climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--World Bank’s Green Diktat Stops Clean Coal From Powering Africa

Written by Geoff Hill on .
Posted in Latest news To mark the Global Warming Policy Foundation ’ s Energy for Africa initiative , we ’ ve been publishing installments of Geoff Hill ’ s ‘ Heart of Darkness : Why energy poverty is a security issue ’ , an account of the problems of energy access in sub-Saharan Africa .
In today ’ s fourth installment , Hill reports how Africans are ‘ tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity ’ and tells how clean coal , not renewables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward .
If , as Sylvanus Ayeni points out , Africa ’ s corrupt political culture is holding the continent back , what can be done ?
Ayeni says it would be better to sell the state corporations and let the private sector do the rest .
He has a note of warning though : ‘ Too often in Africa , privatization means selling an asset at a discount to someone in government .
Instead , we need real investors to buy the shares and others to set up in competition.
’ For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a requirement that a controlling stake remains in local ownership .
This inevitably opens the door to corruption , and in fact , ownership is of little interest to consumers .
In the Zimbabwean capital Harare , Dr. Aaron Chiwoko is an engineer who has made a study of his country ’ s power supply .
He believes the poor don ’ t care who owns what .
‘ Ask those who live without electricity or running water , ’ he says .
Electricity for Africa is on the shopping list for most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help with its Power Africa program , for example .
But much of the potential funding is stymied in practice because donors such as the World Bank impose rules that prevent funds from being spent on power stations that will burn fossil fuels .
Dr. Chiwoko says this makes no sense in resource-rich countries : Angola and Nigeria are among the world ’ s top ten oil producers .
Mozambique has natural gas ; South Africa , Botswana , Zimbabwe , Kenya , and others have billions of tons of coal in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t use any of these at home with funds from the World Bank , or even with loans from some democracies , who decree there must be no fossil fuel in the mix .
And so electricity is either not available , or it ’ s in short supply with long outages .
And even those who have it only use the grid for lights and maybe a fridge and TV , because anything that generates heat uses a lot of power .
For that , they turn to paraffin or , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Chiwoko says , are made up of people who have no idea of hardship .
He thinks Africa needs its own solutions , drafted in consultation with the public .
‘ This is how we will change a continent that remains so tragically in the dark.
’ Coal is likely to be key , and in particular , clean coal .
Coal delivers 90 percent of South Africa ’ s power , and in Botswana , the figure is 100 percent .
Both Kenya and Tanzania have plans for new coal-fired generators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it right when they say coal is dirty , emits carbon dioxide , and is not good for the planet .
I ’ ve supported the green cause since my teens , but on-campus or at UN meetings , it worries me to hear speakers shouted down by the chant : ‘ There ’ s no such thing as clean coal.
’ It ’ s also true to say that surgery is painful and raw potatoes can be toxic enough to make you ill. That ’ s why you get a jab before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we cook our spuds .
Clean coal is certainly real .
Professor Rosemary Falcon pioneered the Clean Coal Research Group at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg .
Known locally as ‘ Wits ’ , this is where the late Nelson Mandela studied law in the 1950s .
Now retired , but still consulting , Falcon says she and her team have proved that clean coal is not only possible but one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity .
The process starts at the mine .
‘ You need to separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are already less toxic , ’ she says .
‘ Then we can crush it and take out chemicals that don ’ t contribute to a clean burn .
Now you ’ re starting with a product that generates more heat , stays alight for longer , and produces less fumes.
’ ‘ I am so tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity.
’ – Dr. Samson Bada ‘ Aid groups come to Africa and give out solar lamps the size of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London or Los Angeles would be willing to make do with that as their only source of electricity.
’ – Dr. Jacob Masiala It ’ s not just South Africa though .
At the other end of the continent , clean coal is seen as part of the future .
Egypt ’ s notorious power blackouts were among a list of grievances when , in 2011 , crowds on Cairo ’ s Tahrir Square forced president Hosni Mubarak from power in one of several revolts known as the Arab Spring .
The new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , and outages continued until in 2016 parliament voted to overturn a ban on coal .
Within months , the government announced plans for a clean-coal plant – the world ’ s largest – at Hamrawein , a fishing village on the Red Sea , 600 kilometers ( 370 miles ) south-east of Cairo .
The move to clean coal is taking place outside Africa too .
Electrification has been at the heart of Indian elections for 30 years , with candidates promising to get rural homes on the grid .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at record speed although , as in Africa , consumers are often short of money to pay for the service .
In December 2018 , at a UN climate change meeting in Poland , the Indian minister for the environment , Dr. Harsh Vardhan , told the assembly that those who condemned the use of coal either hadn ’ t caught up with the facts or were ‘ in denial ’ .
‘ We are launching coal plants all the time and we are castigated , ’ said Vardhan .
‘ What they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are closing dirty generators even faster and replacing them with new , clean technology.
’ Vardhan is a medical doctor and understands pollution .
He says that India still has to use coal , but will use modern technology to burn it cleanly .
‘ This is part of our shift to clean energy , in line with our goals of lowering emissions under the Paris Accord .
And cleaner coal is being researched all the time in our labs .
In short , we shut down dirty , inefficient power stations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ And he warns against foreign interference : ‘ These decisions have to be taken by us , ’ he says .
‘ There are people far away , with good , even noble ideas , but they are not on the ground , living with our problems.
’ This has not stopped environmentalists attacking the countries that want to move to clean coal .
One of Rosemary Falcon ’ s colleagues , Dr. Samson Bada , is originally from Nigeria and , like Falcon , believes clean coal is the future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an example for the world .
He is therefore bewildered by criticism of its use of fossil fuels .
‘ I am so tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity , ’ he says .
‘ Maybe they should go home and turn off their fridge , geyser , their laptops , and lights .
Then live like that for a month and tell us , who have suffered for years , not to burn coal .
’

Written by Geoff Hill on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
To mark the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Energy for Africa initiative, we’ve been publishing installments of Geoff Hill’s ‘Heart of Darkness: Why energy poverty is a security issue’, an account of the problems of energy access in sub-Saharan Africa.
In today’s fourth installment, Hill reports how Africans are ‘tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity’ and tells how clean coal, not renewables, is an efficient and effective way forward.
If, as Sylvanus Ayeni points out, Africa’s corrupt political culture is holding the continent back, what can be done? Ayeni says it would be better to sell the state corporations and let the private sector do the rest.
He has a note of warning though: ‘Too often in Africa, privatization means selling an asset at a discount to someone in government. Instead, we need real investors to buy the shares and others to set up in competition.’
For example, in Zimbabwe, there is a requirement that a controlling stake remains in local ownership. This inevitably opens the door to corruption, and in fact, ownership is of little interest to consumers.
In the Zimbabwean capital Harare, Dr. Aaron Chiwoko is an engineer who has made a study of his country’s power supply. He believes the poor don’t care who owns what. ‘Ask those who live without electricity or running water,’ he says.
Overcoming the greens
Electricity for Africa is on the shopping list for most donor countries. The US is trying to help with its Power Africa program, for example.
But much of the potential funding is stymied in practice because donors such as the World Bank impose rules that prevent funds from being spent on power stations that will burn fossil fuels.
Dr. Chiwoko says this makes no sense in resource-rich countries: Angola and Nigeria are among the world’s top ten oil producers. Mozambique has natural gas; South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and others have billions of tons of coal in the ground.
But they can’t use any of these at home with funds from the World Bank, or even with loans from some democracies, who decree there must be no fossil fuel in the mix.
And so electricity is either not available, or it’s in short supply with long outages. And even those who have it only use the grid for lights and maybe a fridge and TV, because anything that generates heat uses a lot of power. For that, they turn to paraffin or, more often, firewood.
The rules, Dr. Chiwoko says, are made up of people who have no idea of hardship. He thinks Africa needs its own solutions, drafted in consultation with the public. ‘This is how we will change a continent that remains so tragically in the dark.’
Coal is likely to be key, and in particular, clean coal. Coal delivers 90 percent of South Africa’s power, and in Botswana, the figure is 100 percent. Both Kenya and Tanzania have plans for new coal-fired generators.
Greenpeace and other environmental groups get it right when they say coal is dirty, emits carbon dioxide, and is not good for the planet. I’ve supported the green cause since my teens, but on-campus or at UN meetings, it worries me to hear speakers shouted down by the chant: ‘There’s no such thing as clean coal.’
It’s also true to say that surgery is painful and raw potatoes can be toxic enough to make you ill. That’s why you get a jab before the doctor goes to work, and we cook our spuds.
Clean coal is certainly real. Professor Rosemary Falcon pioneered the Clean Coal Research Group at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.
Known locally as ‘Wits’, this is where the late Nelson Mandela studied law in the 1950s. Now retired, but still consulting, Falcon says she and her team have proved that clean coal is not only possible but one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity.
The process starts at the mine. ‘You need to separate the low-quality coal from the better grades that are already less toxic,’ she says. ‘Then we can crush it and take out chemicals that don’t contribute to a clean burn. Now you’re starting with a product that generates more heat, stays alight for longer, and produces less fumes.’
‘I am so tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity.’
– Dr. Samson Bada
‘Aid groups come to Africa and give out solar lamps the size of a pumpkin, but no one in London or Los Angeles would be willing to make do with that as their only source of electricity.’
– Dr. Jacob Masiala
It’s not just South Africa though. At the other end of the continent, clean coal is seen as part of the future. Egypt’s notorious power blackouts were among a list of grievances when, in 2011, crowds on Cairo’s Tahrir Square forced president Hosni Mubarak from power in one of several revolts known as the Arab Spring.
The new government was unable to lift power output, however, and outages continued until in 2016 parliament voted to overturn a ban on coal.
Within months, the government announced plans for a clean-coal plant – the world’s largest – at Hamrawein, a fishing village on the Red Sea, 600 kilometers (370 miles) south-east of Cairo.
The move to clean coal is taking place outside Africa too. Electrification has been at the heart of Indian elections for 30 years, with candidates promising to get rural homes on the grid.
Since 2015, villages have been wired at record speed although, as in Africa, consumers are often short of money to pay for the service.
In December 2018, at a UN climate change meeting in Poland, the Indian minister for the environment, Dr. Harsh Vardhan, told the assembly that those who condemned the use of coal either hadn’t caught up with the facts or were ‘in denial’.
‘We are launching coal plants all the time and we are castigated,’ said Vardhan. ‘What they don’t tell you is that we are closing dirty generators even faster and replacing them with new, clean technology.’
Vardhan is a medical doctor and understands pollution. He says that India still has to use coal, but will use modern technology to burn it cleanly.
‘This is part of our shift to clean energy, in line with our goals of lowering emissions under the Paris Accord. And cleaner coal is being researched all the time in our labs. In short, we shut down dirty, inefficient power stations and open new projects with clean coal.’
And he warns against foreign interference: ‘These decisions have to be taken by us,’ he says. ‘There are people far away, with good, even noble ideas, but they are not on the ground, living with our problems.’
This has not stopped environmentalists attacking the countries that want to move to clean coal. One of Rosemary Falcon’s colleagues, Dr. Samson Bada, is originally from Nigeria and, like Falcon, believes clean coal is the future.
India, he says, has set an example for the world. He is therefore bewildered by criticism of its use of fossil fuels.
‘I am so tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity,’ he says. ‘Maybe they should go home and turn off their fridge, geyser, their laptops, and lights. Then live like that for a month and tell us, who have suffered for years, not to burn coal.’
Read rest at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-15--Greta Thunberg’s Nemesis Wants To Fight Activist’s Alarmism With Debate

