climatechangedispatch--2020-06-18--PM Johnson Neuters The UK’s Office Of Wasteful Green Spending

Written by Ross Clark on .
Posted in Latest news Boris Johnson ’ s historic decision to abolish the standalone Department for International Development ( DFID ) and roll its functions into the Foreign Office is long overdue .
Ever since David Cameron expanded Britain ’ s aid budget to 0.7 percent of GDP , scandal after scandal has emerged about millions of pounds of hard-pressed UK taxpayers ’ money being shoveled into dubious projects to meet this arbitrary target .
The budget for this bloated department has reached an astonishing £14.6billion this year .
Incredibly , DFID now has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate last year alone .
For that , you ’ d expect money to be spent on vital projects truly improving the lives of desperate people in the world ’ s poorest countries .
Sadly not .
Here are a few examples of how taxpayers ’ money was frittered away by this unlamented department : China is the world ’ s second-largest economy , now funding – on a commercial basis Hinkley C nuclear power plant plus other infrastructure projects here .
Yet DFID has spent hundreds of millions on 57 aid projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was allocated to promoting ‘ inclusive growth ’ .
There is £95,000 ( enough for three NHS nurses ) being spent on helping China come up with ‘ climate risk assessment ’ – in a country building coal-fired power stations .
We are also spending an undisclosed sum tackling salt consumption among Chinese children and their families , plus almost £60,000 on offshore wind turbines to support China ’ s ‘ transition to a low-carbon economy ’ .
£300m in free money for people in Pakistan Seemingly having run out of ideas for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK Government doled out money directly to hundreds of thousands of Pakistani families .
Three years ago , photos emerged of people in Peshawar queuing at a cashpoint to withdraw money on cards loaded with funds from UK taxpayers .
Costs ballooned from £53m in 2005 to £219m between 2011-2015 .
One MP said it was akin to ‘ exporting the dole.
’ Palm oil plantations have been widely condemned for their terrible environmental damage , but it hasn ’ t stopped DFID sending millions to subsidize Congolese agribusiness Feronia , which runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Democratic Republic of the Congo .
DFID hasn ’ t disclosed exactly how much it has spent but the subsidy takes up a share of the £63m of UK taxpayer money that was sent to the DRC this year .
UK taxpayers shelled out an astonishing £25m on a project that included persuading Kenya ’ s meteorologists to work with Nganyi ‘ rainmakers ’ — who claim to be able to forecast rain by watching ants and listening to the call of certain birds and the croaks of toads , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change ’ .
The plan was to come up with a ‘ consensus ’ weather forecast .
‘ At the beginning of the project , the interactions between the meteorologists and rainmakers was characterized by mutual skepticism , ’ DFID admitted , perhaps not surprisingly about the project , two years after it began in 2009 .
‘ The two groups .
.
.
successfully made joint seasonal weather forecasts.
’ Thank goodness for that .
As residents along the Rivers Wye and Severn found in February , the Government may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect British homes against flooding , but it is nice to know £29m of taxpayers ’ money has been allocated to ‘ building urban resilience to climate change ’ in Tanzania .
Since 2017 , India has spent £100m launching a probe that got to the Moon last year — and even has its own foreign aid program , which spent £620m in 2018 .
Despite this , British taxpayers have given £95m over two years in aid to the country , including £26,000 on promoting the employment of women in India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £12m for the Ethiopian Spice Girls Ended 2017 The Government planned to hand out £11.8m between 2015 and 2018 to an organization called Girl Effect , which promoted the empowerment of women in the developing world .
It included funding a girl band called Yegna , often dubbed the ‘ Ethiopian Spice Girls ’ .
The project was stopped after a review by Priti Patel , now Home Secretary , when she was International Development Secretary in 2017 .
The UK ’ s taxpayers fund 50 projects in Nigeria , among them a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote green energy .
But we also give £19.5m to promote Nigeria ’ s oil industry .

Written by Ross Clark on Jun 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Boris Johnson’s historic decision to abolish the standalone Department for International Development (DFID) and roll its functions into the Foreign Office is long overdue.
Ever since David Cameron expanded Britain’s aid budget to 0.7 percent of GDP, scandal after scandal has emerged about millions of pounds of hard-pressed UK taxpayers’ money being shoveled into dubious projects to meet this arbitrary target.
The budget for this bloated department has reached an astonishing £14.6billion this year. Incredibly, DFID now has 3,700 employees, and cost £326m to operate last year alone.
For that, you’d expect money to be spent on vital projects truly improving the lives of desperate people in the world’s poorest countries. Sadly not.
Here are a few examples of how taxpayers’ money was frittered away by this unlamented department:
£99m to boost China’s ‘economic growth’
Started: 2018
China is the world’s second-largest economy, now funding – on a commercial basis Hinkley C nuclear power plant plus other infrastructure projects here. Yet DFID has spent hundreds of millions on 57 aid projects in China.
