climatechangedispatch--2020-04-28--Michael Moore Says Pandemic Is ‘Warning From Mother Nature’

Written by David Ng on .
Posted in Latest news Documentary filmmaker and left-wing activist Michael Moore is the latest entertainment figure to use the Chinese coronavirus pandemic to hold forth on the environment , claiming that the outbreak is Mother Nature ’ s way of saying that she doesn ’ t like the way we have treated the planet .
Michael Moore claimed in a recent interview to promote the new environmental documentary Planet of the Humans that the global pandemic is nature ’ s “ warning ” that “ our behavior is not appreciated.
” He also claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viruses are often the ones we mistreat .
“ We are in dangerous , dangerous shape here , and this pandemic should act as a warning from Mother Nature that … our behavior is not appreciated , ” the Oscar-winning documentarian told USA Today .
“ And the fact that we have treated the species on this planet – species that often times give us these viruses .
It ’ s a failure of us – all of us who call ourselves environmentalists.
” The Roger & Me and Fahrenheit 9/11 director said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need of a reboot .
“ The planet is in worse shape , and we have to do something different .
We have to get off the road we ’ ve been on , ” Moore said .
“ We need a new environmental movement , we need young people to essentially take over .
It ’ s their future.
” Moore also told USA Today that corporations and parts of Wall Street have been trying to “ take over the green energy movement because they see profit in it.
” “ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations within the movement , ” he said .
Planet of the Humans presents a critical view of the environmental movement , arguing that solar energy and electric cars aren ’ t helping the Earth .
The documentary has provoked condemnation from some environmentalists , who are demanding that it be taken down from YouTube due to alleged inaccuracies .
As of Monday afternoon , the documentary was still on YouTube and has been viewed more than 3 million times .
Michael Moore joins fellow entertainment personalities Cher and Idris Elba to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Written by David Ng on Apr 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Documentary filmmaker and left-wing activist Michael Moore is the latest entertainment figure to use the Chinese coronavirus pandemic to hold forth on the environment, claiming that the outbreak is Mother Nature’s way of saying that she doesn’t like the way we have treated the planet.
Michael Moore claimed in a recent interview to promote the new environmental documentary Planet of the Humans that the global pandemic is nature’s “warning” that “our behavior is not appreciated.”
He also claimed that the species that have given us viruses are often the ones we mistreat.
“We are in dangerous, dangerous shape here, and this pandemic should act as a warning from Mother Nature that … our behavior is not appreciated,” the Oscar-winning documentarian told USA Today.
“And the fact that we have treated the species on this planet – species that often times give us these viruses. It’s a failure of us – all of us who call ourselves environmentalists.”
The Roger & Me and Fahrenheit 9/11 director said that the environmental movement is in serious need of a reboot.
“The planet is in worse shape, and we have to do something different. We have to get off the road we’ve been on,” Moore said. “We need a new environmental movement, we need young people to essentially take over. It’s their future.”
Moore also told USA Today that corporations and parts of Wall Street have been trying to “take over the green energy movement because they see profit in it.”
“They try to buy off certain people and organizations within the movement,” he said.
Planet of the Humans presents a critical view of the environmental movement, arguing that solar energy and electric cars aren’t helping the Earth.
The documentary has provoked condemnation from some environmentalists, who are demanding that it be taken down from YouTube due to alleged inaccuracies.
As of Monday afternoon, the documentary was still on YouTube and has been viewed more than 3 million times.
Michael Moore joins fellow entertainment personalities Cher and Idris Elba to find an environmental angle on the coronavirus outbreak.
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--2020-04-29--Sorry Alarmists, Antarctica Is Not ‘Rapidly Melting’

Written by Edward Ring on .
Posted in Latest news The BBC , which in September 2018 announced its decision to censor any reports by climate skeptics , continues to propagandize for climate alarmists .
On March 12 , BBC “ Science Correspondent ” Jonathan Amos published an alarming article entitled “ Greenland and Antarctica ice loss accelerating.
” According to Amos , “ Earth ’ s great ice sheets , Greenland and Antarctica , are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions.
” The BBC was not alone , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world ran with the story .
The Guardian ’ s version came with a predictably terrifying subhead : “ Losses of ice from Greenland and Antarctica are tracking the worst-case climate scenario , scientists warn.
” USA Today offered its version on March 16 , with a story headlined , “ Greenland and Antarctica are now melting six times faster than in the 1990s , accelerating sea-level rise.
” The source of these dire statistics was a report in the journal Nature , published late last year and released online on March 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory , and come down to certain quantitative assertions that invite skeptical analysis .
Perhaps the most alarming sounding statistic was the following , quoting from NASA/JPL : This sounds like a lot of ice , “ 6.4 trillion tons.
” But it ’ s not .
This equates to 6,400 billion tons , which may also be referred to as 6,400 gigatons , which is 6,400 cubic kilometers .
That would be an ice cube 18.5 kilometers on a side , or , to revert to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cube 11.5 miles on a side .
If you dropped this ice cube in the world ’ s oceans and let it melt , it would raise the level of the oceans by 18 millimeters—that ’ s 9/16ths of one inch .
To focus on Antarctica , the report in Nature claimed Antarctica is losing , in recent years , 190 gigatons of ice per year , an amount that supposedly portends an ominous future for coastal cities around the world .
But the total ice mass of Antarctica is generally estimated at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the participating scientists claim they can observe a change in the total ice mass of Antarctica of one seven millionths per year .
You can ’ t even make an easily comprehensible fraction for an amount this infinitesimal .
Expressed using decimals , it ’ s .000007 .
It doesn ’ t take a scientist to wonder if these scientists aren ’ t jumping to conclusions .
This amount of change is way below the noise level .
How on earth—using satellite-based imagers screaming through a polar orbit at nearly 20,000 miles per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miles in area , covered with an ice sheet that is up to three miles thick—can these scientists claim with confidence that they ’ re detecting an annual change in the total ice mass of .0007 percent—and , worse , announce this to the world as if it ’ s terrifying ?
This is the sort of reasoning that the BBC openly censors .
But thank God for the blogosphere to debunk alarmist reports about the cryosphere .
A good anthology of links and summaries of contrarian , non-alarmist findings can be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Depot website .
Included in a recent post are articles by NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally claiming Antarctica is actually gaining ice .
One of the biggest obstacles to accurately measuring the volume of an ice sheet is that the underlying terrain itself changes , uplifting , or subsiding depending on tectonic shifts and other geologic variables .
Available online , from the Journal of Marine Science Research and Oceanography , is an article titled “ The Views of Three Sea Level Specialists.
” The observations by meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller , formerly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the difficulties with measuring Antarctica ’ s ice mass , as well as sea-level trends .
With respect to sea-level rise , Wysmuller explains that “ the most influential driver of local sea level trend happens to be local tectonics , ” and therefore the most accurate long-term measurements of sea level can only be found in places that are “ tectonically inert.
” He cites these areas as reporting a 1 millimeter to 1.2-millimeter rate of annual sea-level rise over the last century , with scant evidence of acceleration .
Wysmuller provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data is manipulated by alarmists , by showing a chart from NOAA depicting mean sea level at Seward , Alaska .
The trend line of the long-term tide gauges shows a supposed rapid rise in sea level , but when you observe the actual year over year data , it is clear that sea level was stable both before and after the Alaskan earthquake in 1964 .
At a magnitude of 9.3 , this devastating quake caused the coastal land to fall by 0.9 meters .
But what is reported is the long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below ) , with the long-term C02 PPM line ( green ) helpfully superimposed .
It is impossible to refute every argument made by climate alarmists because there is a perpetual onslaught of propaganda connecting virtually any topic to climate change .
But voters and politicians have an obligation to look past the hype and perform their own critical reasoning .
Six-point-four-trillion-tons .
That sounds like so much , but in fact , it ’ s just a drop in the ocean .
And as for Greenland , why is it called Greenland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” back in the 10th century and for a few hundred years thereafter , parts of this harsh land were green .
To this day there are ruins of churches , anchoring settlements where thousands lived until the drove them out .
And what about the “ thermal expansion ” of the oceans ?
Then why is there no indisputable evidence of sea levels rising ?
And why wouldn ’ t increased evaporation in a thermally expanded , warmer ocean , offset the thermal expansion ?
