climatechangedispatch--2020-09-16--Facebook Creates New Climate Change ‘Indoctrination’ Center

Written by Kayla Sargent on .
Posted in Latest news If you ’ ve logged on to your Facebook today , you may have already noticed something a little different at the top of your feed .
Today , Facebook launched its new Climate Science Information Center , its third information center in the last few months , following the COVID-19 Information Center and the Voter Information Center .
Users can access the Climate Science Information Center at the top of their Facebook feed or as a tool .
It appears as though Facebook “ will continue to apply warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to NBC News .
By clicking the link , users will be redirected to information and pages promoting the existence of climate change .
Otherwise , Facebook has released little specific information about how the new Information Center will impact users ’ usual Facebook experience .
The inclusion of this information center appears to be yet another instance of Facebook caving to the left ’ s demands .
Just as recently as July of this year , several Democratic politicians had expressed “ concerns over reports that Facebook is exempting climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Hill .
Facebook claimed in a blog post that “ The Climate Science Information Center is a dedicated space on Facebook with factual resources from the world ’ s leading climate organizations and actionable steps people can take in their everyday lives to combat climate change.
” “ We believe a lot of our users are particularly interested in climate science , ” Nick Clegg , Facebook ’ s vice president of global affairs , said in an interview with NBC .
He added that there is “ a very strong political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Clegg reportedly claimed that Facebook “ isn ’ t trying to take a stand in any partisan political fight.
” However , the platform ’ s track record suggests otherwise .
Earlier this month , Facebook labeled a post from President Donald Trump about mail-in voting , and if that wasn ’ t enough , it also labeled a different post about the same issue earlier this week .
The platform also censored Congressman Roger Marshall ( R-KS ) , a licensed physician , for his post discussing CDC data about COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all it wants , but the platform has consistently used its “ information ” centers to silence conservative voices on the platform .
Conservatives are under attack .
Contact the FCC at 1-888-225-5322 and/or via the MRC ’ s FCC contact form to give your take on the petition filed by the Department of Commerce regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 .
Demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency , clarity on “ hate speech ” and equal footing for @ @

Written by Kayla Sargent on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
If you’ve logged on to your Facebook today, you may have already noticed something a little different at the top of your feed.
Today, Facebook launched its new Climate Science Information Center, its third information center in the last few months, following the COVID-19 Information Center and the Voter Information Center.
Users can access the Climate Science Information Center at the top of their Facebook feed or as a tool.
It appears as though Facebook “will continue to apply warning labels to demonstrably false information,” according to NBC News.
By clicking the link, users will be redirected to information and pages promoting the existence of climate change.
Otherwise, Facebook has released little specific information about how the new Information Center will impact users’ usual Facebook experience.
The inclusion of this information center appears to be yet another instance of Facebook caving to the left’s demands.
Just as recently as July of this year, several Democratic politicians had expressed “concerns over reports that Facebook is exempting climate change misinformation from fact-checking,” according to The Hill.
Facebook claimed in a blog post that “The Climate Science Information Center is a dedicated space on Facebook with factual resources from the world’s leading climate organizations and actionable steps people can take in their everyday lives to combat climate change.”
“We believe a lot of our users are particularly interested in climate science,” Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview with NBC. He added that there is “a very strong political push around the world for more action.”
Clegg reportedly claimed that Facebook “isn’t trying to take a stand in any partisan political fight.” However, the platform’s track record suggests otherwise.
Earlier this month, Facebook labeled a post from President Donald Trump about mail-in voting, and if that wasn’t enough, it also labeled a different post about the same issue earlier this week.
The platform also censored Congressman Roger Marshall (R-KS), a licensed physician, for his post discussing CDC data about COVID-19.
Facebook can claim to be nonpartisan all it wants, but the platform has consistently used its “information” centers to silence conservative voices on the platform.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact the FCC at 1-888-225-5322 and/or via the MRC’s FCC contact form to give your take on the petition filed by the Department of Commerce regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-16--As People Move South, Alarmists Claim ‘Climate Migrants’ Heading North

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news At the top of Google News searches today for “ climate change , ” an article published by the liberal website Pro Publica claims global warming during the next few decades will force millions of Americans from warm southern states to cooler states .
A look at state population patterns , however , shows exactly the opposite is happening .
Even with our modest recent warming , more Americans prefer to move to warmer southern states than colder northern states .
The Pro Publica article , “ Climate Change Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims : “ [ One ] in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California , the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone .
… It will eat away at prosperity , dealing repeated economic blows to coastal , rural , and Southern regions , which could in turn push entire communities to the brink of collapse .
This process has already begun in rural Louisiana and coastal Georgia… ” So , according to the article , people moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another to seek a better climate is disastrous and puts whole communities on the brink of collapse .
If that is indeed the case , perhaps we should do something about it .
A map published , ironically , by the liberal climate-alarmist website Daily Kos illustrates how Americans are reacting to climate by seeking warmer , not colder , temperatures .
As shown in the Daily Kos map below , U.S. Census Bureau data show Texas will gain the most congressional seats in the 2020 Census update .
Florida will gain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two southernmost states in the contiguous 48 states .
Other states expected to gain seats are hot-weather Arizona , warm-weather North Carolina , climate-neutral Colorado , climate-neutral Oregon , and cold-weather Montana ( largely due to people fleeing liberal California ) .
By contrast , eight of the 10 states expected to lose seats are cold , northern states .
One of the others is California , where people are fleeing liberal state government .
Alabama is the only warm-weather state expected to lose a congressional seat .
Contrary to the Pro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not lose any seats .
As the population data clearly show , if global warming will have any impact on U.S. interstate migration – which climate alarmists claim is inherently harmful – it will be to slow the existing migration flood from cold northern states to warm southern states .
Yet another objective clear benefit of our ongoing modest warming .

Written by James Taylor on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
At the top of Google News searches today for “climate change,” an article published by the liberal website Pro Publica claims global warming during the next few decades will force millions of Americans from warm southern states to cooler states.
A look at state population patterns, however, shows exactly the opposite is happening.
Even with our modest recent warming, more Americans prefer to move to warmer southern states than colder northern states.
The Pro Publica article, “Climate Change Will Force a New American Migration,” claims:
“[One] in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone. … It will eat away at prosperity, dealing repeated economic blows to coastal, rural, and Southern regions, which could in turn push entire communities to the brink of collapse. This process has already begun in rural Louisiana and coastal Georgia…”
So, according to the article, people moving from one part of the country to another to seek a better climate is disastrous and puts whole communities on the brink of collapse. If that is indeed the case, perhaps we should do something about it.
A map published, ironically, by the liberal climate-alarmist website Daily Kos illustrates how Americans are reacting to climate by seeking warmer, not colder, temperatures.
As shown in the Daily Kos map below, U.S. Census Bureau data show Texas will gain the most congressional seats in the 2020 Census update. Florida will gain the second-most seats.
Texas and Florida are the two southernmost states in the contiguous 48 states. Other states expected to gain seats are hot-weather Arizona, warm-weather North Carolina, climate-neutral Colorado, climate-neutral Oregon, and cold-weather Montana (largely due to people fleeing liberal California).
By contrast, eight of the 10 states expected to lose seats are cold, northern states. One of the others is California, where people are fleeing liberal state government.
Alabama is the only warm-weather state expected to lose a congressional seat. Contrary to the Pro Publica article, Louisiana and Georgia will not lose any seats.
As the population data clearly show, if global warming will have any impact on U.S. interstate migration – which climate alarmists claim is inherently harmful – it will be to slow the existing migration flood from cold northern states to warm southern states.
Yet another objective clear benefit of our ongoing modest warming.
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--2020-09-16--Biden Uses Private Jet To Lecture Commoners About Climate Change

Written by Angelica Stabile on .
Posted in Latest news Presidential nominee Joe Biden isn ’ t practicing what he preaches on the campaign trail , Fox News host Sean Hannity argued during his Tuesday night “ Hannity ” monologue .
After Biden ’ s address on climate Monday , where he proposed man-made fossil fuels will be the destruction of the world , Hannity pointed out he boarded a “ massive private jet.
” “ A lot of carbon emissions for a short , one-day trip down to Florida , ” he said .
“ In Joe Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to We the People .
You .
Not him.
” Hannity suggested we should possibly give the former vice president the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to his frequent “ cognitive issues.
” “ After all , he ’ s having more and more trouble recalling basic facts – what day of the week it is , what office he ’ s running for , whether he ’ s going for re-election or election , ” Hannity said .
Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris is even confusing the basics after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their campaign as the “ Harris Administration together with Joe Biden.
” And Biden himself continues to verbally flip the Democratic ticket as “ Harris-Biden.
” Hannity questioned , with only 49 days left in the election , if the American people really trust Biden and Harris .
Or if they ’ d even go as far to hire him to work at a fast-food restaurant .
“ Would you hire Joe to manage and run even a busy McDonald ’ s restaurant ?
” he asked .
“ That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden can barely leave his basement without having a full-on public meltdown , or constantly refusing to take questions from his adoring fans in the media mob .
”