As much as £99m was allocated to promoting ‘inclusive growth’. There is £95,000 (enough for three NHS nurses) being spent on helping China come up with ‘climate risk assessment’ – in a country building coal-fired power stations.
We are also spending an undisclosed sum tackling salt consumption among Chinese children and their families, plus almost £60,000 on offshore wind turbines to support China’s ‘transition to a low-carbon economy’.
£300m in free money for people in Pakistan
Started: 2012
Seemingly having run out of ideas for grand aid projects to fund, the UK Government doled out money directly to hundreds of thousands of Pakistani families.
Three years ago, photos emerged of people in Peshawar queuing at a cashpoint to withdraw money on cards loaded with funds from UK taxpayers.
Costs ballooned from £53m in 2005 to £219m between 2011-2015. One MP said it was akin to ‘exporting the dole.’
Palm oil plantations in the Congo
2013 – ongoing
Palm oil plantations have been widely condemned for their terrible environmental damage, but it hasn’t stopped DFID sending millions to subsidize Congolese agribusiness Feronia, which runs a palm oil farming and processing business in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
DFID hasn’t disclosed exactly how much it has spent but the subsidy takes up a share of the £63m of UK taxpayer money that was sent to the DRC this year.
£25m for ‘rainmakers’ who watch ants
2009 – 2014
UK taxpayers shelled out an astonishing £25m on a project that included persuading Kenya’s meteorologists to work with Nganyi ‘rainmakers’ — who claim to be able to forecast rain by watching ants and listening to the call of certain birds and the croaks of toads, but were said to be ‘flummoxed by climate change’.
The plan was to come up with a ‘consensus’ weather forecast.
‘At the beginning of the project, the interactions between the meteorologists and rainmakers was characterized by mutual skepticism,’ DFID admitted, perhaps not surprisingly about the project, two years after it began in 2009.
‘The two groups . . . successfully made joint seasonal weather forecasts.’ Thank goodness for that.
£29m for climate change in Tanzania
2015 – ongoing
As residents along the Rivers Wye and Severn found in February, the Government may not have much of a plan on how to protect British homes against flooding, but it is nice to know £29m of taxpayers’ money has been allocated to ‘building urban resilience to climate change’ in Tanzania.
£95m to India despite £100m Moon landing
Ongoing
Since 2017, India has spent £100m launching a probe that got to the Moon last year — and even has its own foreign aid program, which spent £620m in 2018.
Despite this, British taxpayers have given £95m over two years in aid to the country, including £26,000 on promoting the employment of women in India’s energy sector.
Share of £12m for the Ethiopian Spice Girls Ended 2017 The Government planned to hand out £11.8m between 2015 and 2018 to an organization called Girl Effect, which promoted the empowerment of women in the developing world. It included funding a girl band called Yegna, often dubbed the ‘Ethiopian Spice Girls’.
The project was stopped after a review by Priti Patel, now Home Secretary, when she was International Development Secretary in 2017.
£11m for solar panels in Nigeria
Ongoing
The UK’s taxpayers fund 50 projects in Nigeria, among them a project to install £11.3m of solar panels to promote green energy. But we also give £19.5m to promote Nigeria’s oil industry.
Read rest at Daily Mail
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-19--Natural Variability Behind West Antarctic Warming—Media Silent

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse on .
Posted in Latest news Ten days ago the journal Science issued an embargoed press release about a forthcoming paper that suggested the warming observed in West Antarctica was due to natural climatic variability .
West Antarctica has always been looked on by alarmists as being the southern example of polar temperature amplification – a phenomenon predicted by most climate change models .
The Arctic temperature amplification is very apparent so there must be an Antarctic equivalent , and there it is .
But while scientists have been well aware that Antarctica is warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than East Antarctica and frequently attributed to climate change , the underlying causes of this phenomenon have been poorly understood , and the suggestion that West Antarctica may be experiencing natural warming has been suggested before though not taken up very enthusiastically , if at all .
This new paper , “ The internal origin of the west-east asymmetry of Antarctic climate change ” , expresses the dilemma well .
In explaining the asymmetry , it suggests factors such as atmosphere-ocean feedbacks along the coast of West Antarctica and the shape of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of upper troposphere circulation over the West Antarctic subcontinent that flows opposite to the Earth ’ s rotation .
They add that the consistent pattern of warmer sea surface temperatures over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Antarctic seas suggests that regional sea surface temperature anomalies around Antarctica are a driving factor behind the continent ’ s asymmetrical warming .