These questions deserve discussion and answers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other mainstream and online media , suppress discussion and suppress answers with which they do not agree .
Former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg , when talking about his policy positions , was fond of prefacing a remark with the phrase “ science says… ” But using the words “ science says ” as a way to gain credibility and stifle debate is not scientific .
The lifeblood of science is skepticism .
It is supposed to be the lifeblood of journalism as well .
And when it comes to climate change , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its self-proclaimed spokespersons claim .
It ’ s easy to wonder if the sheer volume of panic being spread on the issue of climate change is a conspiracy .
But it doesn ’ t have to be a conspiracy to be this pervasive , it just has to fit the world view of a critical mass of special interests .
And that it does .
Anyone who believes in socialism , or just in bigger government , will favor the climate alarmist narrative .
Anyone who believes in globalism and the withering away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to climate alarmism .
As for private opportunists , from rent-seeking multinational corporations to local environmental impact consultants , climate alarmism is a gold mine .
Worst of all is not just the censorship of skeptical voices , but the demonization of skeptics .
For example , a Google search on Thomas Wysmuller reveals links to several websites devoted to nothing but smearing and defaming him and everybody like him .
But it is the documented facts and logical integrity of Wysmuller ’ s arguments that must be considered , not the attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies .
Perhaps referring to these left-wing , slime-slinging websites is the best way to quickly learn who ’ s willing to tell the other side of the story ; perhaps it ’ s where we find the good guys .

Written by Edward Ring on Apr 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The BBC, which in September 2018 announced its decision to censor any reports by climate skeptics, continues to propagandize for climate alarmists.
On March 12, BBC “Science Correspondent” Jonathan Amos published an alarming article entitled “Greenland and Antarctica ice loss accelerating.”
According to Amos, “Earth’s great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions.”
The BBC was not alone, of course. Generic journalist NPCs around the world ran with the story.
The Guardian’s version came with a predictably terrifying subhead: “Losses of ice from Greenland and Antarctica are tracking the worst-case climate scenario, scientists warn.”
USA Today offered its version on March 16, with a story headlined, “Greenland and Antarctica are now melting six times faster than in the 1990s, accelerating sea-level rise.”
The source of these dire statistics was a report in the journal Nature, published late last year and released online on March 12.
The key findings were summarized by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and come down to certain quantitative assertions that invite skeptical analysis.
Perhaps the most alarming sounding statistic was the following, quoting from NASA/JPL:
The two regions [Greenland and Antarctica] have lost 6.4 trillion tons of ice in three decades; unabated, this rate of melting could cause flooding that affects hundreds of millions of people by 2100.
This sounds like a lot of ice, “6.4 trillion tons.” But it’s not. This equates to 6,400 billion tons, which may also be referred to as 6,400 gigatons, which is 6,400 cubic kilometers.
That would be an ice cube 18.5 kilometers on a side, or, to revert to the imperial system of measures, an ice cube 11.5 miles on a side.
If you dropped this ice cube in the world’s oceans and let it melt, it would raise the level of the oceans by 18 millimeters—that’s 9/16ths of one inch.
How horrible.
To focus on Antarctica, the report in Nature claimed Antarctica is losing, in recent years, 190 gigatons of ice per year, an amount that supposedly portends an ominous future for coastal cities around the world.
But the total ice mass of Antarctica is generally estimated at 26.5 million gigatons. This means that the participating scientists claim they can observe a change in the total ice mass of Antarctica of one seven millionths per year.
You can’t even make an easily comprehensible fraction for an amount this infinitesimal. Expressed using decimals, it’s .000007.
It doesn’t take a scientist to wonder if these scientists aren’t jumping to conclusions. This amount of change is way below the noise level.
How on earth—using satellite-based imagers screaming through a polar orbit at nearly 20,000 miles per hour, observing a continent 5.4 million miles in area, covered with an ice sheet that is up to three miles thick—can these scientists claim with confidence that they’re detecting an annual change in the total ice mass of .0007 percent—and, worse, announce this to the world as if it’s terrifying?
This is the sort of reasoning that the BBC openly censors. But thank God for the blogosphere to debunk alarmist reports about the cryosphere.
A good anthology of links and summaries of contrarian, non-alarmist findings can be found on the indefatigable Marc Morano’s Climate Depot website. Included in a recent post are articles by NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally claiming Antarctica is actually gaining ice.
One of the biggest obstacles to accurately measuring the volume of an ice sheet is that the underlying terrain itself changes, uplifting, or subsiding depending on tectonic shifts and other geologic variables.
Available online, from the Journal of Marine Science Research and Oceanography, is an article titled “The Views of Three Sea Level Specialists.”
The observations by meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller, formerly with NASA, are particularly helpful in understanding the difficulties with measuring Antarctica’s ice mass, as well as sea-level trends.
With respect to sea-level rise, Wysmuller explains that “the most influential driver of local sea level trend happens to be local tectonics,” and therefore the most accurate long-term measurements of sea level can only be found in places that are “tectonically inert.”
He cites these areas as reporting a 1 millimeter to 1.2-millimeter rate of annual sea-level rise over the last century, with scant evidence of acceleration.
Wysmuller provides an excellent example of how sea level data is manipulated by alarmists, by showing a chart from NOAA depicting mean sea level at Seward, Alaska.
The trend line of the long-term tide gauges shows a supposed rapid rise in sea level, but when you observe the actual year over year data, it is clear that sea level was stable both before and after the Alaskan earthquake in 1964.
At a magnitude of 9.3, this devastating quake caused the coastal land to fall by 0.9 meters. But what is reported is the long-term trend line (red on the chart below), with the long-term C02 PPM line (green) helpfully superimposed.
It is impossible to refute every argument made by climate alarmists because there is a perpetual onslaught of propaganda connecting virtually any topic to climate change.
But voters and politicians have an obligation to look past the hype and perform their own critical reasoning. Six-point-four-trillion-tons. That sounds like so much, but in fact, it’s just a drop in the ocean.
And as for Greenland, why is it called Greenland? Because in “Old Greenland,” back in the 10th century and for a few hundred years thereafter, parts of this harsh land were green.
To this day there are ruins of churches, anchoring settlements where thousands lived until the Little Ice Age drove them out.
And what about the “thermal expansion” of the oceans? Then why is there no indisputable evidence of sea levels rising?
And why wouldn’t increased evaporation in a thermally expanded, warmer ocean, offset the thermal expansion? These questions deserve discussion and answers.
But the BBC, along with most other mainstream and online media, suppress discussion and suppress answers with which they do not agree.
Former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, when talking about his policy positions, was fond of prefacing a remark with the phrase “science says…”
But using the words “science says” as a way to gain credibility and stifle debate is not scientific. The lifeblood of science is skepticism.
It is supposed to be the lifeblood of journalism as well. And when it comes to climate change, “science” knows a lot less than its self-proclaimed spokespersons claim.
It’s easy to wonder if the sheer volume of panic being spread on the issue of climate change is a conspiracy.
But it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy to be this pervasive, it just has to fit the world view of a critical mass of special interests. And that it does.
Anyone who believes in socialism, or just in bigger government, will favor the climate alarmist narrative. Anyone who believes in globalism and the withering away of national sovereignty will be similarly attracted to climate alarmism.
As for private opportunists, from rent-seeking multinational corporations to local environmental impact consultants, climate alarmism is a gold mine.
Worst of all is not just the censorship of skeptical voices, but the demonization of skeptics.
For example, a Google search on Thomas Wysmuller reveals links to several websites devoted to nothing but smearing and defaming him and everybody like him.
But it is the documented facts and logical integrity of Wysmuller’s arguments that must be considered, not the attacks on his character made by his ideological enemies.
Perhaps referring to these left-wing, slime-slinging websites is the best way to quickly learn who’s willing to tell the other side of the story; perhaps it’s where we find the good guys.
Read more at American Greatness
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-29--Six Decades Of Coral Reef Hardiness On Jarvis Island

Written by Dr. Craig Idso on .
Posted in Latest news Climate models predict that coral bleaching events will become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of CO2-induced global warming .
Consequently , many are concerned about the ability of corals to survive even a modest temperature rise , with many persons predicting these key marine lifeforms will suffer widespread decline and possible extinction in the future .
