( ESG ) factors in investing , and finding investment managers dedicated to these principles .
He launched a campaign on proxy access to enable shareholders to nominate directors—ticking the “ G ” for governance .
He then moved on to the “ S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing to 151 companies asking that they disclose , among other things , the sexual orientation of their directors .
“ E ” for environment is the big one .
When de Blasio announced in January 2018 that city pension funds would divest $ 5 billion worth of equity in fossil-fuel companies , Stringer justified the move by claiming retirees ’ financial future was “ linked to the sustainability of the planet.
” The comptroller allocated 12 percent of the fund assets of the New York City Employees ’ Retirement System—the largest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Developed Environmental Activist asset class , according to an American Council for Capital Formation report by Timothy Doyle .
The move dragged down the fund ’ s already-poor investment returns .
According to Doyle , in 2017 , Stringer submitted 92 shareholder proposals , putting NYCERS in the top 10 filers .
Sadly for its beneficiaries and New York City taxpayers , Stringer ’ s performance as a top filer appears inversely correlated with his investment performance .
The funds have consistently lagged the market and the NYCERS ’ own benchmarks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund ’ s pension liabilities at $ 142 billion , with an average funded ratio of 47 percent , meaning that the funds had less than half the money needed to pay promised benefits .
Doyle uncovered a similar story at CalPERS , the California public-employees retirement system and the largest state pension plan in the U.S. “ Sustainability continues to be at the heart of what we do , ” a 2014 report declared .
“ The first task in implementing this approach was to develop principles for sustainable investment across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these principles—that investment decisions “ may reflect wider stakeholder views , provided they are consistent with its fiduciary duty to members and beneficiaries ” —more in the breach than in the observance .
Doyle reviewed CalPERS ’ s private-equity investments and found that of its nine worst-performing funds , four were focused primarily on renewable/clean energy , while none of the top 25 performers were ESG-focused .
During its period of intensified ESG activism , CalPERS managers converted a $ 3 billion surplus into a near $ 140 billion deficit .
Though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ champion political causes , Doyle notes that when it came to their own money , none of the board members or the senior investment officer allocated any personal capital to environment-focused funds or equities .
Beneficiaries ’ investment preferences are no different .
A 2018 survey of pension-fund members by the Spectrem Group found that nearly 80 percent of pension-fund members nationwide believe that fund managers ’ primary goal should be investment returns .
Among those aged 51 and older , the number increased to 91 percent , even if the pension member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of those surveyed wanted their pension to prioritize “ worthy political and/or social causes , ” even if those generate lower returns .
Two kinds of people will be involved in the pretense that ESG constraints don ’ t affect investment returns : those who realize it but obfuscate for “ the greater good ” ; and true believers , for whom reasoned argument on the matter is akin to betrayal .
When investing their beneficiaries ’ money , CalPERS board members acted out the pretense ; when their own , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Written by Rupert Darwall on Jun 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
“I don’t give a damn what these powerful corporations tell us and I don’t care about their profit margin. We need to get out of these fossil fuels before it’s too late for everybody.”
These are not the words of a Sunrise Movement activist, though they could easily be mistaken for one, but New York City comptroller Scott Stringer (pictured), speaking at an online People’s Assembly on BlackRock last week.
The gathering of activists and advocates was intended to discuss strategies for pushing BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, to make good on its promises to “place sustainability at the center” of its investment strategy.
As environmental activists see it, the firm has a long way to go.
Stringer, an anti-fracking campaigner and protégé of Congressman Jerry Nadler, became comptroller in January 2014 when Bill de Blasio took over as mayor.
He wanted to remake his office into “a think-tank for innovation and ideas,” Stringer declared on his first day.
That’s a risky outlook for one assuming a position defined by law as the custodian of the city’s five pension funds, which totaled, in February 2020, $221.2 billion in assets.
Early on, Stringer proclaimed devotion to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors in investing, and finding investment managers dedicated to these principles.
He launched a campaign on proxy access to enable shareholders to nominate directors—ticking the “G” for governance.
He then moved on to the “S” with his Boardroom Accountability Project, writing to 151 companies asking that they disclose, among other things, the sexual orientation of their directors.
“E” for environment is the big one.
When de Blasio announced in January 2018 that city pension funds would divest $5 billion worth of equity in fossil-fuel companies, Stringer justified the move by claiming retirees’ financial future was “linked to the sustainability of the planet.”
The comptroller allocated 12 percent of the fund assets of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System—the largest of the city’s five pension funds—into the Developed Environmental Activist asset class, according to an American Council for Capital Formation report by Timothy Doyle.
The move dragged down the fund’s already-poor investment returns.
According to Doyle, in 2017, Stringer submitted 92 shareholder proposals, putting NYCERS in the top 10 filers.
Sadly for its beneficiaries and New York City taxpayers, Stringer’s performance as a top filer appears inversely correlated with his investment performance.
The funds have consistently lagged the market and the NYCERS’ own benchmarks.
A 2017 Manhattan Institute report estimated the fund’s pension liabilities at $142 billion, with an average funded ratio of 47 percent, meaning that the funds had less than half the money needed to pay promised benefits.
Doyle uncovered a similar story at CalPERS, the California public-employees retirement system and the largest state pension plan in the U.S.
“Sustainability continues to be at the heart of what we do,” a 2014 report declared. “The first task in implementing this approach was to develop principles for sustainable investment across the CalPERS portfolio.”
CalPERS honors the third of these principles—that investment decisions “may reflect wider stakeholder views, provided they are consistent with its fiduciary duty to members and beneficiaries”—more in the breach than in the observance.