Written by Angelica Stabile on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Presidential nominee Joe Biden isn’t practicing what he preaches on the campaign trail, Fox News host Sean Hannity argued during his Tuesday night “Hannity” monologue.
After Biden’s address on climate Monday, where he proposed man-made fossil fuels will be the destruction of the world, Hannity pointed out he boarded a “massive private jet.”
“A lot of carbon emissions for a short, one-day trip down to Florida,” he said. “In Joe Biden’s America, the rules only apply to We the People. You. Not him.”
Hannity suggested we should possibly give the former vice president the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to his frequent “cognitive issues.”
“After all, he’s having more and more trouble recalling basic facts – what day of the week it is, what office he’s running for, whether he’s going for re-election or election,” Hannity said.
Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris is even confusing the basics after making a slip where she referred to their campaign as the “Harris Administration together with Joe Biden.” And Biden himself continues to verbally flip the Democratic ticket as “Harris-Biden.”
Hannity questioned, with only 49 days left in the election, if the American people really trust Biden and Harris. Or if they’d even go as far to hire him to work at a fast-food restaurant.
“Would you hire Joe to manage and run even a busy McDonald’s restaurant?” he asked. “That’s a hard job… I don’t know. Biden can barely leave his basement without having a full-on public meltdown, or constantly refusing to take questions from his adoring fans in the media mob.”
Read more at Fox News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-16--Connecticut Files Climate Lawsuit, Echoing New York’s Failure

Written by William Allison on .
Posted in Latest news Connecticut Attorney General William Tong filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil on Monday alleging deception over climate change impacts , rehashing the same , unfounded “ Exxon Knew ” claims that were unsuccessfully pushed in the failed New York attorney general ’ s case against the company .
The state ’ s decision isn ’ t surprising , considering Connecticut was one of the original players in a coalition of state attorneys general assembled with the intent of pursuing climate lawsuits .
Since then , Connecticut has been supported by or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wealthy donors including Pay Up Climate Polluters , 350.org , and the State Energy & Environment Impact Center , but faces long odds of success as noted by the Washington Post : “ Even if they remain in the states , climate lawsuits have a history of eventually losing steam .
… And a month earlier , ExxonMobil prevailed over New York after the state alleged the company misled investors about how it calculated the financial risks of future climate regulations .
“ … The office of New York Attorney General Letitia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a powerful anti-fraud law called the Martin Act , which does not require prosecutors to prove intent , at its disposal .
The loss has discouraged other states from using their own investor-protection laws to prosecute oil firms.
” ( emphasis added ) Four Years In The Making , But The Same Failed Arguments Back in 2016 , Tong ’ s predecessor , former Attorney General George Jespen , enlisted Connecticut to take part in former New York Attorney General ’ s Eric Schneiderman ’ s “ AGs United for Clean Power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general that aimed to investigate major energy companies over climate change .
Not only did Jepsen participate in the March 2016 press conference announcing the coalition , but he also discussed how it ’ s formation allowed for easier collaboration between attorneys general : But it wasn ’ t just collaboration between attorneys general that was facilitated by this group .
The coalition provided the opportunity for private plaintiffs ’ attorneys to pitch public officials on pursuing litigation against ExxonMobil .
Following the 2016 press conference , emails revealed that the AGs were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director of Science and Policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists , and Matt Pawa , now co-chair of plaintiffs ’ firm Hagens Berman ’ s environmental law practice – both key figures in the climate litigation campaign and who helped craft the “ Exxon Knew ” narrative .
Pawa then followed up with Jepsen about his presentation – “ What Exxon Knew – And What It Did Anyway ” – presenting it in April of that year .
While the coalition ultimately fell apart , following the withdrawal of several attorneys general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its formation , the group ’ s demise ( and even New York ’ s unsuccessful lawsuit ) hasn ’ t stopped Tong .
In fact , he ’ s using many of the same arguments that Schneiderman ineffectively deployed nearly five years ago .
In Monday ’ s press conference announcing the Connecticut lawsuit , AG Tong said : Apparently Tong did not get the memo that “ Exxon Knew ” – the theory pushed by activists and lawyers that the company knew about climate change and hid that knowledge from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was this theory that Schneiderman initially built his case against the company around , but he was forced to abandon it because the facts were not on his side .
Indeed , after his successor was told to told “ to put or shut up ” on the accusations , the lawsuit was revised to remove these claims and instead focus on alleged accounting fraud .
The case resulted in a resounding defeat for the New York attorney general , with State Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager calling the lawsuit “ hyperbolic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only other two climate lawsuits that have been decided on their merits were filed by San Francisco and Oakland and then New York City , both of which failed .
Connecticut Has Benefitted From The National Lawfare Campaign The Connecticut lawsuit isn ’ t a standalone effort , but part of a larger national campaign supported and funded by activist and wealthy donors to pursue climate litigation against energy companies .
Tong is still pursuing the “ Exxon Knew ” angle that ’ s been developed by this campaign despite its previous losses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the nation because Connecticut ’ s Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act doesn ’ t have a statute of limitations , allowing him to recall ExxonMobil documents from decades ago – even though the company already turned over 3 million documents as part of the New York attorney general ’ s failed investigation .
It ’ s another potential connection to the broader climate campaign in that Tong could be using the lawsuit for a fishing expedition in the form of additional discovery .
Just this morning , Bloomberg Government published a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the activist group Center for Climate Integrity , saying : Furthermore , in addition to being an original member of Schneiderman ’ s “ AGs United for Clean Power , ” Connecticut employs Special Assistant Attorneys Generals from the Michael Bloomberg-funded State Energy and Environment Impact Center at the NYU Law School – one of 10 states acknowledged by SEEIC to participate in the program .
This program places Fellows focused on advancing environmental and climate litigation efforts into state attorneys general offices and pays for their salaries – essentially making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this arrangement has attracted intense criticism for allowing wealthy private donors to use taxpayer-funded offices to carry out their environmental agenda .
Connecticut was also mentioned in the Pay Up Climate Polluters report , “ Climate Costs 2040 , ” which seems to be a target list of cities to carry out potential litigation , as recent plaintiffs Hoboken , N.J. and Charleston , S.C. were also featured .
Pay Up Climate Polluters is a campaign that promotes climate litigation that is sponsored by the Center for Climate Integrity , which in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Governance and Sustainable Development ( IGSD ) , which , ironically enough , is paying for the outside counsel in Hoboken ’ s lawsuit .
IGSD also receives money from a network of Rockefeller groups , which with the help of wealthy donors and activists , have manufactured the entire climate litigation campaign .
Tong even filed an amicus brief in support of the climate lawsuit filed by San Francisco and Oakland .
During his press conference , Tong even thanked 350.org and The Sunrise Movement , two more Rockefeller-supported groups that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The lawsuit filed by the Connecticut attorney general is just the latest case to emerge in the broader , national campaign being pushed by weather donors and activist groups .
But while a new lawsuit generates new headlines , it does nothing to change the fact that it ’ s based on another rehashing of the debunked “ Exxon Knew ” theory that failed in New York and will do nothing to address climate change .