However , this fate is far from certain ; several studies have observed that many corals possess a high degree of resilience to temperature-related stresses , experiencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Support for this latter thesis is noted in reviews of several studies archived in our Subject Index under the heading Coral Reefs ( Responses to Temperature Stress : Recovery and Resilience ) .
And now , the work of Barkley et al .
( 2018 ) * can be added to this growing body of literature .
As their contribution to the topic , the team of fifteen researchers utilized skeletal signatures preserved in long-lived Porites corals found on the reef surrounding Jarvis Island in the central Pacific Ocean to reconstruct a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by extreme El Niño warming events .
Jarvis Island is within the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument ( 0.37°S , 159.99°W ) and represents an uninhabited coral reef ecosystem that according to Barkley et al .
“ was ranked one of the healthiest ecosystems in the global ocean in 2012.
” Based on analyses of the Porites corals , the authors report Jarvis Island has had a long history of both moderate ( less than 30 % ) and severe ( greater than 30 % ) bleaching events , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With respect to this history , Barkley et al .
note that “ the record implies that the Jarvis coral community has bleached with varying degrees of severity every five years , on average.
” And yet despite such periodicity , they say they did “ not detect a statistically significant increase in the severity of bleaching over time nor an increase in the frequency of bleaching events in the last 60 years.
” In contemplating the above findings , Barkley et al .
say that their historical bleaching reconstruction “ reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently , and at times catastrophically , yet appears to have maintained a healthy state over time.
” This fact is incredibly important and speaks to the resilience of this community given that it was ranked among the healthiest of all ocean ecosystems , notwithstanding it has experienced repeated episodes of moderate to severe bleaching every five years .
It is also important to point out another small , yet key , observation in this study .
According to the authors , recurring bleaching events were also identified prior to the six decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 1960-2016 ) .
As noted , Barkley et al .
report that “ two [ Porites ] cores extend back to the turn of the 20th century , and the earliest stress bands appear in these cores in 1912 , indicating that bleaching occurred on Jarvis over 100 years ago ” ( emphasis added ) .
So what does all the above suggest ?
It suggests an incredible resilience for a coral reef community that has repeatedly experienced dramatic fluctuations in ocean temperature and biogeochemical change .
And , it suggests rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the course of the past century have had no measurable impact on either the frequency or severity of El Niño warming events .
*Paper Reviewed Barkley , H.C. , Cohen , A.L.
, Mollica , N.R.
, Brainard , R.E.
, Rivera , H.E.
, DeCarlo , T.M.
, Lohmann , G.P.
, Drenkard , E.J.
, Alpert , A.E.
, Young , C.W.
, Vargas-Ángel , B. , Lino , K.C.
, Oliver , T.A.
, Pietro , K.R .
and Luu , V.H .
2018 .
Repeat bleaching of a central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades ( 1960-2016 ) .
Communications Biology 1 : 177 , DOI : 10.1038/s42003-018-0183-7 .

Written by Dr. Craig Idso on Apr 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate models predict that coral bleaching events will become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of CO2-induced global warming.
Consequently, many are concerned about the ability of corals to survive even a modest temperature rise, with many persons predicting these key marine lifeforms will suffer widespread decline and possible extinction in the future.
However, this fate is far from certain; several studies have observed that many corals possess a high degree of resilience to temperature-related stresses, experiencing relatively quick recoveries when the stresses depart.
Support for this latter thesis is noted in reviews of several studies archived in our Subject Index under the heading Coral Reefs (Responses to Temperature Stress: Recovery and Resilience).
And now, the work of Barkley et al. (2018)* can be added to this growing body of literature.
As their contribution to the topic, the team of fifteen researchers utilized skeletal signatures preserved in long-lived Porites corals found on the reef surrounding Jarvis Island in the central Pacific Ocean to reconstruct a near six-decade-long history of coral bleaching caused by extreme El Niño warming events.
Jarvis Island is within the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (0.37°S, 159.99°W) and represents an uninhabited coral reef ecosystem that according to Barkley et al. “was ranked one of the healthiest ecosystems in the global ocean in 2012.”
Based on analyses of the Porites corals, the authors report Jarvis Island has had a long history of both moderate (less than 30%) and severe (greater than 30%) bleaching events, including the ten events depicted in Figure 1 below.
With respect to this history, Barkley et al. note that “the record implies that the Jarvis coral community has bleached with varying degrees of severity every five years, on average.”
And yet despite such periodicity, they say they did “not detect a statistically significant increase in the severity of bleaching over time nor an increase in the frequency of bleaching events in the last 60 years.”
In contemplating the above findings, Barkley et al. say that their historical bleaching reconstruction “reveals a coral reef community that has bleached frequently, and at times catastrophically, yet appears to have maintained a healthy state over time.”
This fact is incredibly important and speaks to the resilience of this community given that it was ranked among the healthiest of all ocean ecosystems, notwithstanding it has experienced repeated episodes of moderate to severe bleaching every five years.
It is also important to point out another small, yet key, observation in this study. According to the authors, recurring bleaching events were also identified prior to the six decades of time focused on in their study (1960-2016).
As noted, Barkley et al. report that “two [Porites] cores extend back to the turn of the 20th century, and the earliest stress bands appear in these cores in 1912, indicating that bleaching occurred on Jarvis over 100 years ago” (emphasis added).
So what does all the above suggest? It suggests an incredible resilience for a coral reef community that has repeatedly experienced dramatic fluctuations in ocean temperature and biogeochemical change.
And, it suggests rising atmospheric CO2 and rising ocean temperatures over the course of the past century have had no measurable impact on either the frequency or severity of El Niño warming events.
*Paper Reviewed
Barkley, H.C., Cohen, A.L., Mollica, N.R., Brainard, R.E., Rivera, H.E., DeCarlo, T.M., Lohmann, G.P., Drenkard, E.J., Alpert, A.E., Young, C.W., Vargas-Ángel, B., Lino, K.C., Oliver, T.A., Pietro, K.R. and Luu, V.H. 2018. Repeat bleaching of a central Pacific coral reef over the past six decades (1960-2016). Communications Biology 1: 177, DOI: 10.1038/s42003-018-0183-7.
Read more at CO2 Science
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-29--Earth Day Hangover? Wait Till You See Our Green-Energy Tab

Written by Jason Isaac on .
Posted in Latest news Last week marked the 50th anniversary of Earth Day , a time when many take to social media to celebrate so-called “ green ” energy and call for broad government support .
It ’ s for the children , after all .
But the real numbers show that we have spent tens of billions of dollars on federal energy subsidies with precious little to show for all that money .
That ’ s particularly true of renewables .
According to new research by the Texas Public Policy Foundation ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comprehensive compilation of energy subsidies for all fuel types over an extended period , federal spending on energy subsidies from the 2010s totaled $ 127 billion , an average of nearly $ 13 billion annually .
Over the last decade , wind energy received $ 36.7 billion and solar received $ 34.4 billion of our tax dollars .
Despite this mammoth expenditure , as well as the billions appropriated in the decades prior , wind and solar still only provide 3 % of our energy .
Wind has received nearly 40 times and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unit of electricity generated than oil and gas — yet the technology is still too unreliable to breach double digits .
Wind and solar face fundamental physical limitations , including unreliability and low-energy-density , which prevents them from powering our economy .
Their growth will be limited without more subsidies , and the government should not continue to prop up these unsustainable technologies at the expense of the taxpayers .
Of course , other subsidies are equally unjustifiable .
Fossil fuel subsidies were created to favor politically connected businesses or to stave off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about running out of energy .
Many federal subsidies have been created under the false belief that the government could incentivize new technologies or increase domestic energy production to avoid a calamitous shortage of energy that would devastate our economy and quality of life .
America has since achieved energy dominance , and peak oil theory has long since been debunked .
Our oil and gas reserves are constantly growing as we discover new resources and learn to extract energy more efficiently .
So did subsidies contribute to our current energy dominance ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , the oil and gas industry received $ 25 billion in subsidies .
Given the size of the global industry , which is well into the trillions of dollars , it ’ s hard to imagine how approximately $ 2 billion a year in subsidies could be credited with moving the needle .
Federal subsidies represent less than one percent of total economic activity for the U.S. fossil fuel industry .