Doyle reviewed CalPERS’s private-equity investments and found that of its nine worst-performing funds, four were focused primarily on renewable/clean energy, while none of the top 25 performers were ESG-focused.
During its period of intensified ESG activism, CalPERS managers converted a $3 billion surplus into a near $140 billion deficit.
Though senior CalPERS managers deploy pension-fund assets to champion political causes, Doyle notes that when it came to their own money, none of the board members or the senior investment officer allocated any personal capital to environment-focused funds or equities.
Beneficiaries’ investment preferences are no different. A 2018 survey of pension-fund members by the Spectrem Group found that nearly 80 percent of pension-fund members nationwide believe that fund managers’ primary goal should be investment returns.
Among those aged 51 and older, the number increased to 91 percent, even if the pension member supported the particular cause.
Only 11 percent of those surveyed wanted their pension to prioritize “worthy political and/or social causes,” even if those generate lower returns.
Two kinds of people will be involved in the pretense that ESG constraints don’t affect investment returns: those who realize it but obfuscate for “the greater good”; and true believers, for whom reasoned argument on the matter is akin to betrayal.
When investing their beneficiaries’ money, CalPERS board members acted out the pretense; when their own, they ditched the pretense and avoided ESG-oriented investments.
Read rest at City Journal
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-02--Apocalypse Not! Media’s Fake Coffee Crisis Defies Record Harvests

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news An article in Massive Science , highlighted at the top of today ’ s Google News searches for “ climate change , ” claims global warming is threatening a coffee bean crisis .
The coffee bean scares also rely on dubious predictions of rapid warming that have always overestimated modest real-world warming .
The fear of decreased coffee yields is based almost entirely on projections of dangerously rising temperatures made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) .
As such , the authors should take comfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s projections , when tested against actual temperature measurements from satellites and weather balloons , have proven wrong .
During its 30 years of temperature predictions , the IPCC has consistently overstated the rate and amount of temperature rise .
With or without the IPCC predicting too much warming , coffee bean production has enjoyed long-term growth and record production as global temperatures modestly rise .
The U.N. ’ s Food and Agriculture Organization reports coffee production nearly doubled between 1994 and 2018 , with yields growing from 5.7 million tons in 1994 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Data from Statista , a global business data-gathering and analysis organization , shows that while coffee production varies somewhat from year to year , global coffee production was 129.2 million kilograms during the 2006/2007 crop year , rising to 170.94 million kilograms in the 2018/2019 crop year .
The International Coffee Organization reports that coffee producers face problems not from difficulty growing crops , but because crop conditions and crop production is so strong that supply is outpacing demand .
Rapid growth in coffee crop yields is driving down coffee prices .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent overall , with Arabica bean production increasing by 1.8 percent and Robusta beans growing 6.7 percent .
This marked the second consecutive year of declining prices amidst growing surpluses .
In areas where overall coffee production is declining , lower coffee prices rather than climate change are causing the decline .
Faced with low-market prices , some coffee producers shifted to growing other crops or ceased farming altogether .
Other coffee producers shifted from high-yield production through the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to hand-weeding and producing lower-yield organic coffee beans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lucrative boutique coffee market .
In short , the media ’ s fake coffee crisis is actually Apocalypse Not !

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jun 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
An article in Massive Science, highlighted at the top of today’s Google News searches for “climate change,” claims global warming is threatening a coffee bean crisis.
However, the media’s incessant coffee-bean scares ignore record global coffee bean production.
The coffee bean scares also rely on dubious predictions of rapid warming that have always overestimated modest real-world warming.
The fear of decreased coffee yields is based almost entirely on projections of dangerously rising temperatures made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
As such, the authors should take comfort from the fact that the IPCC’s projections, when tested against actual temperature measurements from satellites and weather balloons, have proven wrong.
During its 30 years of temperature predictions, the IPCC has consistently overstated the rate and amount of temperature rise.
With or without the IPCC predicting too much warming, coffee bean production has enjoyed long-term growth and record production as global temperatures modestly rise.
The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization reports coffee production nearly doubled between 1994 and 2018, with yields growing from 5.7 million tons in 1994 to 10.3 million tons in 2018.
Data from Statista, a global business data-gathering and analysis organization, shows that while coffee production varies somewhat from year to year, global coffee production was 129.2 million kilograms during the 2006/2007 crop year, rising to 170.94 million kilograms in the 2018/2019 crop year.
The International Coffee Organization reports that coffee producers face problems not from difficulty growing crops, but because crop conditions and crop production is so strong that supply is outpacing demand.
Rapid growth in coffee crop yields is driving down coffee prices.
In 2018/2019, coffee production grew by 3.7 percent overall, with Arabica bean production increasing by 1.8 percent and Robusta beans growing 6.7 percent.
This marked the second consecutive year of declining prices amidst growing surpluses.
In areas where overall coffee production is declining, lower coffee prices rather than climate change are causing the decline.
Faced with low-market prices, some coffee producers shifted to growing other crops or ceased farming altogether.
Other coffee producers shifted from high-yield production through the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to hand-weeding and producing lower-yield organic coffee beans in the hopes of entering the more lucrative boutique coffee market.
In short, the media’s fake coffee crisis is actually Apocalypse Not!
Image by S. Hermann & F. Richter from Pixabay
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-02--Climactivists Attack BP For Warning Public About Climate Change

Written by William Allison on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s been five years since anti-energy activists created the “ ____ Knew ” campaign attacking energy companies for allegedly conspiring to hide climate change from the public , and in that time they ’ ve managed to rack up a stunning losing streak in the courts .
Their latest stunt attempts to flip the script , alleging that “ BP Knew ” about climate change in the 1990s and should now be sued for sharing what they knew with the public .