Written by William Allison on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil on Monday alleging deception over climate change impacts, rehashing the same, unfounded “Exxon Knew” claims that were unsuccessfully pushed in the failed New York attorney general’s case against the company.
The state’s decision isn’t surprising, considering Connecticut was one of the original players in a coalition of state attorneys general assembled with the intent of pursuing climate lawsuits.
Since then, Connecticut has been supported by or benefitted from the same group of activists and wealthy donors including Pay Up Climate Polluters, 350.org, and the State Energy & Environment Impact Center, but faces long odds of success as noted by the Washington Post:
“Even if they remain in the states, climate lawsuits have a history of eventually losing steam. … And a month earlier, ExxonMobil prevailed over New York after the state alleged the company misled investors about how it calculated the financial risks of future climate regulations. “… The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) fell short even with a powerful anti-fraud law called the Martin Act, which does not require prosecutors to prove intent, at its disposal. The loss has discouraged other states from using their own investor-protection laws to prosecute oil firms.” (emphasis added)
Four Years In The Making, But The Same Failed Arguments
Back in 2016, Tong’s predecessor, former Attorney General George Jespen, enlisted Connecticut to take part in former New York Attorney General’s Eric Schneiderman’s “AGs United for Clean Power” – a coalition of state attorneys general that aimed to investigate major energy companies over climate change.
Not only did Jepsen participate in the March 2016 press conference announcing the coalition, but he also discussed how it’s formation allowed for easier collaboration between attorneys general:
“I am delighted to meet with so many thoughtful leaders to strategize on ways to protect our citizens from the greatest threat we collectively face, climate change… I also appreciate the opportunity to discuss future efforts, including the merits of possible joint investigations into this important area.”
But it wasn’t just collaboration between attorneys general that was facilitated by this group. The coalition provided the opportunity for private plaintiffs’ attorneys to pitch public officials on pursuing litigation against ExxonMobil.
Following the 2016 press conference, emails revealed that the AGs were secretly briefed by Peter Frumhoff, the Director of Science and Policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Matt Pawa, now co-chair of plaintiffs’ firm Hagens Berman’s environmental law practice – both key figures in the climate litigation campaign and who helped craft the “Exxon Knew” narrative.
Pawa then followed up with Jepsen about his presentation – “What Exxon Knew – And What It Did Anyway” – presenting it in April of that year.
A Losing Record
While the coalition ultimately fell apart, following the withdrawal of several attorneys general and scrutiny over the political motivation behind its formation, the group’s demise (and even New York’s unsuccessful lawsuit) hasn’t stopped Tong.
In fact, he’s using many of the same arguments that Schneiderman ineffectively deployed nearly five years ago.
In Monday’s press conference announcing the Connecticut lawsuit, AG Tong said:
“We tried to think long and hard about what our best and most impactful contribution would be. And what we settled on was a single defendant with a very simple claim: Exxon knew, and they lied.” (emphasis added)
Apparently Tong did not get the memo that “Exxon Knew” – the theory pushed by activists and lawyers that the company knew about climate change and hid that knowledge from the public – has been completely debunked.
It was this theory that Schneiderman initially built his case against the company around, but he was forced to abandon it because the facts were not on his side.
Indeed, after his successor was told to told “to put or shut up” on the accusations, the lawsuit was revised to remove these claims and instead focus on alleged accounting fraud.
The case resulted in a resounding defeat for the New York attorney general, with State Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager calling the lawsuit “hyperbolic” and “without merit.”
The only other two climate lawsuits that have been decided on their merits were filed by San Francisco and Oakland and then New York City, both of which failed.
Connecticut Has Benefitted From The National Lawfare Campaign
The Connecticut lawsuit isn’t a standalone effort, but part of a larger national campaign supported and funded by activist and wealthy donors to pursue climate litigation against energy companies.
Tong is still pursuing the “Exxon Knew” angle that’s been developed by this campaign despite its previous losses and thinks his lawsuit is the strongest in the nation because Connecticut’s Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act doesn’t have a statute of limitations, allowing him to recall ExxonMobil documents from decades ago – even though the company already turned over 3 million documents as part of the New York attorney general’s failed investigation.
It’s another potential connection to the broader climate campaign in that Tong could be using the lawsuit for a fishing expedition in the form of additional discovery.
Just this morning, Bloomberg Government published a story that quoted Richard Wiles, the executive director of the activist group Center for Climate Integrity, saying:
“Targeting API also gives plaintiffs an opportunity to recover useful records from the group’s archives that could contribute to more liability claims,’ Center for Climate Integrity executive director Richard Wiles said. ‘The documents that they might turn over could lead you many places that the individual companies’ documents might not,’ he said.”
Furthermore, in addition to being an original member of Schneiderman’s “AGs United for Clean Power,” Connecticut employs Special Assistant Attorneys Generals from the Michael Bloomberg-funded State Energy and Environment Impact Center at the NYU Law School – one of 10 states acknowledged by SEEIC to participate in the program.
This program places Fellows focused on advancing environmental and climate litigation efforts into state attorneys general offices and pays for their salaries – essentially making them state officials for hire:
“The opportunity to potentially hire an NYU Fellow is open to all state attorneys general who demonstrate a need and commitment to defending environmental values and advancing progressive clean energy, climate change, and environmental legal positions.”
Unsurprisingly, this arrangement has attracted intense criticism for allowing wealthy private donors to use taxpayer-funded offices to carry out their environmental agenda.
Connecticut was also mentioned in the Pay Up Climate Polluters report, “Climate Costs 2040,” which seems to be a target list of cities to carry out potential litigation, as recent plaintiffs Hoboken, N.J. and Charleston, S.C. were also featured.
Pay Up Climate Polluters is a campaign that promotes climate litigation that is sponsored by the Center for Climate Integrity, which in turn is a project of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD), which, ironically enough, is paying for the outside counsel in Hoboken’s lawsuit.
IGSD also receives money from a network of Rockefeller groups, which with the help of wealthy donors and activists, have manufactured the entire climate litigation campaign.
Tong even filed an amicus brief in support of the climate lawsuit filed by San Francisco and Oakland.
During his press conference, Tong even thanked 350.org and The Sunrise Movement, two more Rockefeller-supported groups that support and actively promote climate litigation.
Conclusion
The lawsuit filed by the Connecticut attorney general is just the latest case to emerge in the broader, national campaign being pushed by weather donors and activist groups.
But while a new lawsuit generates new headlines, it does nothing to change the fact that it’s based on another rehashing of the debunked “Exxon Knew” theory that failed in New York and will do nothing to address climate change.
Read more at EID Climate
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-16--No, The West Coast Fires Weren’t Caused By ‘Record Heat’

Written by James Delingpole on .
Posted in Latest news California Governor Gavin Newsom wants to blame the wildfires on record-breaking temperatures in LA County .
So does Joe Biden ; so too does the LA Times which claims that this ‘ sizzling summer ’ was the ‘ Hottest August on Record ’ in California .
The not-so-subtle implication , of course , is that this is another case of ‘ man-made global warming ’ putting lives , property , and the natural landscape at risk .
But this is pure green propaganda that bears no relation to the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County recorded temperatures of 133 degrees F. ( The ‘ record-breaking temperature claimed by Newsom was a relatively balmy 121 degrees F ) .
According to the 1859 San Francisco Chronicle , cited by Tony Heller : It wasn ’ t just warmer back in 1859 .
Even as recently as 1983 , it was significantly hotter at this time of year in downtown Los Angeles – 4.1 degrees F hotter , in fact , than the recent claimed ‘ record ’ temperatures .
In fact , last month ’ s heatwave in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards , as the local temperature charts below will demonstrate .
So how come according to the charts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) this August saw record-breaking temperatures in the Los Angeles region ( known as Division 6 – South Coast Drainage ) ?
Here – courtesy of Paul Homewood – is NOAA ’ s chart : According to NOAA , the division also clocked up a new record , just beating 2012 and 1998 : But how exactly did NOAA reach these figures , given that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely different story ?
Paul Homewood smells a rat .
The charts below clearly show that in Division 6 ( where LA County is located ) , this August ’ s heat was nowhere near record-breaking .
Yet at Downtown LA , it was nowhere a record month , and neither was 2012 .
The hottest August was in 1983 , which was 4.1F hotter than this year : Neither was the heatwave last month unusually severe , with ten days above 90F .
Again , 1983 stands out as much more severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had much hotter weather last month , with LA somehow escaping it ?
But this does not appear to be the case , as San Diego , well to the south , also shows exactly the same pattern .
Last month was 3.8F cooler than in 1983 , and again well down the list of hottest months : The South Coast Drainage is a narrow coastal strip , so it is unlikely to have any great climate variation from one part to another .
It is hard to see how NOAA can justify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have reported before , NOAA has form here .
On several occasions , e.g.
, here , here , and here – NOAA has been caught red-handed , tampering with raw data in order to suit its alarmist narrative that the world is getting hotter and it ’ s all man ’ s fault .
Donald Trump is right about the wildfires .
In fact , in the U.S. – as with last year ’ s Australian bush fires – the main reason for these conflagrations isn ’ t ‘ climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of misguided environmental policy and public objections to the ‘ controlled burns ’ and underbrush clearances so necessary if larger-scale wildfires are to be avoided .
As Mike Shellenberger notes here , wildfires have always been a problem in California .
But don ’ t expect to hear the truth of the matter from Democrats , the left-liberal MSM , or the activist scientists at NOAA any time soon .