Given that fossil fuel subsidies are not essential to keeping the lights on , they are not a responsible use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars either .
Subsidies of any nature distort markets — in layman ’ s terms , they artificially inflate prices for certain goods , create a system of dependence on government , and foster cronyism as corporations seek special treatment on the backs of the taxpayers .
All of these hurt consumers , and when it comes to energy , the potential consequences of high prices and less reliable electricity sources on the grid are particularly severe .
Free markets function best when consumers and business owners have the freedom to choose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ often unwise choices of winners and losers .
The government should not continue to spend the American people ’ s hard-earned tax dollars on unsustainable renewable technologies that don ’ t strengthen our electric grid .
At the same time , fossil-fuel subsidies clearly don ’ t play a meaningful role in getting the American people to access to the energy they need .
Ultimately , the best path forward is to acknowledge the distorting effects of subsidies on the cost and availability of the energy we all depend on every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all .

Written by Jason Isaac on Apr 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Last week marked the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, a time when many take to social media to celebrate so-called “green” energy and call for broad government support. It’s for the children, after all.
But the real numbers show that we have spent tens of billions of dollars on federal energy subsidies with precious little to show for all that money. That’s particularly true of renewables.
According to new research by the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Life: Powered initiative, the first comprehensive compilation of energy subsidies for all fuel types over an extended period, federal spending on energy subsidies from the 2010s totaled $127 billion, an average of nearly $13 billion annually.
Over the last decade, wind energy received $36.7 billion and solar received $34.4 billion of our tax dollars.
Despite this mammoth expenditure, as well as the billions appropriated in the decades prior, wind and solar still only provide 3% of our energy.
Wind has received nearly 40 times and solar nearly 200 times more subsidies per unit of electricity generated than oil and gas — yet the technology is still too unreliable to breach double digits.
Wind and solar face fundamental physical limitations, including unreliability and low-energy-density, which prevents them from powering our economy.
Their growth will be limited without more subsidies, and the government should not continue to prop up these unsustainable technologies at the expense of the taxpayers.
Subsidies simply aren’t achieving their goal: giving renewable energy technology a boost.
Of course, other subsidies are equally unjustifiable. Fossil fuel subsidies were created to favor politically connected businesses or to stave off “peak oil” amid widespread concerns about running out of energy.
Many federal subsidies have been created under the false belief that the government could incentivize new technologies or increase domestic energy production to avoid a calamitous shortage of energy that would devastate our economy and quality of life.
America has since achieved energy dominance, and peak oil theory has long since been debunked. Our oil and gas reserves are constantly growing as we discover new resources and learn to extract energy more efficiently.
So did subsidies contribute to our current energy dominance? Not so much. Between 2010 and 2019, the oil and gas industry received $25 billion in subsidies.
Given the size of the global industry, which is well into the trillions of dollars, it’s hard to imagine how approximately $2 billion a year in subsidies could be credited with moving the needle.
Federal subsidies represent less than one percent of total economic activity for the U.S. fossil fuel industry.
Given that fossil fuel subsidies are not essential to keeping the lights on, they are not a responsible use of the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars either.
Subsidies of any nature distort markets — in layman’s terms, they artificially inflate prices for certain goods, create a system of dependence on government, and foster cronyism as corporations seek special treatment on the backs of the taxpayers.
All of these hurt consumers, and when it comes to energy, the potential consequences of high prices and less reliable electricity sources on the grid are particularly severe.
Free markets function best when consumers and business owners have the freedom to choose their own paths, free from the politicians’ often unwise choices of winners and losers.
The government should not continue to spend the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars on unsustainable renewable technologies that don’t strengthen our electric grid.
At the same time, fossil-fuel subsidies clearly don’t play a meaningful role in getting the American people to access to the energy they need.
Ultimately, the best path forward is to acknowledge the distorting effects of subsidies on the cost and availability of the energy we all depend on every day — and phase them out once and for all.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-29--Libs Push To Radically Transform U.S. Post-Pandemic: ‘Reinvent Cities’

Written by Penny Starr on .
Posted in Latest news For weeks , the American people have faced daily orders , graphs , tables , news stories , and press conferences detailing the coronavirus ’ s devastating impact on the country , from thousands of deaths to a 21-trillion-dollar economy brought to its knees .
… And now , even in the midst of a deadly pandemic that has caused more than 20 million Americans to lose their jobs , Greta Thunberg and many others see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to irrevocably change the United States from the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s founders and those who loved pre-virus America .
Thunberg is back in Sweden , and her weekly climate strikes are on hold , but this too is a reality : the U.S. and global air traffic have almost ground to a halt , oil traded in negative territory last week for the first time ever , and farmers have been forced to dump milk , break fertilized eggs , and slaughter livestock to cope with the new glut .
Those who see promise in this health and economic crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they hope lies ahead for America .
The headline on the self-described socialist Democrat Jacobin online magazine seems to perfectly sum up the left ’ s hope for a utopian future ; “ Now Is the Time to Fundamentally Transform America , ” the headline said .
The writer then put out a wishlist of those hopes , including nationalizing the nation ’ s banks : “ Shareholders will whine , but without a state-led rescue , the value of their stock would fall close to zero anyway.
” The writer also called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markets : “ The goal should be to turn finance into something like a utility.
” The writer wants the creation of the “ Reconstruction Finance Corporation , ” to finance the Green New Deal , a “ deal , ” according to a Heartland Institute report , that “ would cause unimaginable harm to the environment , wildlife , and humans.
” “ It would be a publicly capitalized bank that would evaluate and fund projects like clean energy generation and new models of food production , ” the Jacobin writer wished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for universal health care has been sounding .
This week , the Congressional Progressive Caucus held a virtual press conference on Facebook to let their demands be known for what should be included in any legislation Congress puts forth to provide relief from the coronavirus outbreak .
Those demands include guaranteed income for individuals and families for an extended period of time , universal health care , debt forgiveness , and housing guarantees .
These left-wing Democrats also support the Green New Deal .
In her remarks , Rep. Rashida Tlaib ( D-MI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sonya Renee Taylor for her take on how beating the coronavirus should not be a pathway back to normalcy .
Perhaps one of the most unpredictable sidebars to the coronavirus crisis has been how radical environmentalists have seen a silver lining in a global economic shutdown because , although people may be suffering and dying , animals are now freely roaming city streets and the air in the skies over the biggest polluter in the world — China — are clearer , even if the virus killed more Chinese people than will probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it this way : “ This Is Our Chance to Reinvent Cities , ” and they compared vehicle traffic to the virus : If the streets are a city ’ s veins , cars are the blood coursing through them—but they ’ re a pathogen , of sorts .
Cars killed over 6,000 pedestrians in 2018 in the US , and air pollution kills perhaps 200,000 more here each year .
With all those cars now sequestered in garages , air quality around the world has gone through the roof .
In March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University calculated that carbon monoxide emissions in New York City , mostly coming from vehicles , fell by 50 percent .
With that will come a dramatic improvement in public health , and at just the right time : New research from the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health has shown that air pollution is associated with higher Covid-19 death rates .
They did this by looking at 3,000 US counties and comparing Covid-19 deaths and levels of fine particulate matter in the air .
They found that even small increases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to significantly higher mortality .
That makes sense , since this is a disease that attacks the lungs .
But maybe our suddenly clearer skies don ’ t have to be temporary .
We ’ re getting a taste of how much more livable our cities would be if we designed them for people , not cars .
Closing roads to cars altogether—as cities like Boston and Oakland , California , have done during the crisis—means people can walk and bike in safety , itself a boost to public health .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ of people realizing what we ’ ve absorbed from the slow intensification of urban life as it relates to vehicles , ” Gurney said .
“ It ’ s potentially a moment where we can get a clearer picture of what we ’ ve slowly kind of numbed ourselves to .
Cities are profoundly dominated by vehicles.
” Done incorrectly , though , a rethinking of cities could exacerbate inequalities .
Cities have , necessarily , severely curtailed public transportation to curb the spread of the new coronavirus .
But this disproportionately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cars , and who might rely on public transport to get to their essential jobs or shop for food .
Democrats also see the coronavirus outbreak as a chance to advance their vote-by-mail agenda , CNN reported this month : The pandemic has reshaped much of American life , and the prospect of having millions of Americans head to the polls in November is raising serious questions about balancing the right to vote with public health .