This new attack on BP comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the founder and director of Changerism – a self-proclaimed “ think and do tank ” that “ particularly operate [ s ] in the areas of climate change and the energy transition ” based in the Netherlands .
The opinion column was published by the Dutch organization Follow the Money , which claims to practice “ radically independent investigative journalism , ” yet doesn ’ t note that BP has pledged to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 , which undercuts his attack against the company .
Hüzeir cites a documentary produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given by the company ’ s then CEO in 1997 , both on climate change , that Hüzeir somehow construes as evidence of a massive cover-up , even though both have been in the public ’ s view for years .
He uses these items to justify his call for a “ total ban on fossil fuel advertising.
” However , the attack seems to have fallen flat .
Well-known activist and “ ____ Knew ” trumpeter Naomi Oreskes twice tweeted about the article , as did several other notable activists involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a single news organization has picked up Hüzeir ’ s article .
Perhaps the media has finally picked up on the fact that these activists will say anything to score a point , even if their claims and hashtags make absolutely zero sense .
Hüzeir reports that his group , Changerism , “ tracked down ” a documentary produced by BP in 1991 titled “ What Makes Weather ?
” which discusses carbon emissions ’ effect on the climate .
The article insinuates that BP hid this video for years and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change .
The only problem with that theory , as Hüzeir acknowledges , is that it wasn ’ t a secret video at all : “ A digital copy is freely available online , via BP ’ s own video library.
” ( emphasis added ) The video only serves to undermine the article and the case that “ BP Knew ” about climate change and didn ’ t tell the public – a poor follow up to the failed “ Exxon Knew , ” “ Shell Knew , ” “ Utilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( we could go on ) campaigns .
Instead , the very existence of the video shows that BP was aware of climate change and was active in discussing the topic publicly .
The article then cites a speech given in 1997 by then-BP CEO John Browne where “ he became the first head of a major oil company to directly and publicly accept the emerging consensus on climate change , and Hüzeir says “ BP was widely hailed for its new stance on climate change.
” The article then goes back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-known publicity at the time before it started to “ fade from memory ” – as things tend to do after 30 years : For the record : just because a random sampling of researchers contacted by an activist group couldn ’ t recall a video , and the same group isn ’ t very good at navigating the internet , doesn ’ t mean there was a massive coordinated corporate cover-up .
Again , the documentary is literally on BP ’ s website .
Citing a publicly available video and a well-known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubious claims that an energy company was hiding what it knew about climate change .
Hüzeir then quotes Carroll Muffett , the President , and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law , who quite clearly puts fake words into BP ’ s mouth .
Muffett says : Except , BP has never said “ We didn ’ t know ” – not in court or any other venue .
Muffett is just making that phrase up so he can burn down the straw man he ’ s built .
BP has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very documentary that Muffett mentions in his statement .
The article then recalls another BP film from 1990 discussing how the company uses “ advertising as a strategy for public trust , ” which was the company ’ s “ public relations plan , laid bare in its own words from thirty years ago.
” If any company in any industry anywhere in the world was still using the same public relations plan it developed 30 years ago , they should rightfully be out of business , left behind by innovation and market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jam together outdated business plans and random events from 30 years ago as proof that they solved the puzzle of “ BP Knew ” and uses this to justify his call for a ban on advertising from energy companies .
The author wants readers to know he doesn ’ t like how BP does business and he ’ s part of the opposition : Energy In Depth has covered some dubious allegations before , but this pronouncement from Changerism takes the cake .
Climate activists have spent years alleging that energy companies hid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public ( they didn ’ t ) .
Changerism makes the opposite argument – BP spread information about climate change in the 1990s in about as public a manner as you can get – and somehow convinces themselves that this is also worthy of litigation .
It ’ s almost as if they had a predetermined narrative they wanted to peddle and were too busy patting themselves on the back for finding the documentary ( which , and we can not stress this enough , was posted on the company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they were actually saying .

Written by William Allison on Jun 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s been five years since anti-energy activists created the “____ Knew” campaign attacking energy companies for allegedly conspiring to hide climate change from the public, and in that time they’ve managed to rack up a stunning losing streak in the courts.
Their latest stunt attempts to flip the script, alleging that “BP Knew” about climate change in the 1990s and should now be sued for sharing what they knew with the public.
This new attack on BP comes from an article written by Vatan Hüzeir, the founder and director of Changerism – a self-proclaimed “think and do tank” that “particularly operate[s] in the areas of climate change and the energy transition” based in the Netherlands.
The opinion column was published by the Dutch organization Follow the Money, which claims to practice “radically independent investigative journalism,” yet doesn’t note that BP has pledged to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050, which undercuts his attack against the company.
Hüzeir cites a documentary produced by BP in 1990 and a speech given by the company’s then CEO in 1997, both on climate change, that Hüzeir somehow construes as evidence of a massive cover-up, even though both have been in the public’s view for years.
He uses these items to justify his call for a “total ban on fossil fuel advertising.”
However, the attack seems to have fallen flat. Well-known activist and “____ Knew” trumpeter Naomi Oreskes twice tweeted about the article, as did several other notable activists involved in the climate litigation echo chamber, but not a single news organization has picked up Hüzeir’s article.
Perhaps the media has finally picked up on the fact that these activists will say anything to score a point, even if their claims and hashtags make absolutely zero sense.
Dubious Claims
Hüzeir reports that his group, Changerism, “tracked down” a documentary produced by BP in 1991 titled “What Makes Weather?” which discusses carbon emissions’ effect on the climate.
The article insinuates that BP hid this video for years and that’s proof they concealed knowledge about climate change.