Paleoclimate datasets revealed variability in surface air temperatures spanning multiple decades , suggesting climate fluctuations in the tropics , such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation , may also contribute to the discrepancies in warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a fascinating paper especially given the concern about the region ’ s ice decline leading to present and future sea-level change .
But unless you look at two or three specialized outlets you won ’ t have heard about it .
The embargoed information from the Science journal is normally released four days before the embargo is lifted on Thursday evening UK time .
Thousands of journalists around the world see it as Science along with Nature are the world ’ s leading science journals .
So why is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important story ?
It ’ s not as though there were any other pressing environment stories to eclipse it .
What it demonstrates is the asymmetry in environment and science reporting .
If the story confirms the dire news that anthropogenic climate change affects everything and is visible anywhere it ’ s much more likely to be trumpeted by the mainstream media than if it explains some of the climatic changes we see is due to mother nature .
Not every change we see is attributable to human influence .
We still have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge is the first step because if we don ’ t understand the cause of particular climatic changes we will waste a lot of time and effort combatting things we never caused and have no power to influence .
Read more at the GWPF

Written by Dr. David Whitehouse on Jun 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Ten days ago the journal Science issued an embargoed press release about a forthcoming paper that suggested the warming observed in West Antarctica was due to natural climatic variability.
West Antarctica has always been looked on by alarmists as being the southern example of polar temperature amplification – a phenomenon predicted by most climate change models.
The Arctic temperature amplification is very apparent so there must be an Antarctic equivalent, and there it is.
But while scientists have been well aware that Antarctica is warming asymmetrically, with West Antarctica experiencing more than East Antarctica and frequently attributed to climate change, the underlying causes of this phenomenon have been poorly understood, and the suggestion that West Antarctica may be experiencing natural warming has been suggested before though not taken up very enthusiastically, if at all.
This new paper, “The internal origin of the west-east asymmetry of Antarctic climate change”, expresses the dilemma well.
In explaining the asymmetry, it suggests factors such as atmosphere-ocean feedbacks along the coast of West Antarctica and the shape of the Antarctic terrain combine to create a pattern of upper troposphere circulation over the West Antarctic subcontinent that flows opposite to the Earth’s rotation.
The researchers conclude,
The current west-east asymmetry of Antarctic surface climate change is undoubtedly of natural origin because no external factors (e.g., orbital or anthropogenic factors) contribute to the asymmetric mode.”
They add that the consistent pattern of warmer sea surface temperatures over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Antarctic seas suggests that regional sea surface temperature anomalies around Antarctica are a driving factor behind the continent’s asymmetrical warming.
Paleoclimate datasets revealed variability in surface air temperatures spanning multiple decades, suggesting climate fluctuations in the tropics, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation, may also contribute to the discrepancies in warming rates between both subcontinents.
Overall, it’s a fascinating paper especially given the concern about the region’s ice decline leading to present and future sea-level change. But unless you look at two or three specialized outlets you won’t have heard about it.
The embargoed information from the Science journal is normally released four days before the embargo is lifted on Thursday evening UK time.
Thousands of journalists around the world see it as Science along with Nature are the world’s leading science journals. So why is it that no mainstream news media covered this important story? It’s not as though there were any other pressing environment stories to eclipse it.
What it demonstrates is the asymmetry in environment and science reporting. If the story confirms the dire news that anthropogenic climate change affects everything and is visible anywhere it’s much more likely to be trumpeted by the mainstream media than if it explains some of the climatic changes we see is due to mother nature.
Not every change we see is attributable to human influence. We still have to deal with the consequences.
Accurate knowledge is the first step because if we don’t understand the cause of particular climatic changes we will waste a lot of time and effort combatting things we never caused and have no power to influence.
Read more at the GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-19--Model Failures: Inflated Pandemic Estimates Weaken Climate Forecasts

Written by Adam Creighton on .
Posted in Latest news Tony Abbott ’ s suspicion that climate change modeling was “ absolute crap ” soon will resonate more broadly — so spectacularly bad was expert modeling of the spread and lethality of the coronavirus , faith in all modeling must surely suffer .
Why trust the experts to forecast the climate decades into the future when they were so wrong about a disease related to the common cold ?
Official coronavirus and climate change modeling share catastrophic predictions .
Unfortunately for virus modelers , reality dawned a lot sooner and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pandemic has damaged the credibility of “ experts ” and highlighted the limits of “ the science ” and the misplaced hubris of the political class .
On whatever measure you choose — deaths , infections , rate of transmission — the epidemiological models that convinced governments to take a sledgehammer to their economies , now mired in unrest , have proved scandalously pessimistic and out by orders of magnitude .
We were told the virus ’ s spread would be “ exponential ” .
It wasn ’ t ; transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daylights out of people .
The infection fatality rate , we were told , would be about 1 percent ; it ’ s closer to 0.2 percent , akin to severe flu .