The solution proposed by Democrats and voting rights experts and advocates is to expand voting by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistance from many state and national Republicans , who have long opposed efforts to expand voting access and instead have supported stricter measures like voter identification laws , which they argue ensure the integrity of the electoral process .
Congressional Democrats asked for billions to expand the use of absentee voting but got just $ 400 million in the $ 2 trillion stimulus package approved last week .
Before that , Democratic Sens .
Ron Wyden of Oregon and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota introduced a bill in March that would have added $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state election systems for the coronavirus .
A Townhall editorial pointed out some of the ironies popping up as Americans rally to save the country and its people , while others have a more globalist happy ending : While countless Americans have found a silver lining in this health crisis , from spending more time with their family to volunteering to help others in need , many fear that some are determined to take advantage of uncertainty and fear to remake a country that is unrecognizable as a nation before a rogue virus @ @ @ @ @

Written by Penny Starr on Apr 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
For weeks, the American people have faced daily orders, graphs, tables, news stories, and press conferences detailing the coronavirus’s devastating impact on the country, from thousands of deaths to a 21-trillion-dollar economy brought to its knees. …
And now, even in the midst of a deadly pandemic that has caused more than 20 million Americans to lose their jobs, Greta Thunberg and many others see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to irrevocably change the United States from the most prosperous free-market Republic to something unrecognizable to the country’s founders and those who loved pre-virus America.
Thunberg is back in Sweden, and her weekly climate strikes are on hold, but this too is a reality: the U.S. and global air traffic have almost ground to a halt, oil traded in negative territory last week for the first time ever, and farmers have been forced to dump milk, break fertilized eggs, and slaughter livestock to cope with the new glut.
Those who see promise in this health and economic crisis are not shy about spelling out what they hope lies ahead for America.
The headline on the self-described socialist Democrat Jacobin online magazine seems to perfectly sum up the left’s hope for a utopian future; “Now Is the Time to Fundamentally Transform America,” the headline said.
The writer then put out a wishlist of those hopes, including nationalizing the nation’s banks: “Shareholders will whine, but without a state-led rescue, the value of their stock would fall close to zero anyway.”
The writer also called for a national takeover of the financial markets: “The goal should be to turn finance into something like a utility.”
The writer wants the creation of the “Reconstruction Finance Corporation,” to finance the Green New Deal, a “deal,” according to a Heartland Institute report, that “would cause unimaginable harm to the environment, wildlife, and humans.”
“It would be a publicly capitalized bank that would evaluate and fund projects like clean energy generation and new models of food production,” the Jacobin writer wished.
And, finally, a call for universal health care has been sounding.
This week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus held a virtual press conference on Facebook to let their demands be known for what should be included in any legislation Congress puts forth to provide relief from the coronavirus outbreak. Those demands include guaranteed income for individuals and families for an extended period of time, universal health care, debt forgiveness, and housing guarantees. These left-wing Democrats also support the Green New Deal.
In her remarks, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) praised poet and Planned Parenthood activist Sonya Renee Taylor for her take on how beating the coronavirus should not be a pathway back to normalcy.
Taylor wrote on Instagram:
We will not go back to normal. Normal never was. Our pre-corona existence was never normal other than we normalized greed, inequity, exhaustion, depletion, extraction, disconnection, confusion, rage, hoarding, hate and lack. We should not long to return, My friends. We are being given the opportunity to stitch a new garment. One that fits all of humanity and nature.
Perhaps one of the most unpredictable sidebars to the coronavirus crisis has been how radical environmentalists have seen a silver lining in a global economic shutdown because, although people may be suffering and dying, animals are now freely roaming city streets and the air in the skies over the biggest polluter in the world — China — are clearer, even if the virus killed more Chinese people than will probably ever be known.
Wired magazine put it this way: “This Is Our Chance to Reinvent Cities,” and they compared vehicle traffic to the virus:
If the streets are a city’s veins, cars are the blood coursing through them—but they’re a pathogen, of sorts. Cars killed over 6,000 pedestrians in 2018 in the US, and air pollution kills perhaps 200,000 more here each year. With all those cars now sequestered in garages, air quality around the world has gone through the roof. In March, for instance, researchers at Columbia University calculated that carbon monoxide emissions in New York City, mostly coming from vehicles, fell by 50 percent. With that will come a dramatic improvement in public health, and at just the right time: New research from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health has shown that air pollution is associated with higher Covid-19 death rates. They did this by looking at 3,000 US counties and comparing Covid-19 deaths and levels of fine particulate matter in the air. They found that even small increases in long-term exposure to the pollutants leads to significantly higher mortality. That makes sense, since this is a disease that attacks the lungs. But maybe our suddenly clearer skies don’t have to be temporary. We’re getting a taste of how much more livable our cities would be if we designed them for people, not cars. Closing roads to cars altogether—as cities like Boston and Oakland, California, have done during the crisis—means people can walk and bike in safety, itself a boost to public health. “We call this a ‘psychic outcome,’ of people realizing what we’ve absorbed from the slow intensification of urban life as it relates to vehicles,” Gurney said. “It’s potentially a moment where we can get a clearer picture of what we’ve slowly kind of numbed ourselves to. Cities are profoundly dominated by vehicles.” Done incorrectly, though, a rethinking of cities could exacerbate inequalities. Cities have, necessarily, severely curtailed public transportation to curb the spread of the new coronavirus. But this disproportionately affects those who can’t afford cars, and who might rely on public transport to get to their essential jobs or shop for food.
Democrats also see the coronavirus outbreak as a chance to advance their vote-by-mail agenda, CNN reported this month:
The pandemic has reshaped much of American life, and the prospect of having millions of Americans head to the polls in November is raising serious questions about balancing the right to vote with public health. The solution proposed by Democrats and voting rights experts and advocates is to expand voting by mail. But those calls are facing resistance from many state and national Republicans, who have long opposed efforts to expand voting access and instead have supported stricter measures like voter identification laws, which they argue ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Congressional Democrats asked for billions to expand the use of absentee voting but got just $400 million in the $2 trillion stimulus package approved last week. Before that, Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota introduced a bill in March that would have added $500 million in federal money to prepare state election systems for the coronavirus.
A Townhall editorial pointed out some of the ironies popping up as Americans rally to save the country and its people, while others have a more globalist happy ending:
Oxford professor Peter Frankopan, in an opinion piece titled, “Pandemics are terrifying but they can make the world better,” brazenly shames our manufacturing industry and the millions employed in good-paying jobs, saying “… [the] world’s lungs are already breathing more easily thanks to the collapse of industrial production.” Sky News’ Ed Conway describes the coronavirus as “the ultimate weapon” against climate change. “[I]f you were a young, hardline environmentalist looking for the ultimate weapon against climate change, you could hardly design anything better than coronavirus,” he said in recent a column. “Coronavirus has basically turned off the global economy,” Jamie Henn, climate activist and co-founder of 350.org—a nonprofit organization rabidly committed to ending the use of fossil fuels—tells Vox. “Let’s install a new operating system before we turn it back on.”
The Townhall commentary said:
The same industry leaders and innovators stepping up to defeat the coronavirus are the same people who will help solve whatever climate woes we face. And they’ll do so without delivering another devastating blow to our economy and without leaving behind the 10 million Americans out of a job and wondering where their next meal or rent payment will come from. The contrast between industry stepping up to help across-the-board in a time of crisis, and activists’ attempt to exploit the crisis couldn’t be more illuminating.
While countless Americans have found a silver lining in this health crisis, from spending more time with their family to volunteering to help others in need, many fear that some are determined to take advantage of uncertainty and fear to remake a country that is unrecognizable as a nation before a rogue virus reared its ugly head.
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-29--Bill Mckibben Caught Lying About Wind And Solar Costs

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news In a Los Angeles Times editorial , climate activist Bill McKibben claims , “ In the last 10 years , engineers have driven the price of sun and wind power down below coal.
” This is a falsehood that climate activists frequently tell , but here is the truth .
What McKibben doesn ’ t disclose is that he ’ s only counting the price of wind and solar on days when they are operating at peak capacity , while ignoring their capital costs .
Also , he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power plants when they are operating at less than peak efficiency , due to their need to regulate wind and solar ’ s ever-fluctuating power supply .