The only problem with that theory, as Hüzeir acknowledges, is that it wasn’t a secret video at all: “A digital copy is freely available online, via BP’s own video library.” (emphasis added)
The video only serves to undermine the article and the case that “BP Knew” about climate change and didn’t tell the public – a poor follow up to the failed “Exxon Knew,” “Shell Knew,” “Utilities Knew,” “JFK Knew” (we could go on) campaigns.
Instead, the very existence of the video shows that BP was aware of climate change and was active in discussing the topic publicly.
The article then cites a speech given in 1997 by then-BP CEO John Browne where “he became the first head of a major oil company to directly and publicly accept the emerging consensus on climate change, and Hüzeir says “BP was widely hailed for its new stance on climate change.”
The article then goes back to discussing the documentary and it’s well-known publicity at the time before it started to “fade from memory” – as things tend to do after 30 years:
“Clearly intended for educational purposes, it was available through BP’s education service for £12,95 in the mid-1990s. According to BP, the film was even awarded a bronze plaque at the 39th Annual Columbus International Film and Video Festival in 1991. “In the 30 years since, What makes weather? has faded from memory. None of the activists and researchers Changerism consulted were aware of the video; an internet search for the title yields no results apart from the BP archive.”
For the record: just because a random sampling of researchers contacted by an activist group couldn’t recall a video, and the same group isn’t very good at navigating the internet, doesn’t mean there was a massive coordinated corporate cover-up.
Again, the documentary is literally on BP’s website.
Citing a publicly available video and a well-known speech both discussing climate change make for dubious claims that an energy company was hiding what it knew about climate change.
Activists Rely On Straw Man Fallacy
Hüzeir then quotes Carroll Muffett, the President, and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, who quite clearly puts fake words into BP’s mouth. Muffett says:
“It’s precisely that divergence between what these companies knew about the climate risks from their products — and what they did and said about those risks — that underpins the growing number of climate suits against them worldwide. Unfortunately for BP, this film makes it all the harder for the company to say, ‘We didn’t know.’ It shows, all too clearly, that they did.’” (emphasis added)
Except, BP has never said “We didn’t know” – not in court or any other venue. Muffett is just making that phrase up so he can burn down the straw man he’s built.
BP has acknowledged climate change, including in the very documentary that Muffett mentions in his statement.
Ban Energy Advertisements?
The article then recalls another BP film from 1990 discussing how the company uses “advertising as a strategy for public trust,” which was the company’s “public relations plan, laid bare in its own words from thirty years ago.”
If any company in any industry anywhere in the world was still using the same public relations plan it developed 30 years ago, they should rightfully be out of business, left behind by innovation and market forces.
Yet, Hüzeir attempts to jam together outdated business plans and random events from 30 years ago as proof that they solved the puzzle of “BP Knew” and uses this to justify his call for a ban on advertising from energy companies.
The author wants readers to know he doesn’t like how BP does business and he’s part of the opposition:
“We need something more radical. To culturally depreciate the fossil fuel industry in a systematic way, its advertising must be banned altogether. I have called for such bans before.”
Conclusion
Energy In Depth has covered some dubious allegations before, but this pronouncement from Changerism takes the cake.
Climate activists have spent years alleging that energy companies hid what they knew about climate change from the public (they didn’t).
Changerism makes the opposite argument – BP spread information about climate change in the 1990s in about as public a manner as you can get – and somehow convinces themselves that this is also worthy of litigation.
It’s almost as if they had a predetermined narrative they wanted to peddle and were too busy patting themselves on the back for finding the documentary (which, and we cannot stress this enough, was posted on the company’s website) to stop and listen to what they were actually saying.
Read more at EID Climate
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-02--Models Can’t Predict Next Week’s Weather, But We Trust Them On Climate Change?

Written by Daniel Turner on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s curious … SpaceX has all the money in the world , and they didn ’ t hire someone who could have accurately predicted the afternoon weather in Florida on May 27 , 2020 .
It seems like a huge oversight , doesn ’ t it ?
And to think there are scores of nonprofit leaders and academics in Washington , DC , who can accurately predict global temperatures 10 , 15 , even 50 years into the future .
Oh , stop it with the “ climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s trite and silly .
The guys who say “ food isn ’ t cuisine ” is a food critic , and by default , haughty and obnoxious .
How about this one : science isn ’ t semantics .
We all wish we could predict the future .
Intellectually , empirically , rationally , we know we can ’ t , but some still try .
Throughout Washington , DC , where I live , in addition to the elite intelligentsia , the kind who read their own books on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Card readers and psychics offering their services of clairvoyance .
And we hear the stories .
The buddy who picked a good stock because “ he was sure ” it would go up .
Or the other guy who proclaims , “ I just knew the Nationals would win the World Series.
” It ’ s not true .
Not possible .
Not even logically defensible .
It ’ s syntax , not the truth .
We make decisions for the future , not based on preternatural intelligence , but data .
Market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there ’ s no certainty the price will go up .
Wouldn ’ t we all be rich if that were the case ?
In baseball , injuries , rotation and roster , and team loyalty form our hunches , but there ’ s no guarantee your team will win .
No one “ knew ” the weather would cancel the SpaceX flight , but rather scientists used data to make the best-educated guess which is part of the scientific method we learned about in third grade .
And similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen to the earth in 5 , 10 , 15 , 50 years because of climate change .
So quite frankly I ’ m tired of hearing about it .
Now I ’ ll answer that next question before you ask it : no , there is no data which says the world temperatures will rise to an uninhabitable level .
There are models , and models are very , very human .
Climate change models are computer generated and the code is written by biased individuals .
It ’ s not scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prediction , based on available data , which may or may not be accurate .
Remember the model which predicted 2.2 million deaths from Coronavirus ?