Written by James Delingpole on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California Governor Gavin Newsom wants to blame the wildfires on record-breaking temperatures in LA County.
So does Joe Biden; so too does the LA Times which claims that this ‘sizzling summer’ was the ‘Hottest August on Record’ in California.
The not-so-subtle implication, of course, is that this is another case of ‘man-made global warming’ putting lives, property, and the natural landscape at risk.
But this is pure green propaganda that bears no relation to the actual facts.
In 1859, Los Angeles County recorded temperatures of 133 degrees F. (The ‘record-breaking temperature claimed by Newsom was a relatively balmy 121 degrees F).
According to the 1859 San Francisco Chronicle, cited by Tony Heller:
In…eastern parts of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, the mercury rose in the shade to the startling figure of 133 degrees. Cattle full in flesh perished in the fields and birds dropped lifeless from the trees in the withering blast.
It wasn’t just warmer back in 1859. Even as recently as 1983, it was significantly hotter at this time of year in downtown Los Angeles – 4.1 degrees F hotter, in fact, than the recent claimed ‘record’ temperatures.
In fact, last month’s heatwave in LA was not unusually severe by historical standards, as the local temperature charts below will demonstrate.
So how come according to the charts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) this August saw record-breaking temperatures in the Los Angeles region (known as Division 6 – South Coast Drainage)?
Here – courtesy of Paul Homewood – is NOAA’s chart:
According to NOAA, the division also clocked up a new record, just beating 2012 and 1998:
But how exactly did NOAA reach these figures, given that the weather stations within Division 6 tell a completely different story?
Paul Homewood smells a rat. The charts below clearly show that in Division 6 (where LA County is located), this August’s heat was nowhere near record-breaking.
Yet at Downtown LA, it was nowhere a record month, and neither was 2012. The hottest August was in 1983, which was 4.1F hotter than this year:
http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/
Neither was the heatwave last month unusually severe, with ten days above 90F. Again, 1983 stands out as much more severe:
Maybe other parts of that Division had much hotter weather last month, with LA somehow escaping it?
But this does not appear to be the case, as San Diego, well to the south, also shows exactly the same pattern. Last month was 3.8F cooler than in 1983, and again well down the list of hottest months:
The South Coast Drainage is a narrow coastal strip, so it is unlikely to have any great climate variation from one part to another. It is hard to see how NOAA can justify their “record” claims.
As we have reported before, NOAA has form here. On several occasions, e.g., here, here, and here – NOAA has been caught red-handed, tampering with raw data in order to suit its alarmist narrative that the world is getting hotter and it’s all man’s fault.
Donald Trump is right about the wildfires.
In fact, in the U.S. – as with last year’s Australian bush fires – the main reason for these conflagrations isn’t ‘climate change’ but poor management, often the result of misguided environmental policy and public objections to the ‘controlled burns’ and underbrush clearances so necessary if larger-scale wildfires are to be avoided.
As Mike Shellenberger notes here, wildfires have always been a problem in California.
And yet the news media, particularly environmental journalists writing for East Coast newspapers, seem intent on painting the fires as apocalyptic, and due mostly to climate change, even though the skies would still be smoky and orange from fires burning the accumulation of wood fuel.
But don’t expect to hear the truth of the matter from Democrats, the left-liberal MSM, or the activist scientists at NOAA any time soon.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-16--Trump’s Right: Science Doesn’t Know — And So-Called Journalists Don’t Care

Written by Jack Hellner on .
Posted in Latest news Here are some facts that most of the media , scientists , entertainers , and other Democrats choose to ignore as they indoctrinate the public , especially the children about ‘ science ’ .
Environmentalists and politicians have mismanaged forests for decades in California and elsewhere .
They won ’ t clear cut , clear out brush and leaves , allow logging , or build in firebreaks .
It leaves the area much more vulnerable to heat , lightning , wind , accidental or intentional fires to combust wildly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil use .
The Earth has had many lengthy warming and cooling periods throughout its history , long before humans and oil use could have had any effect .
Floods , storms , and droughts have been extensive throughout the Earth ’ s history .
How else would it be covered by so many deserts and so many deep seas ?
The English Channel formed around 400,000 years ago because of massive floods .
The Sahara Desert used to be lush and green before it became a desert around 9,000 years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ drought .
California has had decades-long severe droughts before man or petroleum use could have had any effect .
That is why it is covered by so much desert .
The Little Ice Age ended around 1850 .
Common sense says the Earth would warm naturally after a little ice age .
The Earth has only warmed one or two degrees after the ice age ended .
We essentially have had a flat line for 170 years with lengthy periods of cooling included .
During this 170 year period , weather stations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cooler , shadier , grassier areas to cement and blacktop urban areas that would obviously be warmer and have nothing to do with oil use .
Meanwhile , in 1850 crude-oil use was effectively zero and today it is between 90 and 100 million barrels per day , so we have had exponential growth .
The Earth ’ s population in 1850 was around 1.2 billion and today it is around 7.8 billion , so it has risen 500 % .
Clearly , there is no correlation between oil use and population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively flat .
Tornadic activity , hurricane activity , droughts , and floods also fluctuate wildly from year to year and decade to decade so there is no correlation between storms and oil use and human populations .
In 1922 , the Washington Post ran a story from AP that stated that the Earth was warming rapidly , ice caps would soon be gone , coastal cities would soon disappear because of rapidly rising oceans and oceans were dying .
These dire forecasts were 100 % wrong .
In 1970 , after over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use , massive population growth , rapid urbanization and industrialization , and the advent of cars and airplanes , the public was treated to dire warnings on the first Earth Day that the Earth and people were in great danger to death and starvation due to a rapidly cooling Earth .
Now how could the Earth ever be cooling rapidly if oil use , humans , and rising CO2 caused catastrophic warming ?
The answer is there is no scientific correlation .
In 1989 , the UN was back to their dire warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we only had a few years left to solve the warming problem .
Computer modeling is used to scare people instead of scientific data .
Again , the warnings were 100 % wrong .
They are just made up as always .
The government is greedy for money and power .
In 2019 , the UN was again back with the same dire warnings from 1922 and 1989 and we again have very few years left .
Almost all journalists and other Democrats just repeat these made-up forecasts with no questions asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the destructive green new deal .
Trump and people like me , who point out truthfully that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally , are disparaged by lying and calling us deniers , anti-science and stupid .
They say the science is settled because they would get their clock cleaned in a debate on facts .
All journalists , scientists , Biden , Gore , Newsom , Pelosi , AOC , Leo , Sanders , and others should be asked for one scientific piece of data that shows a correlation between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy the economy .
Hint there is none , but no one cares .
All they care about is government power over our lives by radical leftists .
They want massive amounts of money to pretend they can control the climate forever .
It is sad that anyone believes them .
The indoctrination of children on many subjects is much more dangerous to America ’ s survival as a great country than anything Russia , China , or Iran are doing to us .
They should be taught to question everything and do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to repeat talking points .
Most journalists and other Democrats are clearly in the party of fear , not science .

Written by Jack Hellner on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Here are some facts that most of the media, scientists, entertainers, and other Democrats choose to ignore as they indoctrinate the public, especially the children about ‘science’.
Environmentalists and politicians have mismanaged forests for decades in California and elsewhere. They won’t clear cut, clear out brush and leaves, allow logging, or build in firebreaks.
It leaves the area much more vulnerable to heat, lightning, wind, accidental or intentional fires to combust wildly. The fires are clearly not caused by oil use.
The Earth has had many lengthy warming and cooling periods throughout its history, long before humans and oil use could have had any effect.
Floods, storms, and droughts have been extensive throughout the Earth’s history. How else would it be covered by so many deserts and so many deep seas?
The English Channel formed around 400,000 years ago because of massive floods.
The Sahara Desert used to be lush and green before it became a desert around 9,000 years ago. It has essentially been in a 9,000-year drought.
California has had decades-long severe droughts before man or petroleum use could have had any effect. That is why it is covered by so much desert.
The Little Ice Age ended around 1850. Common sense says the Earth would warm naturally after a little ice age. The Earth has only warmed one or two degrees after the ice age ended. We essentially have had a flat line for 170 years with lengthy periods of cooling included.
During this 170 year period, weather stations that measure temperature have been moved from rural, cooler, shadier, grassier areas to cement and blacktop urban areas that would obviously be warmer and have nothing to do with oil use.
Meanwhile, in 1850 crude-oil use was effectively zero and today it is between 90 and 100 million barrels per day, so we have had exponential growth.
The Earth’s population in 1850 was around 1.2 billion and today it is around 7.8 billion, so it has risen 500%. Clearly, there is no correlation between oil use and population growth and temperatures which fluctuate and are relatively flat.
Tornadic activity, hurricane activity, droughts, and floods also fluctuate wildly from year to year and decade to decade so there is no correlation between storms and oil use and human populations.
In 1922, the Washington Post ran a story from AP that stated that the Earth was warming rapidly, ice caps would soon be gone, coastal cities would soon disappear because of rapidly rising oceans and oceans were dying. These dire forecasts were 100% wrong.
In 1970, after over 100 years of exponential growth in oil use, massive population growth, rapid urbanization and industrialization, and the advent of cars and airplanes, the public was treated to dire warnings on the first Earth Day that the Earth and people were in great danger to death and starvation due to a rapidly cooling Earth.
The fearmongering was 100% wrong.
Now how could the Earth ever be cooling rapidly if oil use, humans, and rising CO2 caused catastrophic warming? The answer is there is no scientific correlation.
In 1989, the UN was back to their dire warnings, essentially the same as 1922, that we only had a few years left to solve the warming problem. Computer modeling is used to scare people instead of scientific data.
Again, the warnings were 100% wrong. They are just made up as always. The government is greedy for money and power.
In 2019, the UN was again back with the same dire warnings from 1922 and 1989 and we again have very few years left.
Almost all journalists and other Democrats just repeat these made-up forecasts with no questions asking for data while they promote versions of the destructive green new deal.
Trump and people like me, who point out truthfully that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally, are disparaged by lying and calling us deniers, anti-science and stupid.
They say the science is settled because they would get their clock cleaned in a debate on facts.
All journalists, scientists, Biden, Gore, Newsom, Pelosi, AOC, Leo, Sanders, and others should be asked for one scientific piece of data that shows a correlation between oil use and temperatures before they intentionally destroy the economy.
Hint there is none, but no one cares. All they care about is government power over our lives by radical leftists. They want massive amounts of money to pretend they can control the climate forever. It is sad that anyone believes them.
The indoctrination of children on many subjects is much more dangerous to America’s survival as a great country than anything Russia, China, or Iran are doing to us. They should be taught to question everything and do research. Instead, they are taught to repeat talking points.
Most journalists and other Democrats are clearly in the party of fear, not science.
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--2020-09-15--Green-Energy Agenda Gets Reality Check From Environmentalists