Written by Clive Hammond on .
Posted in Latest news Greta Thunberg ’ s arch-rival Naomi Seibt has brutally challenged the teen activist to “ debate me ” after mocking her stance on climate change and urging her to stop “ spreading panic , but offer hope.
” Ms. Seibt , known throughout the world as the anti-Greta Thunberg of climate change , made the demand after she was snubbed by the EU despite Ms. Thunberg being allowed to push her point across to MEPs about the myths of global warming .
The 19-year-old German has pleaded with institutions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , which focuses on how the gloomy outlook on carbon emissions is addressed throughout the media .
Ms. Seibt , who has previously claimed rival Ms. Thunberg has spread “ panic around climate change when she should be offering hope , ” agrees carbon dioxide – a by-product from the use of fossil fuels – does affect climate change .
However , she argues that the real damage it causes is considerably lower than the likes of Ms. Thunberg allege .
And after seeing Ms. Thunberg invited to talk to EU leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions being imposed – Ms. Seibt wanted a chance to discuss the bill and other arrangements that could be made .
When asked by Express.co.uk whether she expected to ever be asked to speak to the EU , she said : “ I don ’ t think so because they are so immersed in their beliefs that they don ’ t want anyone from the outside to come in and talk to them .
“ Even if I tried to reach out to them I don ’ t think they would allow me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I accept every opportunity for an interview or to speak because I would love to talk to someone on the other side .
“ And if anybody is willing to debate me , even if Greta is willing to debate me , I ’ m willing to come any time and debate them on the issue.
” Her exclusive comments came amid the announcement that Brussels intended to create new legislation in order to eliminate carbon emissions to become the world ’ s first “ carbon neutral continent.
” The Green Deal – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal – was created in a bid to curb panic and is the basis of a new growth strategy for those in the bloc .
The law was unveiled by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and makes it essential that the EU balances emissions and the removal of greenhouse gases .
At the time , Ms. Thunberg also took aim at the plan , saying by having such a long term goal , the EU had “ surrendered ” to climate change .

Written by Clive Hammond on Jul 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Greta Thunberg’s arch-rival Naomi Seibt has brutally challenged the teen activist to “debate me” after mocking her stance on climate change and urging her to stop “spreading panic, but offer hope.”
Ms. Seibt, known throughout the world as the anti-Greta Thunberg of climate change, made the demand after she was snubbed by the EU despite Ms. Thunberg being allowed to push her point across to MEPs about the myths of global warming.
The 19-year-old German has pleaded with institutions to listen to the other side of the debate, which focuses on how the gloomy outlook on carbon emissions is addressed throughout the media.
Ms. Seibt, who has previously claimed rival Ms. Thunberg has spread “panic around climate change when she should be offering hope,” agrees carbon dioxide – a by-product from the use of fossil fuels – does affect climate change.
However, she argues that the real damage it causes is considerably lower than the likes of Ms. Thunberg allege.
And after seeing Ms. Thunberg invited to talk to EU leaders earlier this year – despite coronavirus lockdown conditions being imposed – Ms. Seibt wanted a chance to discuss the bill and other arrangements that could be made.
When asked by Express.co.uk whether she expected to ever be asked to speak to the EU, she said:
“I don’t think so because they are so immersed in their beliefs that they don’t want anyone from the outside to come in and talk to them.
“Even if I tried to reach out to them I don’t think they would allow me to speak and that’s why I accept every opportunity for an interview or to speak because I would love to talk to someone on the other side.
“And if anybody is willing to debate me, even if Greta is willing to debate me, I’m willing to come any time and debate them on the issue.”
Her exclusive comments came amid the announcement that Brussels intended to create new legislation in order to eliminate carbon emissions to become the world’s first “carbon neutral continent.”
The Green Deal – the name of the EU’s proposal – was created in a bid to curb panic and is the basis of a new growth strategy for those in the bloc.
The law was unveiled by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and makes it essential that the EU balances emissions and the removal of greenhouse gases.
At the time, Ms. Thunberg also took aim at the plan, saying by having such a long term goal, the EU had “surrendered” to climate change.
Read rest at Daily Express
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-17--It’s Official: Joe Biden Is A Climate Alarmist

Written by Chris Talgo on .
Posted in Latest news On July 14 , while unveiling his $ 2 trillion climate plan , Joe Biden declared , “ there ’ s no more consequential challenge that we must meet in the next decade than the onrushing climate crisis .
Left unchecked , it is literally an existential threat to the health of our planet and to our very survival.
” According to Joe ’ s Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice , “ Today , he is outlining a bold plan — a Clean Energy Revolution — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world in addressing the climate emergency.
” Biden ’ s bluster has no bounds .
According to his plan , “ From coastal towns to rural farms to urban centers , climate change poses an existential threat — not just to our environment , but to our health , our communities , our national security , and our economic well-being .
It also damages our communities with storms that wreak havoc on our towns and cities and our homes and schools .
It puts our national security at risk by leading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief activities and could make areas more vulnerable to terrorist activities.
” Apparently , Biden believes climate change poses a more urgent and dire threat to the survival of humanity than an emboldened China , a nuclear-armed Iran , a deranged dictator with an arsenal of nuclear weapons in North Korea , or a resurgent Russia .
As Joe Biden loves to say , “ c ’ mon , man.
” And here is where the rubber meets the proverbial road .
Did Biden just endorse the monstrosity known as the Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as his plan lays out in intricate detail , Biden is all-in on the Green New Deal .
“ As president , Biden will lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example , by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100 % clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
” That is quite an ambitious agenda .
So , how would Biden accomplish this monumental feat ?
By implementing his five-part plan that will : “ Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no later than 2050 .
On day one , Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track .
And , he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that : 1 ) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025 , 2 ) makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation , 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy innovations across the economy , especially in communities most impacted by climate change.
” In other words , Biden will double-down on crony capitalism and enrich his political friends and allies with massive taxpayer-funded “ investments ” to magically make green energy feasible and affordable .
“ Build a stronger , more resilient nation .
On day one , Biden will make smart infrastructure investments to rebuild the nation and to ensure that our buildings , water , transportation , and energy infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bridges , buildings , the electric grid , and our water infrastructure will be used to prevent , reduce , and withstand a changing climate .
As President , Biden will use the convening power of government to boost climate resilience efforts by developing regional climate resilience plans , in partnership with local universities and national labs , for local access to the most relevant science , data , information , tools , and training.
” By this , Biden means he will blow billions on unnecessary “ green ” infrastructure projects while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the boogeyman .
“ Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change .
Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world .
Joe Biden knows how to stand with America ’ s allies , stand up to adversaries , and level with any world leader about what must be done .
He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change — he will go much further than that .
He will lead an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets .
He will make sure those commitments are transparent and enforceable and stop countries from cheating by using America ’ s economic leverage and power of example .
He will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and national security strategies , as well as our approach to trade.
” Translation : Biden will shackle America to a ridiculous and unenforceable treaty that will undermine the U.S. economy .
And he will grovel to dictators and world leaders — nothing new there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities .
Vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution .
The Biden Administration will take action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters who put profit over people and knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities ’ air , land , and water , or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks .
The Biden plan will ensure that communities across the country from Flint , Michigan to Harlan , Kentucky to the New Hampshire Seacoast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water .
And he ’ ll make sure the development of solutions is an inclusive , community-driven process.
” Reading between the lines , Biden is basically saying that he will implement social justice via a convoluted and nonsensical attack on the energy industry .
This is amusing .
So , Biden will eliminate hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs throughout the energy industry but somehow these workers and communities will be hunky-dory in the end .
Again , “ c ’ mon man.
” The bottom line is Biden ’ s energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the rest of the world .
Over the past few years , the United States has achieved energy independence .
Biden would undo that on day one .
Worse , he would make America ’ s energy grid unreliable .
And his plan would drive the cost of energy through the roof .
It will also make America less secure and pile on more debt .
In short , Biden ’ s climate plan is as corrupt and senseless as the man it is named after .