Garbage in , garbage out , just like in every other computer-generated scenario .
Maybe one day the Artificial Intelligence will actually be intelligent and correct the programmer , but for now , it ’ s just following the program as written by the very fallible human .
This is why the outrage at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s comment “ The world is going to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t address climate change.
” Not because it ’ s stupid ( it is ) , not because it ’ s wrong ( it is ) , but because it ’ s so deliberately misleading .
It is a perfect example of speculation turned into fact and for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda , which just makes it an affront to my wallet .
It dumbs down discourse .
It turns off reasonable people like me who do this for a living .
There ’ s little point in having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s contribution or lack thereof to it .
Yet , more and more government policy is crafted and tax dollars are spent based on this type of illogical thinking .
Climate is the great unknown , and politicians and the media love to scare the crap out of regular Americans by feigning some great insight into tomorrow making us quiver in our seats .
Climate change will kill us .
Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s said that overpopulation would mean England would cease to exist by 2000 .
England !
Poor Queen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough on her royal plate .
Al Gore 20 years ago predicted no Arctic ice , and he got an Oscar for it .
Last I checked both the UK and the Arctic ice are fine , shapes of both changing constantly .
These were predictions of fact .
They were models , based on data , meant to scare and push an agenda .
We can ’ t even predict a few weeks into the future .
On March 20 of this year , the Washington Post predicted an “ abnormally warm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models based on data ( winter temperatures , polar vortex ) presented as fact including an ominous “ this may be a first.
” A month after that article ran , the same author in the same publication pointed out that DC had already been experiencing below-average temperatures for two weeks , meaning the doomsday article couldn ’ t ’ even foresee 2 weeks ahead .
A few days later , the same publication acknowledged weather 1-2 degrees below average that was likely to continue .
Then the same Washington Post puts out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cold Weather for May Arrives Tonight with Near Freezing Temperatures and Bitter Wind Chills.
” The following day they wrote about Washington , DC , hitting its coldest day in more than a decade and Baltimore its coldest day on record saying May had temperatures 25 degrees below average .
What gives ?
It ’ s simple : the first article , the scary , scary climate change article , was based on models ( but presented as fact ) .
The subsequent “ holy crap it ’ s cold ” articles were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scary , and not as much fun .
Will the world end because of climate change ?
I don ’ t know .
Will the seas rise and the lakes boil ?
I don ’ t know .
And you know what , neither does anyone else .

Written by Daniel Turner on Jun 2, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s curious … SpaceX has all the money in the world, and they didn’t hire someone who could have accurately predicted the afternoon weather in Florida on May 27, 2020.
It seems like a huge oversight, doesn’t it? And to think there are scores of nonprofit leaders and academics in Washington, DC, who can accurately predict global temperatures 10, 15, even 50 years into the future.
Oh, stop it with the “climate isn’t weather” rebuttal. It’s trite and silly. The guys who say “food isn’t cuisine” is a food critic, and by default, haughty and obnoxious.
How about this one: science isn’t semantics.
We all wish we could predict the future. Intellectually, empirically, rationally, we know we can’t, but some still try.
Throughout Washington, DC, where I live, in addition to the elite intelligentsia, the kind who read their own books on the NY-bound Acela, are multiple Tarot Card readers and psychics offering their services of clairvoyance.
And we hear the stories. The buddy who picked a good stock because “he was sure” it would go up. Or the other guy who proclaims, “I just knew the Nationals would win the World Series.”
It’s not true. Not possible. Not even logically defensible. It’s syntax, not the truth.
We make decisions for the future, not based on preternatural intelligence, but data. Market trends and balance sheets guide stock picks, but there’s no certainty the price will go up.
Wouldn’t we all be rich if that were the case? In baseball, injuries, rotation and roster, and team loyalty form our hunches, but there’s no guarantee your team will win.
No one “knew” the weather would cancel the SpaceX flight, but rather scientists used data to make the best-educated guess which is part of the scientific method we learned about in third grade.
And similarly, no one “knows” what will happen to the earth in 5, 10, 15, 50 years because of climate change. So quite frankly I’m tired of hearing about it.
Now I’ll answer that next question before you ask it: no, there is no data which says the world temperatures will rise to an uninhabitable level. There are models, and models are very, very human.
Climate change models are computer generated and the code is written by biased individuals. It’s not scientific following rigorous methodology; it’s prediction, based on available data, which may or may not be accurate.
Remember the model which predicted 2.2 million deaths from Coronavirus?
Whoopsie.
Garbage in, garbage out, just like in every other computer-generated scenario. Maybe one day the Artificial Intelligence will actually be intelligent and correct the programmer, but for now, it’s just following the program as written by the very fallible human.
This is why the outrage at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s comment “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
Not because it’s stupid (it is), not because it’s wrong (it is), but because it’s so deliberately misleading.
It is a perfect example of speculation turned into fact and for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda, which just makes it an affront to my wallet. It dumbs down discourse.
It turns off reasonable people like me who do this for a living. There’s little point in having a conversation about climate change or mankind’s contribution or lack thereof to it.
Yet, more and more government policy is crafted and tax dollars are spent based on this type of illogical thinking.
Climate is the great unknown, and politicians and the media love to scare the crap out of regular Americans by feigning some great insight into tomorrow making us quiver in our seats.
Climate change will kill us. Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s said that overpopulation would mean England would cease to exist by 2000. England!
Poor Queen, like she doesn’t have enough on her royal plate. Al Gore 20 years ago predicted no Arctic ice, and he got an Oscar for it.
Last I checked both the UK and the Arctic ice are fine, shapes of both changing constantly. These were predictions of fact. They were models, based on data, meant to scare and push an agenda.