Written by Vince Bielski on .
Posted in Latest news Icebreaker Wind , designed as the first offshore renewable power project in the Great Lakes , is backed by the usual supporting cast : energy development advocates and environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Ohio Environmental Council .
What ’ s surprising is that much of the opposition is coming from other environmental groups , including the National Audubon Society and the Black Swamp Bird Observatory , that seek to protect birds from lethal collisions with turbines .
They notched a victory in May when Ohio regulators ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down at night , a restriction that effectively kills the project unless an appeal is successful , according to the developer .
The seven-year clash over Icebreaker exemplifies the growing tension among environmentalists as they weigh the costs of clean energy .
The rapid rollout of renewable power is shattering old alliances , pitting green groups against energy projects meant to address climate change – a top priority of other environmental organizations .
In a strange new twist , bird groups opposed to Icebreaker found themselves fighting side-by-side with local residents backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an opponent of renewable energy mandates in Ohio .
Armed with litigators and wildlife experts , conservation groups have become formidable foes for the renewable energy industry that already faces headwinds from rural communities and the coronavirus recession that has slashed demand for power .
In Maryland , a large coalition of environmentalists defeated a solar farm to protect a forest .
In the California desert , they are jeopardizing several new projects to save an iconic tree .
The battle is complicated by another fact : while the benefits of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affecting the global climate , the environmental costs , even if they are also small , are palpable .
The Audubon Society lobbied for the nighttime ban on Icebreaker ’ s operation to save an unknown but likely small number of birds .
Yet the group rang the alarm bell in its 2014 climate change report , declaring that more than half of 588 North American species are endangered or threatened due to shifts in their geographic ranges .
As green vs. green conflicts crop up across the country , leaders of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reluctant to talk about the tensions that now divide them .
The Audubon Society , which isn ’ t normally press-shy , turned down several requests to discuss its position of “ conditional support ” for Icebreaker .
Leaders of Black Swamp and the Ohio Environmental Council did privately converse about their differences over the wind farm but details of those talks weren ’ t forthcoming .
“ It ’ s a difficult trade-off for environmentalists , ” says Michael Gerrard , a professor of environmental law at Columbia who represents communities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turbines and certain kinds of solar installations can kill some wildlife .
But that ’ s a small part of the big picture .
We need a massive increase in renewable energy to address the climate problem so those wishing to protect wildlife should be more flexible.
” Environmentalists say that framing the issue as a tradeoff – birds or trees for clean energy – is wrong .
They say the U.S. can have it all by locating wind and solar farms on rooftops , parking lots , and degraded lands that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s think about how we build out wind energy wisely rather than move ahead at all costs , ” says Mark Shieldcastle , a wildlife scientist at Black Swamp Bird Observatory who gave expert commentary on Icebreaker ’ s potential danger to birds .
But that optimism isn ’ t shared by states aiming to cut carbon emissions to net-zero in two decades .
Although developers in New York and California are trying to site projects on the less desirable property , there isn ’ t enough of it in the vicinity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in renewable energy projects .
That means today ’ s mega wind and solar farms – a typical project that covers several square miles – will inevitably disturb valuable ecosystems and wildlife and require trade-offs that some environmentalists are unwilling to accept .
“ To decarbonize the grid , rooftops , brownfields , and landfills are not enough , ” says Shannon Eddy , executive director of the Large-scale Solar Association in California .
“ We also need to build in deserts , co-locate on farmland , and get creative and make tough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Maryland , environmentalists showed little interest in compromising on Georgetown University ’ s plan to put a solar farm in a forest .
In a state with very little farmland available for renewable energy , Georgetown ’ s developer proposed clearing about 249 acres of mostly wooded property in Charles County for the project , while taking ambitious steps to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands .
Environmentalists , however , were outraged at the idea of cutting down trees for a solar farm .
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation , a Sierra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other groups campaigned against it .
They met with university officials and testified before the Maryland environmental department , which heard from more than 80 people .
The university ’ s estimate that the solar farm would reduce greenhouse gases far more than the existing forest absorbs didn ’ t seem to matter .
“ There were too many ecological issues and consultation concerns with the developer to support this project , ” says Rosa Hance , chair of the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club .
“ Generally , the Sierra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maryland denied the permit last year , saying the developer failed to adequately address alternative sites and water quality issues .
But Georgetown isn ’ t giving up .
A spokeswoman says the university is committed to the robust deployment of renewable energy as part of its goal to cut fossil-fuel consumption .
In California , environmentalists are making parts of the desert – one of the world ’ s best locations for solar energy – off-limits to developers .
First , they protected the threatened Desert Tortoise .
Now it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , spike-leafed tree that populates the Mojave Desert is headed for extinction in the coming decades due to climate change , fires , and development , including solar farms , says Brendan Cummings , an attorney and conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity .
The center petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to make the tree , which is actually a yucca plant , a candidate for the endangered species list .
On Aug. 20 , the commissioners suggested that they would soon approve the petition – a move that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study whether to designate it .
“ When planning solar projects , if there are Joshua trees there , it ’ s probably not a good site , ” Cummings says .
“ The Joshua tree range represents a small fraction of the California desert , so there ’ s land that can be built on without touching a tree.
” The solar industry adamantly opposes the petition .
A half dozen solar farms totaling 1,400 megawatts – enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes — that have permits or are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected if the commission protects the tree .
Some are slated to begin construction this year .
The Solar Energy Industries Association and Large-scale Solar Association warned the commission in June that these projects would face costly delays and uncertainty , undermining California ’ s push to produce 100 % of its power using clean sources by 2045 .
“ SEIA and LSA can not emphasize strongly enough the negative impact that advancing the Joshua tree to candidacy will have on solar development in California , ” the groups wrote .
In Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future of wind power in the Great Lakes .
The powerful winds that blow across the lakes make them ideal locations for projects like Icebreaker .
If successful , the demonstration wind farm could turn Lake Erie into a renewable power mecca with more than 1,000 turbines and spur a buildout across the Great Lakes .
But millions of migratory bats and birds such as thrushes and warblers ride those winds , mostly at night .
The Icebreaker controversy is over how many animals it will kill amid sharp declines in most North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss of habitat because of development and climate change .
Icebreaker ’ s small size and location reduce the danger for wildlife .
Most migratory birds wouldn ’ t encounter its six turbines situated 8 to 10 miles offshore because they fly near land to avoid the long passage over the lake .
Still , questions remain about the volume of birds that fly over the lake in the project area at night , when they can ’ t see the turbines , and if they descend low enough to collide with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 413 feet .
Icebreaker shows the difficulty renewable energy developers face in assessing the impact of wind and solar farms on wildlife , particularly birds , even when using state of the art scientific methods .
After a range of studies was conducted , which mostly suggest that Icebreaker wouldn ’ t pose a big threat to birds , serious debates continue over the quality of the research .
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp. ( LEEDCo ) tried and failed to answer the questions about avian exposure to its Icebreaker project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marine radar to spot little birds flying at night , particularly during bad weather .
While agreeing to conduct a better radar study , LEEDCo President Dave Karpinski downplays its importance , saying just because birds fly in the area of a wind farm doesn ’ t mean they will be killed by turbines .
Karpinski says a better indication of Icebreaker ’ s risk is the actual number of birds killed at 42 wind farms operating in the Great Lakes region .
A LEEDCo consultant found a small number of fatalities on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a maximum of 140 birds a year would be killed by Icebreaker .
“ That backs up our position that Icebreaker is a low risk to birds , ” Karpinski says .
But bird groups called this research flawed because of superficial methods used to search for the dead birds .
“ My review of several of those reports shows a series of manipulations that are designed to reduce estimated mortality , ” says Black Swamp ’ s Shieldcastle , a former avian research specialist at the Ohio Division of Wildlife .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnitudes greater .
The science has to be done with the highest standards possible because we are making decisions for the future of wind power in Lake Erie.
” The staff of the Ohio Power Siting Board ( OPSB ) , which considers energy projects for approval , was initially concerned about Icebreaker ’ s threat to birds and proposed in 2018 that its turbines would have to be stopped at night for most of the year .
A few months later Karpinski testified that such a shutdown would spell the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the staff in 2019 to remove the restrictions .
In exchange , Karpinski agreed to more safeguards , including proving to regulators that his group has developed technology to detect bird collisions offshore before it can build Icebreaker .
Once the turbines are operating , if there are 21 or more detected bird strikes in a 24-hour period , LEEDCo will have to take steps to reduce the fatalities .
Local residents , whose legal fees were paid by Murray Energy , joined bird groups in objecting to the agreement .
Residents of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said testimony showed there are no proven technologies to determine bird fatalities for offshore projects and that curbing the turbines at night would help reduce them .
Attorney John Stock told RealClearInvestigations that Murray , which declared bankruptcy last year , “ is not funding the Bratenahl residents ’ opposition at this point.
” For the past three decades , the OPSB has consistently voted to uphold settlement agreements negotiated by its staff , according to a person familiar with the board ’ s process .
But last year that long precedent changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OPSB chairman by Republican Governor Mike DeWine .
Randazzo , who had been a longtime advocate of the fossil fuel industry and critic of renewable energy , unexpectedly delayed board votes last year for months on two solar projects that involved settlement agreements .
In May , the board undermined Icebreaker .
It rejected its staff finding that the project poses minimal risk to birds and imposed the curb on nighttime operations for eight months a year until further studies show it ’ s not a big threat .
The board noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The board under Randazzo ’ s leadership has a history of treating renewable energy projects differently than other energy resources , ” says Miranda Leppla , vice president of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council ( OEC ) .
“ The imposition of the poison pill in its approval of the Icebreaker contradicts clear and substantial evidence on the record.
” Randazzo declined a request for an interview .
The green vs. green struggle in Ohio isn ’ t over .
The OEC and Sierra Club are appealing the board ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a low-risk project .
The board could rule on the appeal as early as this month , and if it ’ s rejected , Icebreaker supporters can turn to the Supreme Court of Ohio .