Written by Chris Talgo on Jul 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
On July 14, while unveiling his $2 trillion climate plan, Joe Biden declared, “there’s no more consequential challenge that we must meet in the next decade than the onrushing climate crisis. Left unchecked, it is literally an existential threat to the health of our planet and to our very survival.”
Yes, Joe Biden has embraced climate change hysteria wholesale.
According to Joe’s Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice, “Today, he is outlining a bold plan — a Clean Energy Revolution — to address this grave threat and lead the world in addressing the climate emergency.”
Biden’s bluster has no bounds. According to his plan,
“From coastal towns to rural farms to urban centers, climate change poses an existential threat — not just to our environment, but to our health, our communities, our national security, and our economic well-being. It also damages our communities with storms that wreak havoc on our towns and cities and our homes and schools. It puts our national security at risk by leading to regional instability that will require U.S military-supported relief activities and could make areas more vulnerable to terrorist activities.”
Apparently, Biden believes climate change poses a more urgent and dire threat to the survival of humanity than an emboldened China, a nuclear-armed Iran, a deranged dictator with an arsenal of nuclear weapons in North Korea, or a resurgent Russia.
As Joe Biden loves to say, “c’mon, man.”
And here is where the rubber meets the proverbial road.
“Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) The United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.”
Did Biden just endorse the monstrosity known as the Green New Deal? You bet.
In fact, as his plan lays out in intricate detail, Biden is all-in on the Green New Deal.
“As president, Biden will lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example, by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.”
That is quite an ambitious agenda.
So, how would Biden accomplish this monumental feat? By implementing his five-part plan that will:
“Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track. And, he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that: 1) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025, 2) makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation, 3) incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the economy, especially in communities most impacted by climate change.”
In other words, Biden will double-down on crony capitalism and enrich his political friends and allies with massive taxpayer-funded “investments” to magically make green energy feasible and affordable.
“Build a stronger, more resilient nation. On day one, Biden will make smart infrastructure investments to rebuild the nation and to ensure that our buildings, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change. Every dollar spent toward rebuilding our roads, bridges, buildings, the electric grid, and our water infrastructure will be used to prevent, reduce, and withstand a changing climate. As President, Biden will use the convening power of government to boost climate resilience efforts by developing regional climate resilience plans, in partnership with local universities and national labs, for local access to the most relevant science, data, information, tools, and training.”
By this, Biden means he will blow billions on unnecessary “green” infrastructure projects while brainwashing millions into believing that climate change is the boogeyman.
“Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change. Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world. Joe Biden knows how to stand with America’s allies, stand up to adversaries, and level with any world leader about what must be done. He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change — he will go much further than that. He will lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. He will make sure those commitments are transparent and enforceable and stop countries from cheating by using America’s economic leverage and power of example. He will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as our approach to trade.”
Translation: Biden will shackle America to a ridiculous and unenforceable treaty that will undermine the U.S. economy. And he will grovel to dictators and world leaders — nothing new there.
“Stand up to the abuse of power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. Vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution. The Biden Administration will take action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters who put profit over people and knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities’ air, land, and water, or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks. The Biden plan will ensure that communities across the country from Flint, Michigan to Harlan, Kentucky to the New Hampshire Seacoast have access to clean, safe drinking water. And he’ll make sure the development of solutions is an inclusive, community-driven process.”
Reading between the lines, Biden is basically saying that he will implement social justice via a convoluted and nonsensical attack on the energy industry.
“Fulfill our obligation to workers and communities who powered our industrial revolution and subsequent decades of economic growth. This is support they’ve earned for fueling our country’s industrial revolution and decades of economic growth. We’re not going to leave any workers or communities behind.”
This is amusing. So, Biden will eliminate hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs throughout the energy industry but somehow these workers and communities will be hunky-dory in the end. Again, “c’mon man.”
The bottom line is Biden’s energy plan is a lose-lose proposition for America and the rest of the world. Over the past few years, the United States has achieved energy independence.
Biden would undo that on day one. Worse, he would make America’s energy grid unreliable. And his plan would drive the cost of energy through the roof. It will also make America less secure and pile on more debt.
In short, Biden’s climate plan is as corrupt and senseless as the man it is named after.
Read more at American Thinker
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-17--Environmental Facts Vs. Environmental ‘Fact-Checkers’

Written by Caleb Rossiter on .
Posted in Latest news Stacey Abrams , who ran for governor of Georgia , and Tom Steyer , who ran for president of the United States , are now trying to run me out of town .
Abrams , Steyer , and the leaders of 17 large environmental lobbies recently asked Facebook to ban a research group that I direct—the CO2 Coalition , made up of 55 climate scientists and energy economists .
The annual budgets of these lobbies total over half a billion dollars , and Steyer alone is worth $ 1.6 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impending environmental doom predominates in mainstream media , centering on the impact on the earth of emissions of carbon dioxide—a non-polluting , mild-warming gas , and an important source of plant and plankton food .
By contrast , the CO2 Coalition ’ s annual budget is half a million dollars .
Like all scientists and economists who ask for any proof of the looming apocalypse , we are excluded from the mainstream-media discussion .
You might wonder : how did the Steyer-Abrams crowd even notice us , let alone conclude that we posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which calls for an end to the affordable , reliable energy that powers over 80 percent of the world ?
The answer is found in the work of a Silicon Valley computer entrepreneur named Eric Michelman , who became fabulously wealthy creating a modification of the computer mouse .
For more than a decade now , Michelman has devoted his wealth to squelching media debate on climate change—a successful dry run for the cancel culture that we see engulfing many other issues today .
In 2016 , Michelman was the founding and lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whose purpose is to “ fact-check ” and label as “ false ” any and all deviant thoughts about fossil-fueled climate catastrophe .
The group has been certified as an unbiased source on climate issues by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies , which was founded by the Tampa Bay Times and operates the left-leaning PolitiFact .
At some point , Facebook turned its censorship oversight over to the Poynter Institute ’ s International Fact-Checking Network .
In September 2019 , a “ false ” label appeared on Facebook when the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there with Dr. Patrick Michaels , our senior fellow and a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists .
The op-ed described the poor performance of climate models that had projected alarming increases in future temperatures .
The “ false ” label triggered a wave of censorship from Facebook ’ s algorithms , blocking reposting and advertising .
The detailed , scientifically referenced letter we wrote to Facebook that soon got the label reversed is almost identical in form and argument to responses this summer to similar Climate Feedback censorship written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michaels ( after a televised appearance on Fox ’ s Life , Liberty , and Levin ) , and climate statistician Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. All of us agree : Climate Feedback is biased , sloppy , and often just flat wrong .
For example , in its “ fact-checks , ” the group blatantly contradicts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ’ s finding that there has been no statistically significant increase in rates of sea-level rise , hurricanes , droughts , and floods during the carbon emissions era that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II .
Climate Feedback is Michelman ’ s third major attempt at promoting climate alarmism and silencing opposing views .
First came the Climate Change Education Project , in 2008 , followed by the More than Scientists campaign in 2015 .
When he set up that campaign , Michelman said : It ’ s about showing the science is settled .
Studies consistently show that 97 percent of scientists agree .
We want the public to both hear from them that , yeah , this is settled , but also see scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re our neighbors , our fellow citizens , and community members .
They ’ re people with kids , and they ’ re worried about the future .
When they say , “ I ’ m concerned about climate change and I think we need to act on it , ” you can understand they ’ re saying it because they have kids just like you do .
Since Michelman had decided that the science was settled in favor of a 97 percent consensus on catastrophe before he even founded Climate Feedback , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a network of “ unbiased ” reviewers .
And its performance shows why .
I ’ m all for debating with Climate Feedback .
For 15 years as a professor at American University , I invited to my classes on climate statistics and mathematical modeling many of the groups whose leaders signed the recent letter to Facebook calling for us to be banned .
But there was no response because the cancel culture doesn ’ t believe in debate .
It believes in silencing its opponents by denying them a platform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we can .
I believe that the truth will out—even against “ fact-checkers .
”