We can’t even predict a few weeks into the future. On March 20 of this year, the Washington Post predicted an “abnormally warm spring” across the entire country using models based on data (winter temperatures, polar vortex) presented as fact including an ominous “this may be a first.”
Scary global warming type stuff. Yikes.
A month after that article ran, the same author in the same publication pointed out that DC had already been experiencing below-average temperatures for two weeks, meaning the doomsday article couldn’t’ even foresee 2 weeks ahead.
A few days later, the same publication acknowledged weather 1-2 degrees below average that was likely to continue.
Huh.
Then the same Washington Post puts out an article with the title “Exceptionally Cold Weather for May Arrives Tonight with Near Freezing Temperatures and Bitter Wind Chills.”
The following day they wrote about Washington, DC, hitting its coldest day in more than a decade and Baltimore its coldest day on record saying May had temperatures 25 degrees below average.
What gives? It’s simple: the first article, the scary, scary climate change article, was based on models (but presented as fact).
The subsequent “holy crap it’s cold” articles were based on…facts. Which are not as scary, and not as much fun.
Will the world end because of climate change? I don’t know. Will the seas rise and the lakes boil? I don’t know. And you know what, neither does anyone else.
Read more at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-03--Fear: How Our ‘Ruling Class’ Controls Us

Written by Charles Battig on .
Posted in Latest news Social and political responses to the fears of the Coronavirus pandemic are news headlines , but do they deserve headlines ?
Of course , they are news , but they are not really new news .
We have been repeatedly warned about the destructive power of fear .
Making themselves virtually unassailable , at least initially , politicians embraced the pandemic and associated public health fears it has engendered and assumed near-dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the public health .
Unmasked and unhindered , some politicians ’ actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ruling class.
” The 1972 cult film by the same name gave one view of the dysfunctional life-style of a fictional British nobleman whose aspirations were quite noble and infused with a sense of god-like powers , not unlike some of our governors and mayors .
A less fanciful , but more philosophically grounded observation of the 1930s was made by H.L .
Menken : No question that the Coronavirus is real , not imaginary , but Menken astutely recognizes the basic urge in politicians to use fear to control the populous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inaugural address , on March 4 , 1933 , he said : “ The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
” The more recent 2010 book by A. Codevilla bears the name “ The Ruling Class , ” and describes the outsized influence on American society by a clique of intellectuals scattered throughout the upper echelons of business , the media , political parties , and educational institutions .
Constitutional rights are denigrated , as is the traditional role of religion in American daily life .
These folks know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Combining a stretch of environmental-saving enthusiasm and fuzzy thinking , activists have wasted no effort in trying to link the imagined effects of climate change to its imagined impact on the Coronavirus pandemic .
Economic hardships and social deprivations imposed by the ruling class are said to be good for the globe , and that the necessary price to save it is a cultural and scientific retrenchment .
One author whose fictional narrative seems prescient in this current setting is Michael Crichton .
His 2004 “ State of Fear ” is a fictional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well documented by him , and whose validity has largely stood the test of time .
Al Gore ’ s perpetual predictions of global environmental disasters secondary to man-made carbon dioxide and fossil fuel use have not materialized in the intervening decade .
In a Socratic method exposition , Crichton develops the concept of fear as a tool to control the public .
As one of his characters explains : He identifies the role of experts and universities in the enshrinement of fear as a political tool : Fears of climate change fit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued failure of computer modeling of global climate to accurately predict future changes .
With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic , pandemonium erupted worldwide as fear of the unknown initially governed both social and scientific responses .
Leaders abhor the prospect of telling a frightened public that they do not know how to respond to a new pathogen .
An informed response would require a learning curve time-span to fully understand the clinical impact on the public , but no one wants to be the unfortunate guinea pig awaiting nature ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and infectious diseases were tapped for advice , and they turned to computer models for answers .
Years of failed computer-based climate predictions would be no reason to doubt the ability of virus modeling to predict its worldwide impact .
By mid-March , the computer had spoken and British scientist Neil Ferguson reported that many millions would die .
“ Flatten the curve ” entered the lexicon of the media , though few noted that the area under the flattened curve likely contained the same area as the initial peaked curve .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same then the number of deaths represented would remain the same ; they would just take place over a longer time interval .
Subsequently , the computer derived predictions of millions of deaths proved to be grossly exaggerated .
Virologists and epidemiologists inhabit a different mental world than that of economists , sociologists , and physicians , and their recommended remedies might well kill the virus at some point , but the patient might also have been killed by the cure .
This latter scenario has painfully played out over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a highly integrated , interdependent , and complex modern society from the epidemiological cure of isolation , implemented by the ruling class , has become evident .
“ Stay-at-home ” and avoid social contact is a simplistic fallback to stop an epidemic in the 21st century .
It may have been the only answer in the form of walled cities in the middle ages ; it may work if you isolate that first infected person and prevent him/her from transmitting the pathogen .
However , in the present pandemic , the pathogen was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was recognized to be a new pathological entity .
This virus has shape changer variants in its clinical manifestations and makes accurate and timely tracking difficult .
The pandemic may or may not be beginning to burn itself out , only time will tell .
However , there is no difficulty seeing the global destruction of human lives secondary to near economic collapse .
What also has been revealed is the latent enthusiasm with which the political/ruling class has claimed the moral high ground in issuing edicts in the name of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range from weeks to months with no solid scientific justification for a particular time span , but with political/legal imperative .
Wearing of masks by the general public has become a schizophrenic policy issue .
Numerous studies claim that they are not protective against the Coronavirus , especially the homemade cloth varieties .
At 120 nm diameter , these virus particles are not filtered out by surgical or fabric face masks .