McKibben also conveniently fails to count the tremendous subsidies wind and solar power received from the government .
Indeed , without government subsidies and mandates , wind and solar power would largely be a boutique power supply for the wealthy .
As Climate Realism notes , “ Wind and solar power receive substantially more subsidies than conventional energy sources .
Wind power by itself receives more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources combined .
Solar power by itself also receives more source-specific government subsidies than all conventional energy sources combined.
” An analysis by the Institute of Energy Research , “ The Levelized Cost Of Electricity From Existing Generation Resources , ” reports : “ Continuing to operate existing coal , natural gas , hydroelectric , and nuclear plants provides a cheaper source of electricity than replacing them with new plants or renewable sources of power like wind or solar.
” Ultimately , if wind and solar power were less expensive than coal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that wind and solar produce so little of the world ’ s electricity mix is proof positive that they are substantially more expensive than conventional energy .
You don ’ t need to pass laws and twist people ’ s arms to incentivize them to not throw away their money .
On the other hand , you do need to pass laws and twist people ’ s arms to make them foolishly waste their money .
That is what activists like Bill McKibben seek to do .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Apr 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In a Los Angeles Times editorial, climate activist Bill McKibben claims, “In the last 10 years, engineers have driven the price of sun and wind power down below coal.”
This is a falsehood that climate activists frequently tell, but here is the truth.
What McKibben doesn’t disclose is that he’s only counting the price of wind and solar on days when they are operating at peak capacity, while ignoring their capital costs.
Also, he is calculating the costs of operating traditional electric power plants when they are operating at less than peak efficiency, due to their need to regulate wind and solar’s ever-fluctuating power supply.
McKibben also conveniently fails to count the tremendous subsidies wind and solar power received from the government.
Indeed, without government subsidies and mandates, wind and solar power would largely be a boutique power supply for the wealthy.
As Climate Realism notes, “Wind and solar power receive substantially more subsidies than conventional energy sources. Wind power by itself receives more source-specific government subsidies than all conventional energy sources combined. Solar power by itself also receives more source-specific government subsidies than all conventional energy sources combined.”
An analysis by the Institute of Energy Research, “The Levelized Cost Of Electricity From Existing Generation Resources,” reports: “Continuing to operate existing coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear plants provides a cheaper source of electricity than replacing them with new plants or renewable sources of power like wind or solar.”
Ultimately, if wind and solar power were less expensive than coal, they would dominate world electricity production.
The fact that wind and solar produce so little of the world’s electricity mix is proof positive that they are substantially more expensive than conventional energy.
You don’t need to pass laws and twist people’s arms to incentivize them to not throw away their money.
On the other hand, you do need to pass laws and twist people’s arms to make them foolishly waste their money. That is what activists like Bill McKibben seek to do.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-29--Mass Climate Brainwashing Gears Up On College Campuses

Written by Kendall Svengalis on .
Posted in Latest news There are always some people who will take advantage of a crisis to advance self-serving financial or political agendas that have nothing to do with the crisis itself .
We saw this in Nancy ’ s Pelosi ’ s shameless attempt to stuff wasteful , partisan , and controversial provisions into the coronavirus relief package , including pieces of the radical Green New Deal , all the while millions of Americans are desperately seeking financial relief and medical supplies .
In his recent book entitled , TheBreakdown of Higher Education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ellis documents that the indoctrination in our nation ’ s colleges and universities is widespread , and has grown more egregious with each passing year .
Domination of academic departments by the left emboldens faculty to engage in the overt politicization of curricula they would never have attempted 50 years ago .
Ironically , the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a parallel virus : online instruction in the pursuit of the radical climate agenda .
It ’ s a national effort called Solve Climate by 2030 .
Consider , for a moment , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate in ten years .
According to a March 25th press release from UConn ’ s Communications office , faculty at the University of Connecticut are using the crisis and the need for on-line course delivery to inject a radical environmental agenda into their curriculum .
Michael Willig , executive director of UConn ’ s Institute of the Environment and Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology , has announced that a national webinar , scheduled for April 7 , “ will explicitly consider environmental justice challenges posed by the climate crisis.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda not only to students in environmental studies but those in history , science , business , culture , economics , psychology , religion , government , media , journalism , and the arts .
Moreover , it seeks to “ engage high school teachers in Connecticut , as well as other colleges and universities .
.
.
to develop materials to assist the curriculum by focusing on climate-related information that may be used even in non-scientific disciplines.
” This is mass indoctrination on steroids .
Willig exposes the ideology behind this agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only anxiety I can detect is that which is ginned up by irresponsible or poorly informed faculty with a political agenda that violate the basic tenets of their profession .
It was Rahm Emanuel who famously said : “ You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
” This online course—and the Solve Climate by 2030 program generally—reflects the aphorism and the radical politicization of the modern college campus by political actors .
It not only constitutes a blatant misuse of public funds toward overtly political ends but is hostile to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while corruptly clothing itself in its garb .
What , for example , is likely to happen when young people in grades K-12 ( including my grandchildren ) , and beyond , are largely convinced that “ climate change ” is a crisis that threatens their very existence , as Mr. Willig falsely contends .
For whom are they likely to vote when they become of voting age if that is the issue that dominates their consciousness and political sensibility ?
It ’ s no wonder Democrats are all on the “ climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an issue that constitutes a deep and profound threat to our freedom .
I have a good friend who teaches physics at a local university .
He also teaches a course in climate science .
Despite a strongly skeptical , or realist , bent , he scrupulously seeks to present both sides of the debate , such that his students , in subsequent course evaluations , are unable to detect his own position .
His aim is to teach them how to think , not what to think .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way it was conducted in years past when faculty took their ethical responsibilities seriously .
There is not space here for a lengthy exposition of the fraud of catastrophic global warming—the greatest scientific fraud in history , and easily the most costly .
Suffice it to say that the instrumental temperature record since 1850 , and proxy data prior to that , offer no evidence of anything in recent years beyond normal climatic variation in keeping with the Earth ’ s geologic experience .
Temperatures warmed globally by only 0.74 degrees Celsius @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the IPCC , most of which took place prior to 1978 .
And even that is subject to a profound urban heat island effect , among other uncertainties .
It is utterly absurd to believe that that modest warming poses anything remotely like an “ existential crisis ; ” and , in fact , is mostly natural in origin .
Global warming or “ climate change ” has degenerated into a political religion , or cult , not an honest effort to ascertain the truth of what is arguably the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indeed , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) made its anti-scientific posture clear from the outset by never attempting to establish a baseline of natural climate variability before setting out to prove man ’ s guilt .
Of the several hundred factors that impact climate , they conveniently chose the only one ( the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide ) that can be used to impose government control over the energy sector and humanity .
This was a political , not a scientifically defensible , enterprise .
They have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts to advance this agenda , including the infamous “ hockey stick ” graph inserted in the IPCC ’ s 2001 Assessment , that wiped out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that had been exhaustively documented by dozens of prior scientific studies and the historical record .
There are thousands of honest scientists across the globe who reject such hyperbole , but I strongly suspect that Prof. Willig will not be exposing students to their views because Solve Climate by 2030 is not science , but a one-sided exercise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the idiotic Green New Deal .
If Americans think that the absence of a limited number of products from grocery store shelves during the COVID-19 pandemic is bad , they have no idea what the truly horrendous consequences of the Green New Deal will have on the American food supply chain .
Tractors and harvesters without diesel fuel to produce our food , tractor-trailers without fuel to deliver it to processing plants and grocery stores will result in food scarcity unlike any we have ever witnessed in American history .
How long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and elsewhere , will last when supermarkets are stripped bare ?
It would also constitute the greatest case of economic masochism in American history .
You can look at Venezuela to get a hint of what that would like .
There are dozens of books , thousands of scientific articles , and hundreds of YouTube lectures that expose this fraud for what it is .
For a balanced exposition of both the science and politics of climate , I would highly recommend the late Professor Robert M. Carter ’ s Climate : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which he argues persuasively that “ there is no scientific study that invalidates the hypothesis of the overwhelmingly natural origin of the observed , modern climate , ” this despite over $ 200 billion spent in its pursuit since 2000 .
And for the history and totalitarian roots of the movement , I recommend Rupert Darwall ’ s Green Tyranny ( Encounter Books ) , which exhaustively documents the origins and political character of the movement .