Written by Caleb Rossiter on Jul 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Stacey Abrams, who ran for governor of Georgia, and Tom Steyer, who ran for president of the United States, are now trying to run me out of town.
Abrams, Steyer, and the leaders of 17 large environmental lobbies recently asked Facebook to ban a research group that I direct—the CO2 Coalition, made up of 55 climate scientists and energy economists.
The annual budgets of these lobbies total over half a billion dollars, and Steyer alone is worth $1.6 billion.
Their alarmist view of our supposedly impending environmental doom predominates in mainstream media, centering on the impact on the earth of emissions of carbon dioxide—a non-polluting, mild-warming gas, and an important source of plant and plankton food.
By contrast, the CO2 Coalition’s annual budget is half a million dollars. Like all scientists and economists who ask for any proof of the looming apocalypse, we are excluded from the mainstream-media discussion.
You might wonder: how did the Steyer-Abrams crowd even notice us, let alone conclude that we posed a threat to their enforced consensus, which calls for an end to the affordable, reliable energy that powers over 80 percent of the world?
The answer is found in the work of a Silicon Valley computer entrepreneur named Eric Michelman, who became fabulously wealthy creating a modification of the computer mouse.
For more than a decade now, Michelman has devoted his wealth to squelching media debate on climate change—a successful dry run for the cancel culture that we see engulfing many other issues today.
In 2016, Michelman was the founding and lead funder of a group called Climate Feedback, whose purpose is to “fact-check” and label as “false” any and all deviant thoughts about fossil-fueled climate catastrophe.
The group has been certified as an unbiased source on climate issues by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which was founded by the Tampa Bay Times and operates the left-leaning PolitiFact.
At some point, Facebook turned its censorship oversight over to the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network.
That’s when our organization’s problems started.
In September 2019, a “false” label appeared on Facebook when the Washington Examiner posted an article I had written there with Dr. Patrick Michaels, our senior fellow and a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
The op-ed described the poor performance of climate models that had projected alarming increases in future temperatures. The “false” label triggered a wave of censorship from Facebook’s algorithms, blocking reposting and advertising.
The detailed, scientifically referenced letter we wrote to Facebook that soon got the label reversed is almost identical in form and argument to responses this summer to similar Climate Feedback censorship written by environmental writer Michael Shellenberger, Dr. Michaels (after a televised appearance on Fox’s Life, Liberty, and Levin), and climate statistician Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
All of us agree: Climate Feedback is biased, sloppy, and often just flat wrong.
For example, in its “fact-checks,” the group blatantly contradicts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that there has been no statistically significant increase in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, droughts, and floods during the carbon emissions era that began with the dramatic industrialization after World War II.
Climate Feedback is Michelman’s third major attempt at promoting climate alarmism and silencing opposing views.
First came the Climate Change Education Project, in 2008, followed by the More than Scientists campaign in 2015. When he set up that campaign, Michelman said:
It’s about showing the science is settled. Studies consistently show that 97 percent of scientists agree. We want the public to both hear from them that, yeah, this is settled, but also see scientists for who they are. They’re our neighbors, our fellow citizens, and community members. They’re people with kids, and they’re worried about the future. When they say, “I’m concerned about climate change and I think we need to act on it,” you can understand they’re saying it because they have kids just like you do.
Since Michelman had decided that the science was settled in favor of a 97 percent consensus on catastrophe before he even founded Climate Feedback, his group should never have been let into a network of “unbiased” reviewers. And its performance shows why.
I’m all for debating with Climate Feedback. For 15 years as a professor at American University, I invited to my classes on climate statistics and mathematical modeling many of the groups whose leaders signed the recent letter to Facebook calling for us to be banned.
But there was no response because the cancel culture doesn’t believe in debate. It believes in silencing its opponents by denying them a platform.
We’ll hold on as long as we can. I believe that the truth will out—even against “fact-checkers.”
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-20--New Polar Bear ‘Death’ Model Based On Junk Science And Climate Porn

Written by Susan J. Crockford , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news A prediction that polar bears could be nearly extinct by 2100 ( which was first suggested back in 2007 ) is news today because there is a new model .
As for all previous models , this prediction of future polar bear devastation depends on using the so-called ‘ business as usual ’ RCP8.5 climate scenario , which has been roundly criticized in recent years as totally implausible , which even the BBC has mentioned .
This new model , published today as a pay-walled paper in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I warned against in my last post : it uses polar bear data collected up to 2009 only from Western Hudson Bay – which is an outlier in many respects – to predict the response of bears worldwide .
The lead author , Peter Molnar , is a former student of vocal polar bear catastrophist Andrew Derocher – who himself learned his trade from the king of polar bear calamity forecasts , Ian Stirling .
Steven Amstrup , another co-author of this paper , provided the ‘ expert opinion ’ for the failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my book , The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened .
Well , these authors and their supporters got the headlines they crave , including coverage by outlets like the BBC and New York Times ( see below ) , but I have to say that the combination of using out-of-date Western Hudson Bay information on when polar bears come ashore in summer and leave for the ice in fall ( only to 2009 ) to make vague projections ( ‘ possible ’ , ‘ likely ’ , ‘ very likely ’ ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depending on the most extreme and now discredited RCP8.5 climate scenario ( Hausfather and Peters 2020 ) for this newest polar bear survival model is all that ’ s needed to dismiss it as exaggerated-fear-mongering-by-proxy .
Why would anyone believe that the output of this new model describes a plausible future for polar bears ?
Meanwhile , polar bear populations worldwide continue to thrive despite declines in sea ice .
And as I have pointed out on numerous occasions , the ice-free period for WH has not continued to decline since 1998 but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variation ) at about 3 weeks longer than it was in the 1980s ( Castro de la Guardia et al 2017 ) .
Moreover , for the last five years at least , including this one , the ice-free season for WH bears has been better ( only 1-2 weeks longer than the 1980s ) , although no official data on this phenomenon has yet been published .
Oddly , this more recent data for Hudson Bay was not used for the Molnar model .
Also this year , the first polar bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are at least two weeks later than they have been in recent years : Andrew Derocher ’ s first tagged bear came to shore 17 July 2020 ( see below ) : The first tag-free bear spotted onshore at Wakusp National Park south of Churchill by live webcams was caught on film 13 July ( see video below and notice how fat it is ) .
Other photos over the last few days show very fat bears and cubs just off the ice .
All of this means that the mean date of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will almost certainly be early August – as late as it was in the 1980s .
The lead author of this new paper ( Molnar et al .
2020 ) , Peter Molnar , has written something similar before .
He concocted a model for Western Hudson Bay polar bear survival a decade ago ( Molnar et al .
2010 ) that predicted 28-48 % of male polar bears in WH would die if climate change caused the fasting period to be extended from the 120 days ( 4 months ) that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 6 months ) sometime in the future .
A colleague of his put together a similar model generating similar results a couple of years later ( Robbins et al .
2012 ) , which I wrote about here .
Here is a quote from the methods that show even their preferred polar bear vs. sea ice data for WH could not be used without fiddling with it because it didn ’ t fit their assumptions of what the bears should be doing ( my bold ) : “ …we assumed that fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ice-free days in each subpopulation region .
We computed the ice-free season from observed and modelled daily sea-ice concentrations , and linked our estimates to reported annual migration dates of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation to ensure that each year ’ s first and last fasting day were defined from a polar bear ’ s perspective .
The ice-free season was defined as the period when the extent in a subpopulation region is below a critical value .
Our choice of this critical extent was based on when polar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were observed to arrive on-shore ( leaving the ice ) in summer and depart the land ( returning to ice ) in autumn .
The migration dates were assessed from bear locations tracked by satellite-linked radio collars in 1991–2009 , as reported in ref .
38 [ Cherry et al .
2013 ] .
The mean days of the year of bear on-shore arrival and departure to sea ice were 212 [ 31 July ] and 329 [ 25 November ] , respectively ( averaged across all bears in all available years from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
However , according to Extended Data Fig .
1 , the mean sea-ice extent in Western Hudson Bay on day 212 was extremely low ( 3.8 % of the annual maximum in the years 1991–2009 ) , suggesting that bears may have lingered on a few persistent clusters of small , highly ridged floes , which could provide cover for aquatic stalks , before giving up on the ice and coming ashore .
In contrast , on day 329 , the extent was 48.5 % of the annual maximum in 1991–2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ i.e .
they know bears leave for the ice as soon as its 5-10 % ice-covered ] .
Because ice extent differed substantially between bear arrival and departure dates , we chose one critical extent that is a compromise between the two , and computed times when extent first crosses the critical value for three consecutive days in summer and fall ( Extended Data Fig .
1 ) .
Then , because the fasting period is defined as the number of days between the bears ’ on-shore arrival in summer and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we adjusted the days of the year when critical extent is crossed by constant offsets to match the mean observed arrival/departure ( and hence fast initiation/cessation ) dates in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation ( Extended Data Fig .
2 ) .
In essence , offsets at the start and end of the ice-free season are estimates of how long bears will linger on the last persistent floes after the extent has fallen below the critical value , and of how long it takes the bears to return to the ice after it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought a critical extent that allows a small offset in the autumn ( consistent with polar bears eager to get back on the sea ice after a long fast ) and a moderate offset in summer ( suggesting that polar bears continue on-ice foraging for as long as possible ) .
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist ( former adjunct professor , University of Victoria ) specializing in Holocene mammals , including polar bears and walruses .
Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened ( Amazon ) .