Wearing of such masks may aggravate other existing medical conditions .
Official agencies differ in their recommendations .
The WHO says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public ; our CDC says yes .
Wearing a mask becomes a measure of virtue signaling , albeit much cheaper than driving a “ pious.
” Some governors are true believers and issue orders to wear a mask , any sort of mask , else risk criminal charges and fines .
Without hesitation , such politicians disregard basic constitutional rights based on personal whim and selective use of diverse scientific data .
Fear is a valuable , basic human emotion that functions as a self-preservation instinct .
However , the current Coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class are adroitly curtailing our constitutional basic rights in the name of saving us from ourselves .
Charles Battig is a retired physician graduate engineer , policy advisor at the Heartland Institute , and a member of the CO2 coalition .
His website is http : //www.climateis.com

Written by Charles Battig on Jun 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Social and political responses to the fears of the Coronavirus pandemic are news headlines, but do they deserve headlines? Of course, they are news, but they are not really new news. We have been repeatedly warned about the destructive power of fear.
Making themselves virtually unassailable, at least initially, politicians embraced the pandemic and associated public health fears it has engendered and assumed near-dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the public health.
Unmasked and unhindered, some politicians’ actions have validated the descriptive term of “the ruling class.”
The 1972 cult film by the same name gave one view of the dysfunctional life-style of a fictional British nobleman whose aspirations were quite noble and infused with a sense of god-like powers, not unlike some of our governors and mayors.
A less fanciful, but more philosophically grounded observation of the 1930s was made by H.L. Menken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
No question that the Coronavirus is real, not imaginary, but Menken astutely recognizes the basic urge in politicians to use fear to control the populous.
During President Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, on March 4, 1933, he said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
The more recent 2010 book by A. Codevilla bears the name “The Ruling Class,” and describes the outsized influence on American society by a clique of intellectuals scattered throughout the upper echelons of business, the media, political parties, and educational institutions.
Constitutional rights are denigrated, as is the traditional role of religion in American daily life. These folks know that they know better than you do.
Combining a stretch of environmental-saving enthusiasm and fuzzy thinking, activists have wasted no effort in trying to link the imagined effects of climate change to its imagined impact on the Coronavirus pandemic.
Economic hardships and social deprivations imposed by the ruling class are said to be good for the globe, and that the necessary price to save it is a cultural and scientific retrenchment.
One author whose fictional narrative seems prescient in this current setting is Michael Crichton.
His 2004 “State of Fear” is a fictional thriller whose environmental and philosophical underpinnings are well documented by him, and whose validity has largely stood the test of time.
Al Gore’s perpetual predictions of global environmental disasters secondary to man-made carbon dioxide and fossil fuel use have not materialized in the intervening decade.
In a Socratic method exposition, Crichton develops the concept of fear as a tool to control the public. As one of his characters explains:
“I am leading to the notion of social control… To the requirement of every sovereign state to exert control over the behavior of its citizens, to keep them orderly and reasonably docile… To keep them paying taxes… and, of course, we know that social control is best managed through fear.”
He continues:
“…in reality, in the last fifteen years, we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population, under the guise of promoting safety.”
He identifies the role of experts and universities in the enshrinement of fear as a political tool:
“Because they had a new role to play. They became the creators of new fears for the PLM. Universities today are factories of fear. They invent all the new terrors and new social anxieties…they produce a steady stream of new anxieties, dangers, and social terrors to be used by politicians, lawyers, and reporters.”
Fears of climate change fit that narrative, in spite of the continued failure of computer modeling of global climate to accurately predict future changes.
With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, pandemonium erupted worldwide as fear of the unknown initially governed both social and scientific responses. Leaders abhor the prospect of telling a frightened public that they do not know how to respond to a new pathogen.
An informed response would require a learning curve time-span to fully understand the clinical impact on the public, but no one wants to be the unfortunate guinea pig awaiting nature’s random death sentence.
Experts in epidemiology and infectious diseases were tapped for advice, and they turned to computer models for answers.
Years of failed computer-based climate predictions would be no reason to doubt the ability of virus modeling to predict its worldwide impact.
By mid-March, the computer had spoken and British scientist Neil Ferguson reported that many millions would die.
“Flatten the curve” entered the lexicon of the media, though few noted that the area under the flattened curve likely contained the same area as the initial peaked curve.
No small matter because if the areas are the same then the number of deaths represented would remain the same; they would just take place over a longer time interval.
Subsequently, the computer derived predictions of millions of deaths proved to be grossly exaggerated.
Virologists and epidemiologists inhabit a different mental world than that of economists, sociologists, and physicians, and their recommended remedies might well kill the virus at some point, but the patient might also have been killed by the cure.
This latter scenario has painfully played out over the past few months as the collateral damage to a highly integrated, interdependent, and complex modern society from the epidemiological cure of isolation, implemented by the ruling class, has become evident.
“Stay-at-home” and avoid social contact is a simplistic fallback to stop an epidemic in the 21st century.
It may have been the only answer in the form of walled cities in the middle ages; it may work if you isolate that first infected person and prevent him/her from transmitting the pathogen.
However, in the present pandemic, the pathogen was well out of the bottle long before it was recognized to be a new pathological entity.
This virus has shape changer variants in its clinical manifestations and makes accurate and timely tracking difficult.
The pandemic may or may not be beginning to burn itself out, only time will tell. However, there is no difficulty seeing the global destruction of human lives secondary to near economic collapse.
What also has been revealed is the latent enthusiasm with which the political/ruling class has claimed the moral high ground in issuing edicts in the name of the public good.
“Stay-at-home” orders range from weeks to months with no solid scientific justification for a particular time span, but with political/legal imperative.