Professor Richard Lindzen , MIT ’ s distinguished atmospheric physicist , now retired , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago when he wrote : Hysterical panic is what Professor Willig hopes to foist on young and impressionable minds .
Solve Climate by 2030 also violates a cardinal principle of university teaching , which is to teach students how to think , not what to think .
This follows from a fundamental principle promulgated by the American Association of University Professors in 1915 , that political advocacy has no place in the classroom , and that the role of professors is to teach students to think for themselves .
We can certainly teach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate system , but that curriculum should be rooted in the data , should acknowledge the enormous uncertainties that characterize that system , and examine the competing theories of what drives it .
Taught honestly , students should not even be able to detect the views or agenda or the presenters .
But the Solve Climate by 2030 project is anything but an objective pursuit of truth , but a blatant pursuit of a policy agenda .
By framing the project as an effort to solve an “ existential threat , ” they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in it .
However , they are advancing an unproven hypothesis that has profound policy implications of a potentially destructive kind and whose dimensions we can not begin to fathom .
Sadly , this is how far we have fallen from the disinterested pursuit of truth in our current ideologically homogeneous academic culture .

Written by Kendall Svengalis on Apr 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
There are always some people who will take advantage of a crisis to advance self-serving financial or political agendas that have nothing to do with the crisis itself.
We saw this in Nancy’s Pelosi’s shameless attempt to stuff wasteful, partisan, and controversial provisions into the coronavirus relief package, including pieces of the radical Green New Deal, all the while millions of Americans are desperately seeking financial relief and medical supplies.
In his recent book entitled, TheBreakdown of Higher Education (Encounter Books), Professor John Ellis documents that the indoctrination in our nation’s colleges and universities is widespread, and has grown more egregious with each passing year.
Domination of academic departments by the left emboldens faculty to engage in the overt politicization of curricula they would never have attempted 50 years ago.
Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a parallel virus: online instruction in the pursuit of the radical climate agenda.
It’s a national effort called Solve Climate by 2030. Consider, for a moment, the hubris involved in an effort to change the climate in ten years.
According to a March 25th press release from UConn’s Communications office, faculty at the University of Connecticut are using the crisis and the need for on-line course delivery to inject a radical environmental agenda into their curriculum.
Michael Willig, executive director of UConn’s Institute of the Environment and Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, has announced that a national webinar, scheduled for April 7, “will explicitly consider environmental justice challenges posed by the climate crisis.”
The aim is to extend this radical agenda not only to students in environmental studies but those in history, science, business, culture, economics, psychology, religion, government, media, journalism, and the arts.
Moreover, it seeks to “engage high school teachers in Connecticut, as well as other colleges and universities . . . to develop materials to assist the curriculum by focusing on climate-related information that may be used even in non-scientific disciplines.”
This is mass indoctrination on steroids.
Willig exposes the ideology behind this agenda when he openly admits that:
“The impetus behind Solve Climate 2030 is not to just highlight the existential crisis that is associated with climate change and our continued dependence on fossil fuels . . . it will also address the anxiety surrounding the climate crisis and help viewers answer questions about what they can do now, and how their actions will help make a difference.”
The only anxiety I can detect is that which is ginned up by irresponsible or poorly informed faculty with a political agenda that violate the basic tenets of their profession.
It was Rahm Emanuel who famously said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
This online course—and the Solve Climate by 2030 program generally—reflects the aphorism and the radical politicization of the modern college campus by political actors.
It not only constitutes a blatant misuse of public funds toward overtly political ends but is hostile to the very essence of the scientific enterprise, while corruptly clothing itself in its garb.
What, for example, is likely to happen when young people in grades K-12 (including my grandchildren), and beyond, are largely convinced that “climate change” is a crisis that threatens their very existence, as Mr. Willig falsely contends.
For whom are they likely to vote when they become of voting age if that is the issue that dominates their consciousness and political sensibility?
It’s no wonder Democrats are all on the “climate change” bandwagon. Clearly, this is an issue that constitutes a deep and profound threat to our freedom.
I have a good friend who teaches physics at a local university. He also teaches a course in climate science.
Despite a strongly skeptical, or realist, bent, he scrupulously seeks to present both sides of the debate, such that his students, in subsequent course evaluations, are unable to detect his own position.
His aim is to teach them how to think, not what to think. This is the way education should be conducted, and the way it was conducted in years past when faculty took their ethical responsibilities seriously.
There is not space here for a lengthy exposition of the fraud of catastrophic global warming—the greatest scientific fraud in history, and easily the most costly.
Suffice it to say that the instrumental temperature record since 1850, and proxy data prior to that, offer no evidence of anything in recent years beyond normal climatic variation in keeping with the Earth’s geologic experience.
Temperatures warmed globally by only 0.74 degrees Celsius for all of the 20th century, according to the IPCC, most of which took place prior to 1978.
And even that is subject to a profound urban heat island effect, among other uncertainties.
It is utterly absurd to believe that that modest warming poses anything remotely like an “existential crisis;” and, in fact, is mostly natural in origin.
Global warming or “climate change” has degenerated into a political religion, or cult, not an honest effort to ascertain the truth of what is arguably the most complex scientific phenomenon known to man.
Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made its anti-scientific posture clear from the outset by never attempting to establish a baseline of natural climate variability before setting out to prove man’s guilt.
Of the several hundred factors that impact climate, they conveniently chose the only one (the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide) that can be used to impose government control over the energy sector and humanity.
This was a political, not a scientifically defensible, enterprise.
They have also engaged in numerous and documented, dishonest acts to advance this agenda, including the infamous “hockey stick” graph inserted in the IPCC’s 2001 Assessment, that wiped out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that had been exhaustively documented by dozens of prior scientific studies and the historical record.
There are thousands of honest scientists across the globe who reject such hyperbole, but I strongly suspect that Prof. Willig will not be exposing students to their views because Solve Climate by 2030 is not science, but a one-sided exercise in political advocacy that bears a remarkable similarity to the idiotic Green New Deal.
If Americans think that the absence of a limited number of products from grocery store shelves during the COVID-19 pandemic is bad, they have no idea what the truly horrendous consequences of the Green New Deal will have on the American food supply chain.
Tractors and harvesters without diesel fuel to produce our food, tractor-trailers without fuel to deliver it to processing plants and grocery stores will result in food scarcity unlike any we have ever witnessed in American history.
How long do you think residents in urban centers, and elsewhere, will last when supermarkets are stripped bare? It would also constitute the greatest case of economic masochism in American history. You can look at Venezuela to get a hint of what that would like.
There are dozens of books, thousands of scientific articles, and hundreds of YouTube lectures that expose this fraud for what it is.
For a balanced exposition of both the science and politics of climate, I would highly recommend the late Professor Robert M. Carter’s Climate: The Counter Consensus (Stacey International), in which he argues persuasively that “there is no scientific study that invalidates the hypothesis of the overwhelmingly natural origin of the observed, modern climate,” this despite over $200 billion spent in its pursuit since 2000.
And for the history and totalitarian roots of the movement, I recommend Rupert Darwall’s Green Tyranny (Encounter Books), which exhaustively documents the origins and political character of the movement.
Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT’s distinguished atmospheric physicist, now retired, said it best more than 20 years ago when he wrote:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Hysterical panic is what Professor Willig hopes to foist on young and impressionable minds.
Solve Climate by 2030 also violates a cardinal principle of university teaching, which is to teach students how to think, not what to think.
This follows from a fundamental principle promulgated by the American Association of University Professors in 1915, that political advocacy has no place in the classroom, and that the role of professors is to teach students to think for themselves.
We can certainly teach young people about the complexities of the climate system, but that curriculum should be rooted in the data, should acknowledge the enormous uncertainties that characterize that system, and examine the competing theories of what drives it.
Taught honestly, students should not even be able to detect the views or agenda or the presenters.
But the Solve Climate by 2030 project is anything but an objective pursuit of truth, but a blatant pursuit of a policy agenda.
By framing the project as an effort to solve an “existential threat,” they can attempt to rationalize the bias inherent in it.
However, they are advancing an unproven hypothesis that has profound policy implications of a potentially destructive kind and whose dimensions we cannot begin to fathom.