Written by Vince Bielski on Sep 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Icebreaker Wind, designed as the first offshore renewable power project in the Great Lakes, is backed by the usual supporting cast: energy development advocates and environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Ohio Environmental Council.
What’s surprising is that much of the opposition is coming from other environmental groups, including the National Audubon Society and the Black Swamp Bird Observatory, that seek to protect birds from lethal collisions with turbines.
They notched a victory in May when Ohio regulators ordered that the wind farm would have to shut down at night, a restriction that effectively kills the project unless an appeal is successful, according to the developer.
The seven-year clash over Icebreaker exemplifies the growing tension among environmentalists as they weigh the costs of clean energy.
The rapid rollout of renewable power is shattering old alliances, pitting green groups against energy projects meant to address climate change – a top priority of other environmental organizations.
In a strange new twist, bird groups opposed to Icebreaker found themselves fighting side-by-side with local residents backed by coal mining giant Murray Energy Corp., an opponent of renewable energy mandates in Ohio.
Armed with litigators and wildlife experts, conservation groups have become formidable foes for the renewable energy industry that already faces headwinds from rural communities and the coronavirus recession that has slashed demand for power.
In Maryland, a large coalition of environmentalists defeated a solar farm to protect a forest. In the California desert, they are jeopardizing several new projects to save an iconic tree.
The battle is complicated by another fact: while the benefits of any single renewable energy project are negligible in affecting the global climate, the environmental costs, even if they are also small, are palpable.
The Audubon Society lobbied for the nighttime ban on Icebreaker’s operation to save an unknown but likely small number of birds.
Yet the group rang the alarm bell in its 2014 climate change report, declaring that more than half of 588 North American species are endangered or threatened due to shifts in their geographic ranges.
As green vs. green conflicts crop up across the country, leaders of these groups that are accustomed to collaborating are reluctant to talk about the tensions that now divide them.
The Audubon Society, which isn’t normally press-shy, turned down several requests to discuss its position of “conditional support” for Icebreaker.
Leaders of Black Swamp and the Ohio Environmental Council did privately converse about their differences over the wind farm but details of those talks weren’t forthcoming.
“It’s a difficult trade-off for environmentalists,” says Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental law at Columbia who represents communities that want renewable energy projects.
“Wind turbines and certain kinds of solar installations can kill some wildlife. But that’s a small part of the big picture. We need a massive increase in renewable energy to address the climate problem so those wishing to protect wildlife should be more flexible.”
Environmentalists say that framing the issue as a tradeoff – birds or trees for clean energy – is wrong. They say the U.S. can have it all by locating wind and solar farms on rooftops, parking lots, and degraded lands that have no other use.
“Let’s think about how we build out wind energy wisely rather than move ahead at all costs,” says Mark Shieldcastle, a wildlife scientist at Black Swamp Bird Observatory who gave expert commentary on Icebreaker’s potential danger to birds.
But that optimism isn’t shared by states aiming to cut carbon emissions to net-zero in two decades. Although developers in New York and California are trying to site projects on the less desirable property, there isn’t enough of it in the vicinity of transmission lines for the planned exponential growth in renewable energy projects.
That means today’s mega wind and solar farms – a typical project that covers several square miles – will inevitably disturb valuable ecosystems and wildlife and require trade-offs that some environmentalists are unwilling to accept.
“To decarbonize the grid, rooftops, brownfields, and landfills are not enough,” says Shannon Eddy, executive director of the Large-scale Solar Association in California. “We also need to build in deserts, co-locate on farmland, and get creative and make tough choices about where projects can go.”
In Maryland, environmentalists showed little interest in compromising on Georgetown University’s plan to put a solar farm in a forest.
In a state with very little farmland available for renewable energy, Georgetown’s developer proposed clearing about 249 acres of mostly wooded property in Charles County for the project, while taking ambitious steps to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands.
Environmentalists, however, were outraged at the idea of cutting down trees for a solar farm. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a Sierra Club chapter, Audubon in Maryland, and other groups campaigned against it.
They met with university officials and testified before the Maryland environmental department, which heard from more than 80 people. The university’s estimate that the solar farm would reduce greenhouse gases far more than the existing forest absorbs didn’t seem to matter.
“There were too many ecological issues and consultation concerns with the developer to support this project,” says Rosa Hance, chair of the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club. “Generally, the Sierra Club does not oppose solar projects.”
Maryland denied the permit last year, saying the developer failed to adequately address alternative sites and water quality issues. But Georgetown isn’t giving up. A spokeswoman says the university is committed to the robust deployment of renewable energy as part of its goal to cut fossil-fuel consumption.
In California, environmentalists are making parts of the desert – one of the world’s best locations for solar energy – off-limits to developers. First, they protected the threatened Desert Tortoise. Now it’s the Western Joshua tree.
The short, spike-leafed tree that populates the Mojave Desert is headed for extinction in the coming decades due to climate change, fires, and development, including solar farms, says Brendan Cummings, an attorney and conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The center petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to make the tree, which is actually a yucca plant, a candidate for the endangered species list.
On Aug. 20, the commissioners suggested that they would soon approve the petition – a move that would safeguard the Joshua tree while regulators study whether to designate it.
“When planning solar projects, if there are Joshua trees there, it’s probably not a good site,” Cummings says. “The Joshua tree range represents a small fraction of the California desert, so there’s land that can be built on without touching a tree.”
The solar industry adamantly opposes the petition. A half dozen solar farms totaling 1,400 megawatts – enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes — that have permits or are in the process of getting them would be affected if the commission protects the tree.
Some are slated to begin construction this year. The Solar Energy Industries Association and Large-scale Solar Association warned the commission in June that these projects would face costly delays and uncertainty, undermining California’s push to produce 100% of its power using clean sources by 2045.
“SEIA and LSA cannot emphasize strongly enough the negative impact that advancing the Joshua tree to candidacy will have on solar development in California,” the groups wrote.
In Ohio, bird conservation groups are threatening the future of wind power in the Great Lakes. The powerful winds that blow across the lakes make them ideal locations for projects like Icebreaker.
If successful, the demonstration wind farm could turn Lake Erie into a renewable power mecca with more than 1,000 turbines and spur a buildout across the Great Lakes.
But millions of migratory bats and birds such as thrushes and warblers ride those winds, mostly at night. The Icebreaker controversy is over how many animals it will kill amid sharp declines in most North American bird species, primarily from the loss of habitat because of development and climate change.
Icebreaker’s small size and location reduce the danger for wildlife. Most migratory birds wouldn’t encounter its six turbines situated 8 to 10 miles offshore because they fly near land to avoid the long passage over the lake.
Still, questions remain about the volume of birds that fly over the lake in the project area at night, when they can’t see the turbines, and if they descend low enough to collide with the long spinning blades that have a diameter of 413 feet.
Icebreaker shows the difficulty renewable energy developers face in assessing the impact of wind and solar farms on wildlife, particularly birds, even when using state of the art scientific methods.
After a range of studies was conducted, which mostly suggest that Icebreaker wouldn’t pose a big threat to birds, serious debates continue over the quality of the research.
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp. (LEEDCo) tried and failed to answer the questions about avian exposure to its Icebreaker project because of the technical challenges of using marine radar to spot little birds flying at night, particularly during bad weather.
While agreeing to conduct a better radar study, LEEDCo President Dave Karpinski downplays its importance, saying just because birds fly in the area of a wind farm doesn’t mean they will be killed by turbines.
Karpinski says a better indication of Icebreaker’s risk is the actual number of birds killed at 42 wind farms operating in the Great Lakes region. A LEEDCo consultant found a small number of fatalities on average at the projects and extrapolated that a maximum of 140 birds a year would be killed by Icebreaker.
“That backs up our position that Icebreaker is a low risk to birds,” Karpinski says.
But bird groups called this research flawed because of superficial methods used to search for the dead birds.
“My review of several of those reports shows a series of manipulations that are designed to reduce estimated mortality,” says Black Swamp’s Shieldcastle, a former avian research specialist at the Ohio Division of Wildlife.
“The truth is much greater, maybe magnitudes greater. The science has to be done with the highest standards possible because we are making decisions for the future of wind power in Lake Erie.”
The staff of the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), which considers energy projects for approval, was initially concerned about Icebreaker’s threat to birds and proposed in 2018 that its turbines would have to be stopped at night for most of the year.
A few months later Karpinski testified that such a shutdown would spell the end of Icebreaker before negotiating a settlement agreement with the staff in 2019 to remove the restrictions.
In exchange, Karpinski agreed to more safeguards, including proving to regulators that his group has developed technology to detect bird collisions offshore before it can build Icebreaker.
Once the turbines are operating, if there are 21 or more detected bird strikes in a 24-hour period, LEEDCo will have to take steps to reduce the fatalities.
Local residents, whose legal fees were paid by Murray Energy, joined bird groups in objecting to the agreement.
Residents of the village of Bratenahl on Lake Erie said testimony showed there are no proven technologies to determine bird fatalities for offshore projects and that curbing the turbines at night would help reduce them.
Attorney John Stock told RealClearInvestigations that Murray, which declared bankruptcy last year, “is not funding the Bratenahl residents’ opposition at this point.”
For the past three decades, the OPSB has consistently voted to uphold settlement agreements negotiated by its staff, according to a person familiar with the board’s process.
But last year that long precedent changed with the appointment of Sam Randazzo as OPSB chairman by Republican Governor Mike DeWine. Randazzo, who had been a longtime advocate of the fossil fuel industry and critic of renewable energy, unexpectedly delayed board votes last year for months on two solar projects that involved settlement agreements.
In May, the board undermined Icebreaker. It rejected its staff finding that the project poses minimal risk to birds and imposed the curb on nighttime operations for eight months a year until further studies show it’s not a big threat. The board noted that the Audubon Society supported its position.
“The board under Randazzo’s leadership has a history of treating renewable energy projects differently than other energy resources,” says Miranda Leppla, vice president of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC).
“The imposition of the poison pill in its approval of the Icebreaker contradicts clear and substantial evidence on the record.” Randazzo declined a request for an interview.
The green vs. green struggle in Ohio isn’t over. The OEC and Sierra Club are appealing the board’s order for ignoring evidence that Icebreaker is a low-risk project. The board could rule on the appeal as early as this month, and if it’s rejected, Icebreaker supporters can turn to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Read more at RealClearInvestigations
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-15--A Plea To President Trump To Reverse Leftist Forestry Policies