Written by Susan J. Crockford, Ph.D. on Jul 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A prediction that polar bears could be nearly extinct by 2100 (which was first suggested back in 2007) is news today because there is a new model.
As for all previous models, this prediction of future polar bear devastation depends on using the so-called ‘business as usual’ RCP8.5 climate scenario, which has been roundly criticized in recent years as totally implausible, which even the BBC has mentioned.
This new model, published today as a pay-walled paper in Nature Climate Change, also did something I warned against in my last post: it uses polar bear data collected up to 2009 only from Western Hudson Bay – which is an outlier in many respects – to predict the response of bears worldwide.
The lead author, Peter Molnar, is a former student of vocal polar bear catastrophist Andrew Derocher – who himself learned his trade from the king of polar bear calamity forecasts, Ian Stirling.
Steven Amstrup, another co-author of this paper, provided the ‘expert opinion’ for the failed USGS polar bear extinction model featured in my book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened.
Well, these authors and their supporters got the headlines they crave, including coverage by outlets like the BBC and New York Times (see below), but I have to say that the combination of using out-of-date Western Hudson Bay information on when polar bears come ashore in summer and leave for the ice in fall (only to 2009) to make vague projections (‘possible’, ‘likely’, ‘very likely’) about all other subpopulations in addition to depending on the most extreme and now discredited RCP8.5 climate scenario (Hausfather and Peters 2020) for this newest polar bear survival model is all that’s needed to dismiss it as exaggerated-fear-mongering-by-proxy.
Why would anyone believe that the output of this new model describes a plausible future for polar bears?
Meanwhile, polar bear populations worldwide continue to thrive despite declines in sea ice.
And as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the ice-free period for WH has not continued to decline since 1998 but rather has remained stable (with yearly variation) at about 3 weeks longer than it was in the 1980s (Castro de la Guardia et al 2017).
Moreover, for the last five years at least, including this one, the ice-free season for WH bears has been better (only 1-2 weeks longer than the 1980s), although no official data on this phenomenon has yet been published.
Oddly, this more recent data for Hudson Bay was not used for the Molnar model.
Also this year, the first polar bears off the ice in Western Hudson Bay are at least two weeks later than they have been in recent years: Andrew Derocher’s first tagged bear came to shore 17 July 2020 (see below):
The first tag-free bear spotted onshore at Wakusp National Park south of Churchill by live webcams was caught on film 13 July (see video below and notice how fat it is).
Other photos over the last few days show very fat bears and cubs just off the ice. All of this means that the mean date of all bears off the ice this summer will almost certainly be early August – as late as it was in the 1980s.
ABOUT THE PAPER
The lead author of this new paper (Molnar et al. 2020), Peter Molnar, has written something similar before.
He concocted a model for Western Hudson Bay polar bear survival a decade ago (Molnar et al. 2010) that predicted 28-48% of male polar bears in WH would die if climate change caused the fasting period to be extended from the 120 days (4 months) that were usual during the 1980s to 180 days (6 months) sometime in the future.
A colleague of his put together a similar model generating similar results a couple of years later (Robbins et al. 2012), which I wrote about here.
Here is a quote from the methods that show even their preferred polar bear vs. sea ice data for WH could not be used without fiddling with it because it didn’t fit their assumptions of what the bears should be doing (my bold):
“…we assumed that fast duration is linked to the annual number of ice-free days in each subpopulation region. We computed the ice-free season from observed and modelled daily sea-ice concentrations, and linked our estimates to reported annual migration dates of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation to ensure that each year’s first and last fasting day were defined from a polar bear’s perspective. … The ice-free season was defined as the period when the extent in a subpopulation region is below a critical value. Our choice of this critical extent was based on when polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation were observed to arrive on-shore (leaving the ice) in summer and depart the land (returning to ice) in autumn. The migration dates were assessed from bear locations tracked by satellite-linked radio collars in 1991–2009, as reported in ref. 38 [Cherry et al. 2013]. The mean days of the year of bear on-shore arrival and departure to sea ice were 212 [31 July] and 329 [25 November], respectively (averaged across all bears in all available years from 1991–2009; Extended Data Fig. 2). However, according to Extended Data Fig. 1, the mean sea-ice extent in Western Hudson Bay on day 212 was extremely low (3.8% of the annual maximum in the years 1991–2009), suggesting that bears may have lingered on a few persistent clusters of small, highly ridged floes, which could provide cover for aquatic stalks, before giving up on the ice and coming ashore. In contrast, on day 329, the extent was 48.5% of the annual maximum in 1991–2009 in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation region [i.e. they know bears leave for the ice as soon as its 5-10% ice-covered]. Because ice extent differed substantially between bear arrival and departure dates, we chose one critical extent that is a compromise between the two, and computed times when extent first crosses the critical value for three consecutive days in summer and fall (Extended Data Fig. 1). Then, because the fasting period is defined as the number of days between the bears’ on-shore arrival in summer and their departure to sea ice in autumn, we adjusted the days of the year when critical extent is crossed by constant offsets to match the mean observed arrival/departure (and hence fast initiation/cessation) dates in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation (Extended Data Fig. 2). In essence, offsets at the start and end of the ice-free season are estimates of how long bears will linger on the last persistent floes after the extent has fallen below the critical value, and of how long it takes the bears to return to the ice after it rises above the critical value. We sought a critical extent that allows a small offset in the autumn (consistent with polar bears eager to get back on the sea ice after a long fast) and a moderate offset in summer (suggesting that polar bears continue on-ice foraging for as long as possible).
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist (former adjunct professor, University of Victoria) specializing in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walruses. Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).
Read rest at Polar Bear Science
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-20--The Biden-Bernie Lefty Manifesto Is The Green New Deal On Steroids

Written by Miranda Devine on .
Posted in Latest news Joe Biden signed the death warrant for his campaign last week , even if he doesn ’ t know it .
The joint manifesto he released with Bernie Sanders is 110 pages of radical far-left policies — from a job-killing $ 2 trillion climate agenda to eliminating cash bail and dismantling border protection .
It betrays the working-class voters Biden claims to represent and destroys any pretense that he is a “ moderate.
” As Sanders has boasted , Biden would be “ the most progressive president since FDR.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their ears and vote for Biden out of nostalgia for a Democratic Party that no longer exists or out of exhaustion at the relentless anti-Trump barrage .
But with his “ Unity Task Forces ” document , Biden has proven only that he is an empty husk .
Old Joe , who was for the police and working people and law and order , is long gone .
His body is there but , like his party , it has been invaded by the socialist left .
Under Biden ’ s manifesto , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which requires “ decarbonizing ” American industries and eliminating carbon dioxide emissions to “ net zero.
” It is the Green New Deal on steroids .
It will eliminate fossil fuel power by 2035 , aka “ commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035.
” Within five years , “ we will install 500 million solar panels , including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems , and 60,000 made-in-America wind turbines.
” Note there ’ s no mention of “ made-in-America ” solar panels .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels in five years is to buy them from China .
In other countries , such as Australia , that have gone down this path , the result is cheap , shoddy solar systems that fall apart within five years .
Of course , we will have to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement , and pay the Green Climate Fund , the United Nations slush fund which gives grants to China , even though China doesn ’ t contribute a cent .
This is a straight transfer of American taxpayer funds to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joe .
Hilariously , the document claims this will all result in lower electricity bills .
It ’ s a fantasy .
America ’ s prosperity has been built on cheap fossil fuel energy .
That will end with Biden ’ s plan .
Where will baseload power come from when the sun doesn ’ t shine and the wind doesn ’ t blow ?
Almost two-thirds of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and the experience of countries such as Australia and Germany is that switching to wind and solar drives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , which has mandated zero emissions by 2045 .
Electricity prices there are 60 percent more , on average , than in the rest of the United States and rose five times faster between 2011 and 2017 , according to a study by Environmental Progress .
Naturally , the nation ’ s most radical green groups are cock-a-hoop about the Biden-Sanders manifesto .
The word “ union ” appears 49 times in the document and “ working families ” 17 times , as Biden pretends that high-paying fossil fuel jobs and pensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be magically transformed into new climate jobs , building wind turbines and electric cars and climate-retrofitting 4 million homes .
To pay for all this , Biden promises to increase taxes .
At least he ’ s honest about it .
He ’ ll hike the top income-tax rate by almost two points and the corporate tax rate by seven points , undoing the engine that kickstarted Trump ’ s economy .
In other words , he plans to punish the wealth creators and redistribute their money to an ever-expanding class of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
There ’ s a lot more to fear in the 50,000-word manifesto .
… Biden speaks out of both sides of his mouth on fracking , too .
He said during a debate in April that he would ban oil and gas fracking , which accounts for 10 million jobs and has catapulted America to the top world producer .
His campaign subsequently insisted he won ’ t touch fracking .
But his manifesto will ban fracking on “ federal lands and waters.
” The Institute for Energy Research says the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion nationally over the next 15 years and eliminate 270,000 US jobs .
Just what we need in a pandemic-crippled economy .
… No matter how many New York Times columnists try to craft Biden an image as “ working-class Joe ” from Scranton , “ a man who is not ideological , ” or dream up excuses for him not to debate President Trump , the charade is unsustainable .
At some point , the mask will slip .