Sadly, this is how far we have fallen from the disinterested pursuit of truth in our current ideologically homogeneous academic culture.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-29--Ice Surprise: Svalbard Well Over Average, Arctic Ice Steady, Antarctic Ice Growing

Written by Kirye and Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news We keep hearing how the ice at the poles is supposedly disappearing rapidly , yet a look at the latest data shows this is not the case .
Polar ice has remained steady for the last decades .
Antarctic ice has in fact trended upwards since satellite measurement began 40 years ago .
A brand new article here describes how “ Antarctica is not rapidly melting.
” Die kalte Sonne site writes that something unexpected has happened in the Atlantic Ocean around Svalbard : The extent of sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term average , as the following graph from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows : What ’ s going on in the North Atlantic ?
How does all this ice fit with the earlier warnings that the sea ice is getting less and less ?
German meteorologist Klaus Paetzold shows on his website many more interesting observations of ice and snow in the northern hemisphere .
Though climate alarmists often claim Canada is warming twice as fast as the globe , the real , untampered data show that 5 of 9 stations in Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data – have had no warming trend in the month of March since 1986 .
Additionally , only one station shows a warming trend since 1998 .
Spring seems to be taking more time to arrive in Canada .
Summarizing : nothing dramatic is really happening at the Earth ’ s poles .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kirye and Pierre Gosselin on Apr 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
We keep hearing how the ice at the poles is supposedly disappearing rapidly, yet a look at the latest data shows this is not the case.
Polar ice has remained steady for the last decades.
Antarctic rebounding, trending upwards
Antarctic ice has in fact trended upwards since satellite measurement began 40 years ago.
A brand new article here describes how “Antarctica is not rapidly melting.”
Svalbard sea ice well above average
Die kalte Sonne site writes that something unexpected has happened in the Atlantic Ocean around Svalbard: The extent of sea ice there is far greater than the long-term average, as the following graph from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows:
What’s going on in the North Atlantic? How does all this ice fit with the earlier warnings that the sea ice is getting less and less?
German meteorologist Klaus Paetzold shows on his website many more interesting observations of ice and snow in the northern hemisphere.
Canadian winters lasting longer?
Though climate alarmists often claim Canada is warming twice as fast as the globe, the real, untampered data show that 5 of 9 stations in Canada – for which the JMA has near-complete data – have had no warming trend in the month of March since 1986.
Additionally, only one station shows a warming trend since 1998. Spring seems to be taking more time to arrive in Canada.
Summarizing: nothing dramatic is really happening at the Earth’s poles.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-30--Al Gore Falsely Claims Fossil Fuels Raised Pandemic Death Rate

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Al Gore falsely attempted to blame fossil fuels for raising the coronavirus death rate during a February 27 MSNBC interview .
In reality , economic prosperity brought by the use of abundant , affordable fossil fuels results in lower death rates from viruses and epidemics .
Also , viruses like influenza and COVID-19 thrive in cold climate conditions and are inhibited by warmer temperatures .
“ This climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic are linked in some ways , ” Gore said on MSNBC , as reported by The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death rate from COVID-19 , a great many of them , are accentuated , made worse by fossil fuel pollution.
” Scientists have long known that cold temperatures are a key factor in the annual death toll for influenza , which kills an average of approximately 36,000 Americans per year .
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) documents that flu season ramps up when the weather turns cold , and then peters out when warm temperatures return .
According to the CDC , “ influenza activity often begins to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time flu activity peaks between December and February , although activity can last as late as May.
” According to Harvard University researchers , “ In the southern hemisphere , however , where winter comes during our summer months , the flu season falls between June and September .
In other words , wherever there is winter , there is flu .
In fact , even its name , ‘ influenza ’ may be a reference to its original Italian name , influenza di freddo , meaning ‘ influence of the cold ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least in regions that have a winter season , the influenza virus survives longer in cold , dry air , so it has a greater chance of infecting another person , ” the Harvard researchers added .
Scientists are still learning about COVID-19 , but preliminary evidence indicates warmer temperatures have either minor or significant impacts reducing the spread and harm of coronavirus .
Warmer temperatures certainly do not make COVID-19 worse .
According to a publication released by Harvard Medical School , a recent study by the National Academies of Sciences “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures and higher levels of humidity decreased survival of the COVID-19 coronavirus.
” The scientists are currently attempting to determine whether this will also be the case in natural environments outside the laboratory .
In fact , cold temperatures kill many more people – for a variety of reasons – than warm or hot temperatures .
In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004 , W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted , “ Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States , Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tropics , and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.
” More recently in a study published in the Lancet in 2015 , researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries , accounting for more than 74 million deaths , and found cold weather , directly or indirectly , killed 1,700 % more people than warm or hot weather .
In his MSNBC interview , Gore doubled down on his reckless assertions .
He attempted to link fossil fuels to high asthma rates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus .
However , even as air pollution in the United States has consistently and sharply declined since the 1970s , asthma rates have increased substantially .
This contradicts the assertion that air pollution causes asthma .
As explained by researcher Joel Schwartz in his paper , “ Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution , ” the incidence of asthma rose 75 percent from 1980 to 1996 , and nearly doubled for children .
However , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documents that air pollution has declined 74 percent since the 1970s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asthma worsened .
In the end , climate change is neither causing nor exacerbating any identifiable illness or disease , be it COVID-19 or anything else .
To the extent a modestly warming planet may impact COVID-19 , the impact is almost certainly to reduce the spread of the disease and save many human lives .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Apr 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Al Gore falsely attempted to blame fossil fuels for raising the coronavirus death rate during a February 27 MSNBC interview.
In reality, economic prosperity brought by the use of abundant, affordable fossil fuels results in lower death rates from viruses and epidemics.
Also, viruses like influenza and COVID-19 thrive in cold climate conditions and are inhibited by warmer temperatures.
“This climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic are linked in some ways,” Gore said on MSNBC, as reported by The Hill. “The preconditions that raise the death rate from COVID-19, a great many of them, are accentuated, made worse by fossil fuel pollution.”
Scientists have long known that cold temperatures are a key factor in the annual death toll for influenza, which kills an average of approximately 36,000 Americans per year.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) documents that flu season ramps up when the weather turns cold, and then peters out when warm temperatures return.
According to the CDC, “influenza activity often begins to increase in October. Most of the time flu activity peaks between December and February, although activity can last as late as May.”
According to Harvard University researchers, “In the southern hemisphere, however, where winter comes during our summer months, the flu season falls between June and September. In other words, wherever there is winter, there is flu. In fact, even its name, ‘influenza’ may be a reference to its original Italian name, influenza di freddo, meaning ‘influence of the cold’.”
“[A]t least in regions that have a winter season, the influenza virus survives longer in cold, dry air, so it has a greater chance of infecting another person,” the Harvard researchers added.
Scientists are still learning about COVID-19, but preliminary evidence indicates warmer temperatures have either minor or significant impacts reducing the spread and harm of coronavirus. Warmer temperatures certainly do not make COVID-19 worse.
According to a publication released by Harvard Medical School, a recent study by the National Academies of Sciences “found that in laboratory settings, higher temperatures and higher levels of humidity decreased survival of the COVID-19 coronavirus.”
The scientists are currently attempting to determine whether this will also be the case in natural environments outside the laboratory.
In fact, cold temperatures kill many more people – for a variety of reasons – than warm or hot temperatures.
In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted, “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
More recently in a study published in the Lancet in 2015, researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths, and found cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700% more people than warm or hot weather.
In his MSNBC interview, Gore doubled down on his reckless assertions. He attempted to link fossil fuels to high asthma rates, which he claimed are made worse by the coronavirus.
However, even as air pollution in the United States has consistently and sharply declined since the 1970s, asthma rates have increased substantially. This contradicts the assertion that air pollution causes asthma.
As explained by researcher Joel Schwartz in his paper, “Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution,” the incidence of asthma rose 75 percent from 1980 to 1996, and nearly doubled for children.
However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documents that air pollution has declined 74 percent since the 1970s, over the same time period that asthma worsened.
In the end, climate change is neither causing nor exacerbating any identifiable illness or disease, be it COVID-19 or anything else.
To the extent a modestly warming planet may impact COVID-19, the impact is almost certainly to reduce the spread of the disease and save many human lives.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print