Written by David Kupelian on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos I live near two of the Oregon towns that basically burned to the ground last week – Phoenix , population 4,600 , virtually obliterated with approximately 1,000 homes destroyed , and neighboring Talent , population 6,500 , which lost hundreds of homes .
Virtually everybody in Oregon is currently breathing dangerously toxic smoke-polluted air , reportedly the worst air on earth .
All you have to do to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe is to watch this video shot from a helicopter surveying the destruction caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Seeing neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood that look exactly as though they ’ d been bombed , leaving nothing left , the only comments possible are , “ Oh my God … Oh my God … Oh my God.
” Meanwhile , Democrats , in keeping with the rule that everything happening during an election year must be politicized , are blaming the ferocious fires ravaging my state , as well as California and Washington , on climate change – and therefore on President Trump and “ climate-change-denying ” Republicans .
Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ climate arsonist.
” “ If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House , ” he said in a speech Monday , “ why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze ?
If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House , why would anyone be surprised when more of America is underwater ?
” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley , a Democrat , said over the weekend that President Trump blaming the abandonment of sensible “ forest management ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating lie.
” Demanding that Americans vote for a president who would “ follow the science on global warming , ” “ The Cascade snowpacks have gotten smaller .
Our forests have gotten drier .
Our ocean has gotten warmer and more acidic .
And this has been happening steadily over the last several decades .
“ America not only has to get its own act in order , but it also has to help lead the world to take this on .
This is a planetary-scale tragedy of the commons that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jay Inslee , Washington ’ s Democrat governor – best known recently for allowing the anarchist “ CHAZ/CHOP ” autonomous zone to take over six blocks of downtown Seattle – told “ This Week ” that America ’ s western states “ have a blowtorch ” over them “ which is climate change , ” the Hill reported .
“ We know that climate change is making fires start easier , spread faster , and intensify , ” said Inslee .
“ And it is maddening right now that , when we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the entire West Coast of the United States on fire , to have a president to deny that these are not just wildfires , these are climate fires.
” Inslee insisted Americans must “ vote on climate ” in November , adding , “ if this is not a signal to the United States , I don ’ t know what it will take.
” The swamp media are , of course , echoing the same themes : Saturday ’ s Washington Post story , headlined “ Western wildfires : Blazes fueled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , ” places the blame squarely and unequivocally on “ [ h ] uman-caused climate change , ” which is “ driving fire risks in the West to new heights , enabling more fires to behave in extreme , unpredictable ways.
” Almost as an afterthought , the Post writers add : “ Another factor – decades of fire suppression policies , including a lack of prescribed burning – aggravated conditions further by leaving more material for the fires to burn.
” Oh .
So , allowing fuel to accumulate endlessly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , controlled burns or firebreaks – which reliably results in the creation of a perfect environment for apocalyptic fires just requiring a spark , which lightning , human carelessness , or even arson can and do provide every “ fire season ” – is just “ another factor ” that , you know , “ aggravated conditions.
” In reality , Democrat-led policies are arguably as complicit in allowing America ’ s forests to burn uncontrollably as are their policies that are allowing America ’ s major cities to burn at the lands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , President Bill Clinton helped create the conditions necessary for today ’ s massive western wildfires by limiting the U.S. Forest Service ’ s ability to thin out dense thickets of foliage and downed trees on federal land and also from deploying controlled burns meant to safely cull underbrush in forests to reduce the chance of massive fires .
Clinton also introduced the Roadless Rule restricting the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest , effectively keeping forestry officials out of the forests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive conflagrations , like those consuming millions of acres right now .
Republican presidents since then have failed to reverse these reckless , heedless policies .
Before Clinton ’ s actions , there was the “ spotted owl ” crisis here in Oregon .
Environmentalists claimed the northern spotted owl was dying out because of commercial logging of old-growth forests where the birds nested .
So , in 1991 a compliant judge halted logging in Oregon ’ s national forests , causing the loss of about 30,000 jobs , an 80 % reduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the supply of lumber , and sky-high prices .
I remember – I was there .
However , it wasn ’ t owls that environmentalists were in love with ; they were in love with stopping loggers from harvesting any trees in Oregon ’ s old-growth forests .
The owls just provided the needed “ crisis ” to help advance their radical agenda .
Oh , here ’ s the rest of the story : Long after Oregon ’ s timber-based economy was decimated by the court-ordered logging ban , which also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult , the northern spotted owl population inexplicably continued to decline .
Surprise !
New research showed logging in old-growth forests wasn ’ t the problem at all .
The real problem , it turned out , was competition from another larger and more aggressive species of owl that liked the same habitat and food as the spotted owl .
But whatever .
Leftists and radical environmentalists just shook the dust off their feet and moved on heedlessly to their next Utopian adventure .
Here is my plea to President Trump : Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s land is controlled by the federal government , either the Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service .
If President Clinton could wreck our state by ignorantly sucking up to radical environmentalists , then hopefully you can undo this damage by aggressively restoring proper forest management to the vast public lands out here in the West .
Please act now , before it ’ s too late .
Thank you .