Written by Miranda Devine on Jul 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Joe Biden signed the death warrant for his campaign last week, even if he doesn’t know it.
The joint manifesto he released with Bernie Sanders is 110 pages of radical far-left policies — from a job-killing $2 trillion climate agenda to eliminating cash bail and dismantling border protection.
It betrays the working-class voters Biden claims to represent and destroys any pretense that he is a “moderate.”
As Sanders has boasted, Biden would be “the most progressive president since FDR.”
Well-meaning people might stick their fingers in their ears and vote for Biden out of nostalgia for a Democratic Party that no longer exists or out of exhaustion at the relentless anti-Trump barrage.
But with his “Unity Task Forces” document, Biden has proven only that he is an empty husk. Old Joe, who was for the police and working people and law and order, is long gone. His body is there but, like his party, it has been invaded by the socialist left.
Under Biden’s manifesto, “Climate change is a global emergency” which requires “decarbonizing” American industries and eliminating carbon dioxide emissions to “net zero.”
It is the Green New Deal on steroids.
It will eliminate fossil fuel power by 2035, aka “commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035.”
Within five years, “we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems, and 60,000 made-in-America wind turbines.”
Note there’s no mention of “made-in-America” solar panels. The only way to install 500 million solar panels in five years is to buy them from China.
In other countries, such as Australia, that have gone down this path, the result is cheap, shoddy solar systems that fall apart within five years.
Of course, we will have to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, and pay the Green Climate Fund, the United Nations slush fund which gives grants to China, even though China doesn’t contribute a cent.
This is a straight transfer of American taxpayer funds to the Chinese Communist Party. Way to go, Joe.
Hilariously, the document claims this will all result in lower electricity bills.
It’s a fantasy. America’s prosperity has been built on cheap fossil fuel energy. That will end with Biden’s plan. Where will baseload power come from when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow?
Almost two-thirds of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and the experience of countries such as Australia and Germany is that switching to wind and solar drives up the cost of electricity.
Take California, which has mandated zero emissions by 2045.
Electricity prices there are 60 percent more, on average, than in the rest of the United States and rose five times faster between 2011 and 2017, according to a study by Environmental Progress.
Naturally, the nation’s most radical green groups are cock-a-hoop about the Biden-Sanders manifesto.
The word “union” appears 49 times in the document and “working families” 17 times, as Biden pretends that high-paying fossil fuel jobs and pensions in places such as Pennsylvania and Ohio will be magically transformed into new climate jobs, building wind turbines and electric cars and climate-retrofitting 4 million homes.
To pay for all this, Biden promises to increase taxes. At least he’s honest about it.
He’ll hike the top income-tax rate by almost two points and the corporate tax rate by seven points, undoing the engine that kickstarted Trump’s economy.
In other words, he plans to punish the wealth creators and redistribute their money to an ever-expanding class of supplicants. Not that it will be enough.
There’s a lot more to fear in the 50,000-word manifesto. …
Biden speaks out of both sides of his mouth on fracking, too. He said during a debate in April that he would ban oil and gas fracking, which accounts for 10 million jobs and has catapulted America to the top world producer.
His campaign subsequently insisted he won’t touch fracking.
But his manifesto will ban fracking on “federal lands and waters.” The Institute for Energy Research says the policy will reduce revenues by $6 billion nationally over the next 15 years and eliminate 270,000 US jobs.
Just what we need in a pandemic-crippled economy. …
No matter how many New York Times columnists try to craft Biden an image as “working-class Joe” from Scranton, “a man who is not ideological,” or dream up excuses for him not to debate President Trump, the charade is unsustainable.
At some point, the mask will slip.
Read rest at NY Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-20--More Proof That Geologic Forces Are Melting Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers

Written by James Edward Kamis , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news As previously explained before , increased melting/ice loss of Antarctica ’ s Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers is the result of geologically induced heat flow emitted from underlying bedrock “ hotspots , ” not climate change ( Figure 1 ) .
All but a very minor amount of Antarctica ’ s glacial ice melting occurs in the western portion of this continent .
The most rapid and greatest ice mass loss areas are in West Antarctica .
They are positioned directly above geographically extensive and high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is thought to be strong evidence of a cause and effect relationship .
Discussion of evidence supporting the contention that the melting of Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers is the result of bedrock heat flow begins with a review of the regional geology ( refer to Figure 1 ) .
The Pluton Rich “ hotspot ” is a 61,000-thousand-square-mile area that is home to numerous high-heat-flow lava pockets that are bounded and fueled by deep earth reaching faults .
Several detailed research studies document the existence and configuration of this area .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Mount Erebus Volcanic Complex “ Hotspot ” is the most geologically active portion of Antarctica .
It is a 25,000-square-mile high-heat-flow area , much of which is absent of glacial ice .
The absence of glacial ice across a huge portion of West Antarctica is extremely unusual and exceedingly difficult to explain by invoking global warming .
Mount Erebus is a 12,448-foot-high volcano that is currently erupting ( Figure 2 ) .
It is a striking visual example of the high geological heat flow that is present across this entire volcanic complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flow in this volcanic complex are as follows .
• Extensive absence of glacial ice in the McMurdo Dry Valleys .
• Warming of ocean waters in Mount Erebus Bay has led to the melting of the bays sea ice and retreat of the Nansen Glacier .
• Recently discovered subglacial river system under the McMurdo Dry Valleys Taylor Glacier that outflows at the geologically red-stained Blood Falls ( Kamis in print ) .
The Marie Byrd Mantle Plume “ Hotspot ” area encompasses 620,000 square miles .
It is a highly active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuels 100 active or semi-active subglacial volcanoes .
Two of which are currently erupting ( Loose 2017 ) .
Even more telling , 46 of these active subglacial volcanoes are positioned directly beneath the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers .
For more detailed discussions of the Marie Byrd Mantle Plume ( Kamis 2018 ) , ( Barletta 2018 ) Next , let us review the local geological setting of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers .
Both glaciers are underlain by multiple volcanoes , eight under Pine Island , and forty under Thwaites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind that the regional geological setting has been shown to emit high heat flow it seems logical that the volcanoes beneath Pine Island and Thwaites emit especially high heat flow that is likely of much greater magnitude .
Additionally , these two glaciers are adjacent to numerous other glaciers that are not losing thickness/melting as quickly .
This shows that the geological features beneath Pine Island and Thwaites are emitting significantly greater heat flow likely from volcanic eruptions .
Differential melting of adjacent glaciers is difficult to explain by global warming processes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ volcano beneath the Pine Island glacier is game-changing news .
It is no longer correct to attribute all of these glaciers melting to atmospheric warming or warming of local ocean waters .
The Pine Island glacier valley is long narrow and very linear indicating that it was formed by deep inner earth reaching fault that highly likely taps into underlying hot lava pockets .
Lava pocket heat is transferred to the bottom of the valley floor bottom and melting the glacier .
Recent research of the Thwaites glacier discovered that exceptionally large and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bedrock interface .
Therefore , decreased thickness of Thwaites glacier is not exclusively the result of surface ice melting .
Further evidence showing that melting of the Pine Island is almost certainly the result of a currently erupting .
subglacial volcano and high bedrock heat flow can be seen by referring to DeSanto 2019 , Loose 2017 , and De Vries 2017 .
Further evidence showing that melting of the Thwaites glacier is very likely the result of high geothermal heat flow can be found at DeSanto 2019 , Schroeder 2014 , Schroeder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Kamis 2018 .
In summary , the Pine Island and so-called “ Doomsday ” Thwaites glaciers are melting from subglacial high-heat-flow emitted from active geological features and has nothing to do with global warming .
Failure to properly discuss and make the public aware of the presence of these features is difficult to reconcile with proper scientific methodology .
James Edward Kamis is a retired professional Geologist with 42 years of experience , a B.S .
in Geology from Northern Illinois University ( 1973 ) , an M.S .
in geology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and is a longtime member of AAPG who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate .
More than 42 years of research/observation have convinced him that Geological forces , especially Earth ’ s Upper Mantle Convection Systems which drive the dynamics of outer crustal plates , are an important driver of the Earth ’ s climate as per his Plate Climatology Theory .