Wearing of masks by the general public has become a schizophrenic policy issue. Numerous studies claim that they are not protective against the Coronavirus, especially the homemade cloth varieties.
At 120 nm diameter, these virus particles are not filtered out by surgical or fabric face masks. Wearing of such masks may aggravate other existing medical conditions.
Official agencies differ in their recommendations. The WHO says no to wearing them by the general public; our CDC says yes.
Wearing a mask becomes a measure of virtue signaling, albeit much cheaper than driving a “pious.”
Some governors are true believers and issue orders to wear a mask, any sort of mask, else risk criminal charges and fines.
Without hesitation, such politicians disregard basic constitutional rights based on personal whim and selective use of diverse scientific data.
Fear is a valuable, basic human emotion that functions as a self-preservation instinct.
However, the current Coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated that members of the ruling class are adroitly curtailing our constitutional basic rights in the name of saving us from ourselves.
Charles Battig is a retired physician graduate engineer, policy advisor at the Heartland Institute, and a member of the CO2 coalition. His website is http://www.climateis.com
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-03--NASA Scientist Links ‘Climate Change’ To ‘White Supremacy’

Written by Marc Morano on .
Posted in Latest news Another NASA climate scientist has revealed their politics and waded into racially charged linkages between “ climate justice ” and “ racial justice.
” and “ white supremacy.
” NASA ’ s Dr. Kate Marvel ( pictured ) declared on June 1 : “ Climate justice and racial justice are the same thing , and we ’ ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.
” Marvel is an Associate Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ) in New York City .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) replied “ DAMN RIGHT ” when she tweeted out a Newsweek article titled : “ Science Should Be A Feminist Institution.
” According to a 2018 article at Think Progress , “ Marvel said she admires what Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement activists are doing with appeals to support a Green New Deal.
” According to Marvel : “ What I do admire about that is the fact they are using new language .
It ’ s not just , ‘ Look at the sad polar bear.
” “ This is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s this isolated issue .
It ’ s talking about it in the context of all these other things that people care about .
And I think that ’ s absolutely the right way to look at it , ” she said .
Climate Depot Note : Climate activists have tried to link Racism and “ white supremacy ” to climate change for years .
Marvel joins her colleague , NASA ’ s Dr. Gavin Schimidt in going political .
See : NASA ’ s Lead ‘ Global Warming ’ Dr. Gavin Schmidt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon tax Marvel ’ s other NASA colleague , Climate scientist Peter Kalmus also made similar racial/climate comments this week .
NASA climate scientists have a history of turning science into political activism .
NASA climate scientist James Hansen , the former director of NASA ’ s Goddard Institute for Space Studies was arrested multiple times protesting climate change , in making climate science a political issue .
Climate skeptic Tom Nelson reacted to Marvel : “ 97 % of warmist climate scientists are more interested in radical left-wing politics than in natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Based on the opinions of people who say stuff like Marvel ’ s quote , is it wise to spend $ 93 trillion trying to prevent bad weather ?
”

Written by Marc Morano on Jun 3, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Another NASA climate scientist has revealed their politics and waded into racially charged linkages between “climate justice” and “racial justice.” and “white supremacy.”
NASA’s Dr. Kate Marvel (pictured) declared on June 1: “Climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.”
Marvel is an Associate Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.
I’ve been off social media because global pandemic+ schools closed + full-time job etc. Just popping back to say that climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy. — Kate Marvel (@DrKateMarvel) June 1, 2020
In 2018, Marvel (katherine.d.marvel@nasa.gov) replied “DAMN RIGHT” when she tweeted out a Newsweek article titled: “Science Should Be A Feminist Institution.”
According to a 2018 article at Think Progress, “Marvel said she admires what Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement activists are doing with appeals to support a Green New Deal.”
According to Marvel: “What I do admire about that is the fact they are using new language. It’s not just, ‘Look at the sad polar bear.”
“This is not talking about climate change like it’s this isolated issue. It’s talking about it in the context of all these other things that people care about. And I think that’s absolutely the right way to look at it,” she said.
Climate Depot Note: Climate activists have tried to link Racism and “white supremacy” to climate change for years.
Marvel joins her colleague, NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schimidt in going political. See: NASA’s Lead ‘Global Warming’ Dr. Gavin Schmidt scientist goes political: Calls for a carbon tax
Marvel’s other NASA colleague, Climate scientist Peter Kalmus also made similar racial/climate comments this week.
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab climate scientist Peter Kalmus: “Here’s why race justice and climate justice are one & the same: The oppressive extractive plutocracies that colonize and kill black bodies and colonize and kill our planet are one and the same.”
NASA climate scientists have a history of turning science into political activism. NASA climate scientist James Hansen, the former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies was arrested multiple times protesting climate change, in making climate science a political issue.
See: Book details NASA’s ‘ex-con’ James Hansen’s 1988 climate testimony – ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ – “Remember, Hansen was NASA’s lead global warming scientist, in charge of the temperature dataset, endorsing a book suggesting the solution of calling for ridding the world of industrial civilization. Hansen is a hardcore activist who has been arrested multiple times protesting climate change.”
Hansen also endorsed extreme climate books.
See: 2010: Time for Meds? NASA scientist James Hansen seems to endorse book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ -Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine’
Reaction to Marvel’s “white supremacy” comments was quick.
Climate skeptic Tom Nelson reacted to Marvel: “97% of warmist climate scientists are more interested in radical left-wing politics than in natural variability.”
Nelson added: “Question: Based on the opinions of people who say stuff like Marvel’s quote, is it wise to spend $93 trillion trying to prevent bad weather?”
Read rest at Climate Depot
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print