Written by David Kupelian on Sep 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
I live near two of the Oregon towns that basically burned to the ground last week – Phoenix, population 4,600, virtually obliterated with approximately 1,000 homes destroyed, and neighboring Talent, population 6,500, which lost hundreds of homes.
Virtually everybody in Oregon is currently breathing dangerously toxic smoke-polluted air, reportedly the worst air on earth.
All you have to do to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe is to watch this video shot from a helicopter surveying the destruction caused by the Almeda Fire to those two towns.
Seeing neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood that look exactly as though they’d been bombed, leaving nothing left, the only comments possible are, “Oh my God … Oh my God … Oh my God.”
Meanwhile, Democrats, in keeping with the rule that everything happening during an election year must be politicized, are blaming the ferocious fires ravaging my state, as well as California and Washington, on climate change – and therefore on President Trump and “climate-change-denying” Republicans.
Joe Biden is accusing Trump of being a “climate arsonist.” “If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House,” he said in a speech Monday, “why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze? If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is underwater?”
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, said over the weekend that President Trump blaming the abandonment of sensible “forest management” for wildfires is “just a big and devastating lie.” Demanding that Americans vote for a president who would “follow the science on global warming,”
Merkley told ABC’s “This Week”:
“The Cascade snowpacks have gotten smaller. Our forests have gotten drier. Our ocean has gotten warmer and more acidic. And this has been happening steadily over the last several decades.
“America not only has to get its own act in order, but it also has to help lead the world to take this on. This is a planetary-scale tragedy of the commons that we need leadership to end.”
Likewise, Jay Inslee, Washington’s Democrat governor – best known recently for allowing the anarchist “CHAZ/CHOP” autonomous zone to take over six blocks of downtown Seattle – told “This Week” that America’s western states “have a blowtorch” over them “which is climate change,” the Hill reported.
“We know that climate change is making fires start easier, spread faster, and intensify,” said Inslee. “And it is maddening right now that, when we have this cosmic challenge to our communities, with the entire West Coast of the United States on fire, to have a president to deny that these are not just wildfires, these are climate fires.”
Inslee insisted Americans must “vote on climate” in November, adding, “if this is not a signal to the United States, I don’t know what it will take.”
The swamp media are, of course, echoing the same themes: Saturday’s Washington Post story, headlined “Western wildfires: Blazes fueled by climate change engulf vast region in crisis,” places the blame squarely and unequivocally on “[h]uman-caused climate change,” which is “driving fire risks in the West to new heights, enabling more fires to behave in extreme, unpredictable ways.”
Almost as an afterthought, the Post writers add: “Another factor – decades of fire suppression policies, including a lack of prescribed burning – aggravated conditions further by leaving more material for the fires to burn.”
Oh. So, allowing fuel to accumulate endlessly, without any thinning, logging, mitigation, controlled burns or firebreaks – which reliably results in the creation of a perfect environment for apocalyptic fires just requiring a spark, which lightning, human carelessness, or even arson can and do provide every “fire season” – is just “another factor” that, you know, “aggravated conditions.”
In reality, Democrat-led policies are arguably as complicit in allowing America’s forests to burn uncontrollably as are their policies that are allowing America’s major cities to burn at the lands of Marxist/anarchist revolutionary mobs.
Three decades ago, President Bill Clinton helped create the conditions necessary for today’s massive western wildfires by limiting the U.S. Forest Service’s ability to thin out dense thickets of foliage and downed trees on federal land and also from deploying controlled burns meant to safely cull underbrush in forests to reduce the chance of massive fires.
Clinton also introduced the Roadless Rule restricting the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest, effectively keeping forestry officials out of the forests to identify problems that could lead to massive conflagrations, like those consuming millions of acres right now. Republican presidents since then have failed to reverse these reckless, heedless policies.
Before Clinton’s actions, there was the “spotted owl” crisis here in Oregon. Environmentalists claimed the northern spotted owl was dying out because of commercial logging of old-growth forests where the birds nested.
So, in 1991 a compliant judge halted logging in Oregon’s national forests, causing the loss of about 30,000 jobs, an 80% reduction in timber harvesting, a consequent decrease in the supply of lumber, and sky-high prices. I remember – I was there.
However, it wasn’t owls that environmentalists were in love with; they were in love with stopping loggers from harvesting any trees in Oregon’s old-growth forests. The owls just provided the needed “crisis” to help advance their radical agenda.
Oh, here’s the rest of the story: Long after Oregon’s timber-based economy was decimated by the court-ordered logging ban, which also made responsibly managing the forests far more difficult, the northern spotted owl population inexplicably continued to decline.
Surprise! New research showed logging in old-growth forests wasn’t the problem at all. The real problem, it turned out, was competition from another larger and more aggressive species of owl that liked the same habitat and food as the spotted owl.
But whatever. Leftists and radical environmentalists just shook the dust off their feet and moved on heedlessly to their next Utopian adventure.
Here is my plea to President Trump:
Mr. President, more than half of Oregon’s land is controlled by the federal government, either the Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service.
If President Clinton could wreck our state by ignorantly sucking up to radical environmentalists, then hopefully you can undo this damage by aggressively restoring proper forest management to the vast public lands out here in the West. Please act now, before it’s too late. Thank you.
Read more at WND
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-15--Junk Science Founder: Biden Climate Speech A String Of Falsehoods

Written by Dr. Susan Berry on .
Posted in Latest news The founder of JunkScience.com reacted to Joe Biden ’ s speech on climate change Monday by stating the address “ was filled with one falsehood after another.
” Steve Milloy said in a statement moments after Biden ’ s environmental speech that it was “ filled with one falsehood after another , falsehoods that guarantee wildfires will burn much more of the American West.
” In particular , Biden claimed the wildfires were caused by climate change , air quality was killing people , and air pollution and COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that California is prone to extended periods of natural megadroughts .
Without forest management , California will burn until there is nothing left to burn .
Biden failed to mention forest management as a solution to the western wildfires .
Research conducted by the Obama-Biden EPA proved that air pollution does not kill anyone or cause asthma .
Biden ’ s empty promises of green jobs , electric vehicles and carbon-free energy production are pure pablum that have no basis in reality.
” With regard to Biden ’ s claim climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was causing the coronavirus to kill more people , Milloy tweeted a link to his blog , discussing a new study from University of Washington and Stanford University researchers which he says contradicts a Harvard study that Biden was ostensibly citing .
Biden ’ s climate change plan calls for the U.S. to move to 100 % renewable energy — mainly solar and wind power — in electricity generation by 2035 .
That is only five years later than the “ Green New Deal ” of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-CA ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden campaign .
California , which has a goal of attaining 100 % renewable energy by 2045 , has experienced rolling electricity blackouts , in part because , during peak periods of demand , renewables such as solar and wind power fail to compensate for the overage .

Written by Dr. Susan Berry on Sep 15, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The founder of JunkScience.com reacted to Joe Biden’s speech on climate change Monday by stating the address “was filled with one falsehood after another.”
Steve Milloy said in a statement moments after Biden’s environmental speech that it was “filled with one falsehood after another, falsehoods that guarantee wildfires will burn much more of the American West.”
#LyinBiden. California wildfires are natural. What’s unnatural is ignoring the need forest management.@JoeBiden would burn California to a crisp. https://t.co/qLERHWSau5 — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
.@JoeBiden doesn’t mention or even refer to forest management for wildfires. California will burn to a crisp under Democrat rule. — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
Milloy continued:
In particular, Biden claimed the wildfires were caused by climate change, air quality was killing people, and air pollution and COVID was killing even more people. Scientists know that California is prone to extended periods of natural megadroughts. Without forest management, California will burn until there is nothing left to burn. Biden failed to mention forest management as a solution to the western wildfires. Research conducted by the Obama-Biden EPA proved that air pollution does not kill anyone or cause asthma. Biden’s empty promises of green jobs, electric vehicles and carbon-free energy production are pure pablum that have no basis in reality.”
With regard to Biden’s claim climate change was causing wildfires and the air pollution was causing the coronavirus to kill more people, Milloy tweeted a link to his blog, discussing a new study from University of Washington and Stanford University researchers which he says contradicts a Harvard study that Biden was ostensibly citing.
No, @JoeBiden…. ‘air pollution’ kills no one and does not make COVID more deadly. Claim debunked: https://t.co/uHa6NFfhON — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
Wildfires aside, American air and water is clean and safe. If they’re not, what the hell did Obama-@JoeBiden do for eight years? — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
Much of California’s forests are owned by the federal government, but you can bet that state officials and their radical green backers have worked overtime to make sure that there can be no controlled burns by the feds in the state.https://t.co/3RSqVHYgPZ — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
The only ‘scientific reality’ is that California is prone to decades-long megadroughts, lasting as long as 200+ years. The risk management reality is that unless California manages its forests, the state will burn until there is nothing left to burn.https://t.co/ZBLADiha1X — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
It is physically and financially impossible to electrify transportation on a large scale.@JoeBiden does not understand what he has been told to read. — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
As Breitbart News reported:
Biden’s climate change plan calls for the U.S. to move to 100% renewable energy — mainly solar and wind power — in electricity generation by 2035. That is only five years later than the “Green New Deal” of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-CA), who is a top climate adviser for the Biden campaign.
California, which has a goal of attaining 100% renewable energy by 2045, has experienced rolling electricity blackouts, in part because, during peak periods of demand, renewables such as solar and wind power fail to compensate for the overage.
What part of America is under water from ‘climate change’? Just more @JoeBiden BS. — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
The climate lawsuit filed by Delaware against Big Oil that @JoeBiden just cited mentions me by name. So stupid. So false. — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 14, 2020
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print