Written by James Edward Kamis, guest post on Jul 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As previously explained before, increased melting/ice loss of Antarctica’s Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers is the result of geologically induced heat flow emitted from underlying bedrock “hotspots,” not climate change (Figure 1).
All but a very minor amount of Antarctica’s glacial ice melting occurs in the western portion of this continent. The most rapid and greatest ice mass loss areas are in West Antarctica.
They are positioned directly above geographically extensive and high heat flow geological features. This association is thought to be strong evidence of a cause and effect relationship.
Discussion of evidence supporting the contention that the melting of Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers is the result of bedrock heat flow begins with a review of the regional geology (refer to Figure 1).
The Pluton Rich “hotspot” is a 61,000-thousand-square-mile area that is home to numerous high-heat-flow lava pockets that are bounded and fueled by deep earth reaching faults.
Several detailed research studies document the existence and configuration of this area. This lies along the West Antarctic Rift.
The Mount Erebus Volcanic Complex “Hotspot” is the most geologically active portion of Antarctica. It is a 25,000-square-mile high-heat-flow area, much of which is absent of glacial ice.
The absence of glacial ice across a huge portion of West Antarctica is extremely unusual and exceedingly difficult to explain by invoking global warming.
Mount Erebus is a 12,448-foot-high volcano that is currently erupting (Figure 2). It is a striking visual example of the high geological heat flow that is present across this entire volcanic complex.
Other examples of the high heat flow in this volcanic complex are as follows.
Extensive absence of glacial ice in the McMurdo Dry Valleys.
Warming of ocean waters in Mount Erebus Bay has led to the melting of the bays sea ice and retreat of the Nansen Glacier.
Recently discovered subglacial river system under the McMurdo Dry Valleys Taylor Glacier that outflows at the geologically red-stained Blood Falls ( Kamis in print).
The Marie Byrd Mantle Plume “Hotspot” area encompasses 620,000 square miles. It is a highly active geological feature that has generated and still fuels 100 active or semi-active subglacial volcanoes.
Two of which are currently erupting (Loose 2017 ). Even more telling, 46 of these active subglacial volcanoes are positioned directly beneath the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers. For more detailed discussions of the Marie Byrd Mantle Plume (Kamis 2018), (Barletta 2018)
Next, let us review the local geological setting of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.
Both glaciers are underlain by multiple volcanoes, eight under Pine Island, and forty under Thwaites (Figure 3).
Keeping in mind that the regional geological setting has been shown to emit high heat flow it seems logical that the volcanoes beneath Pine Island and Thwaites emit especially high heat flow that is likely of much greater magnitude.
Additionally, these two glaciers are adjacent to numerous other glaciers that are not losing thickness/melting as quickly.
This shows that the geological features beneath Pine Island and Thwaites are emitting significantly greater heat flow likely from volcanic eruptions. Differential melting of adjacent glaciers is difficult to explain by global warming processes.
The recent discovery of a currently erupting volcano beneath the Pine Island glacier is game-changing news. It is no longer correct to attribute all of these glaciers melting to atmospheric warming or warming of local ocean waters.
The Pine Island glacier valley is long narrow and very linear indicating that it was formed by deep inner earth reaching fault that highly likely taps into underlying hot lava pockets.
Lava pocket heat is transferred to the bottom of the valley floor bottom and melting the glacier.
Recent research of the Thwaites glacier discovered that exceptionally large and extensive open caves exist at the ice bedrock interface.
Therefore, decreased thickness of Thwaites glacier is not exclusively the result of surface ice melting.
Further evidence showing that melting of the Pine Island is almost certainly the result of a currently erupting. subglacial volcano and high bedrock heat flow can be seen by referring to DeSanto 2019, Loose 2017, and De Vries 2017.
Further evidence showing that melting of the Thwaites glacier is very likely the result of high geothermal heat flow can be found at DeSanto 2019, Schroeder 2014, Schroeder 2015, Kamis 2014, Kamis 2016, and Kamis 2018.
In summary, the Pine Island and so-called “Doomsday” Thwaites glaciers are melting from subglacial high-heat-flow emitted from active geological features and has nothing to do with global warming.
Failure to properly discuss and make the public aware of the presence of these features is difficult to reconcile with proper scientific methodology.
James Edward Kamis is a retired professional Geologist with 42 years of experience, a B.S. in Geology from Northern Illinois University (1973), an M.S. in geology from Idaho State University (1977), and is a longtime member of AAPG who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. More than 42 years of research/observation have convinced him that Geological forces, especially Earth’s Upper Mantle Convection Systems which drive the dynamics of outer crustal plates, are an important driver of the Earth’s climate as per his Plate Climatology Theory.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-20--Biden’s Climate Plan Is ‘Solyndra on Steroids’

Written by Tom Finnerty on .
Posted in Latest news I couldn ’ t help but laugh when I read the sub-headline of this New York Times report on Joe Biden ’ s recent speech laying out his new , improved environmental policy proposals .
It reads , “ Joe Biden ’ s plan connects tackling climate change with the economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis , while also addressing racism.
” Oh , is that all ?
Forgive me for assuming his advisors just wanted to toss a bunch of hot topics into a single speech to limit his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plan outlines specific and aggressive targets , including achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035 and upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest standards for energy efficiency… .
[ H ] e promised that “ the U.S. auto industry and its deep bench of suppliers will step up , expanding capacity so that the United States , not China , leads the world in clean vehicle production.
” … .
He also pressed the need to link environmental advocacy to racial justice , describing pollution and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color .
One need not read any further than “ an emissions-free power sector by 2035 ” to recognize this as an unserious plan .
As the Times acknowledges , its subtext is shoring up the support of the various Democratic factions who ’ ve long been skeptical of Biden .
The “ climate justice ” crowd has struggled to figure out what his environmental policies actually are ( they ’ re not alone ) , and doubt his commitment to their cause .
The Race uber alles coterie is inclined to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime bill against him .
The Bernie Bros economic lefties don ’ t really trust anyone to deliver but Bernie .
And the promise of auto-industry jobs and his shot at China are an attempt at outreach to the blue-collar voters who pulled the lever for Trump in 2016 .
This is not to say that we shouldn ’ t be concerned about this plan should Biden win in November .
House minority whip Steve Scalise referred to it as “ Solyndra on steroids , ” and that about sums it up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount to his proposal , but it ’ s clear he plans to spend significantly more than the $ 1.7 trillion his campaign had initially proposed .
It would be hard for a President Biden to renege on a commitment to that kind of spending without drawing a primary challenge from , say , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2024 , when she will have just turned 35 .
How would a Biden administration pay for this you might ask ?
Easy : The odd conflation of corporations and “ the wealthiest Americans ” aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent in 2017 , and it isn ’ t as if we had trillions of dollars in the budget to spend on electric cars before then .
Joe Biden wants voters to think of him as reasonable and moderate , but proposals like this , ordered towards appeasing the most extreme elements in his party , are a window into how he would actually govern : disastrously .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Tom Finnerty on Jul 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the sub-headline of this New York Times report on Joe Biden’s recent speech laying out his new, improved environmental policy proposals.
It reads, “Joe Biden’s plan connects tackling climate change with the economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis, while also addressing racism.”
Oh, is that all? Forgive me for assuming his advisors just wanted to toss a bunch of hot topics into a single speech to limit his exposure to the voting public.
Biden’s plan outlines specific and aggressive targets, including achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035 and upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest standards for energy efficiency…. [H]e promised that “the U.S. auto industry and its deep bench of suppliers will step up, expanding capacity so that the United States, not China, leads the world in clean vehicle production.” …. He also pressed the need to link environmental advocacy to racial justice, describing pollution and other toxic harms that disproportionately affect communities of color.
One need not read any further than “an emissions-free power sector by 2035” to recognize this as an unserious plan.
As the Times acknowledges, its subtext is shoring up the support of the various Democratic factions who’ve long been skeptical of Biden.
The “climate justice” crowd has struggled to figure out what his environmental policies actually are (they’re not alone), and doubt his commitment to their cause.
The Race uber alles coterie is inclined to hold his role in crafting the ’94 crime bill against him. The Bernie Bros economic lefties don’t really trust anyone to deliver but Bernie.
And the promise of auto-industry jobs and his shot at China are an attempt at outreach to the blue-collar voters who pulled the lever for Trump in 2016.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned about this plan should Biden win in November.
House minority whip Steve Scalise referred to it as “Solyndra on steroids,” and that about sums it up.
Biden didn’t assign a dollar amount to his proposal, but it’s clear he plans to spend significantly more than the $1.7 trillion his campaign had initially proposed.
It would be hard for a President Biden to renege on a commitment to that kind of spending without drawing a primary challenge from, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2024, when she will have just turned 35.
How would a Biden administration pay for this you might ask? Easy:
To pay for it, campaign officials said, Biden proposes an increase in the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent, “asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”
The odd conflation of corporations and “the wealthiest Americans” aside, the U.S. only just cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent in 2017, and it isn’t as if we had trillions of dollars in the budget to spend on electric cars before then.
Joe Biden wants voters to think of him as reasonable and moderate, but proposals like this, ordered towards appeasing the most extreme elements in his party, are a window into how he would actually govern: disastrously.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-20--NOAA Falsely Claims ‘Extraordinary’ Sea-Level Rise, Data Says Otherwise

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , which relies on perpetuation of the Climate Delusion to maintain high funding , is falsely claiming there has been an “ extraordinary ” sea-level rise since 2000 .
Fox News and other media outlets are devoting substantial attention to the assertion by NOAA bureaucrats .
However , there is simply nothing extraordinary about the recent sea-level rise .
According to Fox News , NOAA claims “ Communities in coastal areas of the U.S. saw record-setting high-tide flooding last year , part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an ] ‘ extraordinary ’ rise in high-tide flooding since 2000.
” “ Damaging floods that decades ago happened only during a storm now happen more regularly , even without severe weather , ” Nicole LeBoeuf , acting assistant administrator for NOAA ’ s National Ocean Service , told reporters in a conference call .
Even if high-tide flooding has increased in recent years , natural factors are the primary cause .
As detailed in Climate at a Glance : Sea Level Rise : Data shows global sea level has been rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one foot per century since at least the mid-1800s , which was long before coal power plants and SUVs .
Moreover , the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) confirms here has been no significant recent acceleration .
Global sea level has risen approximately 400 feet since the beginning of the end of the most recent ice age—approximately 20,000 years ago .
The rate of sea-level rise has risen and fallen at various times since then , slowing and increasing on the order of tens , hundreds , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
All of that variance had nothing to do with human activities .
Indeed , as NASA reports , sea level always rises between ice ages as ice sheets retreat .
During the last interglacial period between ice ages , seas were four to six meters higher than we are experiencing today .
The best evidence is , regardless of what humans do , sea level will continue modestly yet relentlessly rising , sometimes slower than others , until the next ice age begins .
Also , climate alarmists try to hide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current rate of sea-level rise is much slower than the average for most of the present interglacial period .
Indeed , there have been periods during this interglacial when seas rose by as much as 10 to 15 meters in less than 500 years .
Also , as detailed in a report by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change ( NIPCC ) , some cities , like Ceuta , Spain , have experienced almost no sea-level rise over the past century .
Other cities , such as Sitka , Alaska have actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other cities , such as Atlantic City , have experienced a large , rapid increase in sea levels .
Humans may be contributing to “ high-tide ” flooding on sunny days , but the activities in question are not primarily the emission of greenhouse gases .
Instead , those activities include the construction of barriers and impervious surfaces leading to increased runoff , the channelization of rivers , the conversion of coastal wetlands to densely populated metropolitan areas , filling in shallow water bays , replenishing eroded beaches , and the draining of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land-use changes have undoubtedly contributed to making some coastal regions and populations more vulnerable to rising seas and other cities and populations less vulnerable .
For instance , the Chesapeake Bay region along the East Coast is one of the regions NOAA discusses as experiencing increased high-tide flooding in recent years .
However , a NIPCC climate report shows “ water intrusion problems in the Chesapeake Bay region are due not to sea-level rise , but primarily to land subsidence due to groundwater depletion and glacial isostatic adjustment.
” In short , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if at all , over the past century .
If flooding has increased in some areas , causes other than climate change are the primary source of the flooding .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which relies on perpetuation of the Climate Delusion to maintain high funding, is falsely claiming there has been an “extraordinary” sea-level rise since 2000.
Fox News and other media outlets are devoting substantial attention to the assertion by NOAA bureaucrats. However, there is simply nothing extraordinary about the recent sea-level rise.
According to Fox News, NOAA claims “Communities in coastal areas of the U.S. saw record-setting high-tide flooding last year, part of a trend of rising seas … [and an] ‘extraordinary’ rise in high-tide flooding since 2000.”
“Damaging floods that decades ago happened only during a storm now happen more regularly, even without severe weather,” Nicole LeBoeuf, acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s National Ocean Service, told reporters in a conference call.
Even if high-tide flooding has increased in recent years, natural factors are the primary cause.
As detailed in Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise: Data shows global sea level has been rising at a relatively steady pace of approximately one foot per century since at least the mid-1800s, which was long before coal power plants and SUVs.
Moreover, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms here has been no significant recent acceleration.
Global sea level has risen approximately 400 feet since the beginning of the end of the most recent ice age—approximately 20,000 years ago.
The rate of sea-level rise has risen and fallen at various times since then, slowing and increasing on the order of tens, hundreds, and thousands of years over the past 20,000 years.
All of that variance had nothing to do with human activities. Indeed, as NASA reports, sea level always rises between ice ages as ice sheets retreat.
During the last interglacial period between ice ages, seas were four to six meters higher than we are experiencing today.
The best evidence is, regardless of what humans do, sea level will continue modestly yet relentlessly rising, sometimes slower than others, until the next ice age begins.
Also, climate alarmists try to hide the fact that NASA records indicate the current rate of sea-level rise is much slower than the average for most of the present interglacial period.
Indeed, there have been periods during this interglacial when seas rose by as much as 10 to 15 meters in less than 500 years.
Also, as detailed in a report by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), some cities, like Ceuta, Spain, have experienced almost no sea-level rise over the past century.
Other cities, such as Sitka, Alaska have actually experienced falling sea levels. Still, other cities, such as Atlantic City, have experienced a large, rapid increase in sea levels.
Humans may be contributing to “high-tide” flooding on sunny days, but the activities in question are not primarily the emission of greenhouse gases.
Instead, those activities include the construction of barriers and impervious surfaces leading to increased runoff, the channelization of rivers, the conversion of coastal wetlands to densely populated metropolitan areas, filling in shallow water bays, replenishing eroded beaches, and the draining of coastal aquifers for human consumption.
These land-use changes have undoubtedly contributed to making some coastal regions and populations more vulnerable to rising seas and other cities and populations less vulnerable.
For instance, the Chesapeake Bay region along the East Coast is one of the regions NOAA discusses as experiencing increased high-tide flooding in recent years.
However, a NIPCC climate report shows “water intrusion problems in the Chesapeake Bay region are due not to sea-level rise, but primarily to land subsidence due to groundwater depletion and glacial isostatic adjustment.”
In short, the rate of sea-level rise has increased little, if at all, over the past century. If flooding has increased in some areas, causes other than climate change are the primary source of the flooding.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-21--Greta Thunberg Wins €1M Prize; Will Give To Green Groups

Written by Thomas D. Williams , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Climate icon Greta Thunberg has taken yet another prize for her woke climate activism , banking the one million euro Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity for her “ contributions to mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
” The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation was established in Lisbon , Portugal , in 1956 “ to improve the quality of life through art , charity , science , and education ” but 2020 marks its first-ever Prize for Humanity , an award created to stimulate climate change activism .
According to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ distinguishes innovative pathways with high impact potential to assist in processes of mitigation and/or adaptation to climate change , one of the greatest threats to this century and with devastating consequences for the well-being of current and future generations and for the economy and our natural ecosystems.
” The foundation shares the widespread conviction that humanity “ is facing an unprecedented climate crisis , ” which is “ clearly visible in the ever-increasing frequency of heatwaves and droughts , the rise in seawater temperatures , melting glaciers and extreme weather events.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Time Magazine ’ s “ Person of the Year ” for 2019 , joining a series of notable figures including Adolf Hitler ( 1938 ) , Joseph Stalin ( 1939 ) , and Ayatollah Khomeini ( 1979 ) .
Thunberg was launched into the public limelight thanks to her Fridays for Future movement , whereby students are encouraged to skip school every Friday in order to protest climate change .
Thunberg also received broad acclaim from the international Left for her public scolding of world leaders at the United Nations last September .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my childhood , with your empty words and yet I ’ m one of the lucky ones , ” Thunberg said at the U.N. General Assembly .
“ People are suffering .
People are dying .
Entire ecosystems are collapsing .
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth .
How dare you ?
” [ … ] Soon after , a series of contrite contenders for the Democrat Presidential nomination began falling over themselves to praise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bernie Sanders , Beto O ’ Rourke , and Kamala Harris all joined in the Greta love-fest , with Harris confessing that we are “ failing our nation ’ s youth.
” The Maryknoll missionaries , a Catholic religious order , went so far as to compare Thunberg to the Virgin Mary .
“ Christians getting their knickers all in a twist over the passionate , articulate & knowledgeable witness of Greta Thunberg because of her age seem to overlook the age of the Virgin Mary at the time of the Annunciation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On receiving the award Monday , Thunberg immediately promised to donate the money to organizations devoted to combatting climate change , such as the SOS Amazonia Campaign the Stop Ecocide Foundation .

Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. on Jul 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate icon Greta Thunberg has taken yet another prize for her woke climate activism, banking the one million euro Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity for her “contributions to mitigation and adaptation to climate change.”
The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation was established in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1956 “to improve the quality of life through art, charity, science, and education” but 2020 marks its first-ever Prize for Humanity, an award created to stimulate climate change activism.
According to its website, the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity “distinguishes innovative pathways with high impact potential to assist in processes of mitigation and/or adaptation to climate change, one of the greatest threats to this century and with devastating consequences for the well-being of current and future generations and for the economy and our natural ecosystems.”
The foundation shares the widespread conviction that humanity “is facing an unprecedented climate crisis,” which is “clearly visible in the ever-increasing frequency of heatwaves and droughts, the rise in seawater temperatures, melting glaciers and extreme weather events.”
The 17-year-old Ms. Thunberg was already named Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” for 2019, joining a series of notable figures including Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939), and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979).
Thunberg was launched into the public limelight thanks to her Fridays for Future movement, whereby students are encouraged to skip school every Friday in order to protest climate change.
Thunberg also received broad acclaim from the international Left for her public scolding of world leaders at the United Nations last September.
“You have stolen my dreams, my childhood, with your empty words and yet I’m one of the lucky ones,” Thunberg said at the U.N. General Assembly. “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?” […]
Soon after, a series of contrite contenders for the Democrat Presidential nomination began falling over themselves to praise the young activist for her prophetic words.
Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, and Kamala Harris all joined in the Greta love-fest, with Harris confessing that we are “failing our nation’s youth.”
The Maryknoll missionaries, a Catholic religious order, went so far as to compare Thunberg to the Virgin Mary.
“Christians getting their knickers all in a twist over the passionate, articulate & knowledgeable witness of Greta Thunberg because of her age seem to overlook the age of the Virgin Mary at the time of the Annunciation,” the group wrote on Twitter.
On receiving the award Monday, Thunberg immediately promised to donate the money to organizations devoted to combatting climate change, such as the SOS Amazonia Campaign the Stop Ecocide Foundation.
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print