Apparently , lifting lockdowns early would see cases surge ; they haven ’ t .
And we were all vulnerable — but most weren ’ t ; the median age of death is well over 80 .
Driving is more dangerous .
At least half of deaths globally have been in aged-care homes , which were already locked down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — also wrong .
We closed schools and wore masks , but the evidence we needed to do so is scant .
The raw numbers speak for themselves .
The death toll globally is on track to be smaller than the flu pandemics of the 1950s and 60s , when the world ’ s population was less than half that today .
Indeed , if you put the number of global deaths last year , this year , and next year ( about 60 million each year ) on a simple column chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of COVID-19 .
Future historians will be shocked at the disproportionate response .
At least they will chuckle at SAGE , the acronym for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies , the expert panel advising the British government , which has presided over the worst performance of any country .
But it wasn ’ t only the British .
Experts in Sweden warned 100,000 would die by June if it didn ’ t lockdown as the rest of Europe had yet fewer than 5,000 were lost .
Experts said 420,000 might die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fewer than 950 did .
Our own experts at the Doherty Institute said 5000 intensive care unit beds would be required , even with strict isolation and social distancing ; fewer than 50 were needed .
For anyone here who is worried about the second wave of COVID-19 , we ’ re still waiting on the first one .
Climate modeling was struggling even before the pandemic , given the planet has warmed about half as much as forecast by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in back 1990 .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is based on model predictions .
If you just look at the last 30 to 40 years of data , nothing spectacular has happened , there ’ s no sign temperature increase is accelerating , ” says Benny Peiser , founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London .
It ’ s remarkable we put so much faith in expert models , given their history of failure .
The Club of Rome in 1972 notoriously forecast that growth would collapse as the world ’ s resources ran out , ignoring human ingenuity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to account for — indeed they probably facilitated — the global financial crisis .
And as almost every utterance by a central bank governor since has reminded us , economists struggle to know what happened last month , let alone forecast the impact of a policy change tomorrow .
In the late 1990s , models suggested the entire Great Barrier Reef would bleach every year by 2020 , but in the last 15 years parts of the reef have bleached on only three occasions , with each event affecting only one-third of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ridd , a former professor of James Cook University .
In the last 15 years , parts of the Great Barrier reef have bleached on only three occasions .
It ’ s remarkable we put so much faith in climate modeling , given it is a far more complex task .
“ Climate sensitivity ” — the size and speed of the response of global temperatures to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — is harder to predict than a spreading virus .
Even if we knew it , drawing implications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heroic .
“ The big mistake that ’ s clearly been made is the failure to systematically appraise the models that underpin policy with actual data , ” notes Gordon Hughes , a former professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh , speaking on a panel about the pitfalls of mathematical modeling last month .
By April , we knew the coronavirus was not as dangerous as feared yet modelers and governments doubled down on the catastrophe narrative .
It ’ s almost July and people in our capitals are wearing masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we avoid hysteria next time ?
It won ’ t be easy .
All the incentives are stacked in favor of dodgy doomsday modeling ; apocalyptic scenarios allow politicians to increase their power and appear caring .
Public health experts enjoy more prestige .
And some of the media naturally prefer models with horrifying forecasts to draw eyeballs .
Humans have a natural tendency to focus on extremes — what psychologists call a “ negativity bias ” .
Models are almost cartoons , highly simplified versions of reality .
History has proved a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a pity we ’ re wasting resources on a royal commission into the bushfires .
How and why authorities have overreacted so much , and how we can avoid doing so again , would be a better line of inquiry .
Read more at The Australian

Written by Adam Creighton on Jun 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Tony Abbott’s suspicion that climate change modeling was “absolute crap” soon will resonate more broadly — so spectacularly bad was expert modeling of the spread and lethality of the coronavirus, faith in all modeling must surely suffer.
Why trust the experts to forecast the climate decades into the future when they were so wrong about a disease related to the common cold?
Official coronavirus and climate change modeling share catastrophic predictions. Unfortunately for virus modelers, reality dawned a lot sooner and it has delivered an F for fail.
The pandemic has damaged the credibility of “experts” and highlighted the limits of “the science” and the misplaced hubris of the political class.
On whatever measure you choose — deaths, infections, rate of transmission — the epidemiological models that convinced governments to take a sledgehammer to their economies, now mired in unrest, have proved scandalously pessimistic and out by orders of magnitude.
We were told the virus’s spread would be “exponential”. It wasn’t; transmission was falling before mandatory lockdowns scared the daylights out of people.
The infection fatality rate, we were told, would be about 1 percent; it’s closer to 0.2 percent, akin to severe flu. Apparently, lifting lockdowns early would see cases surge; they haven’t.
And we were all vulnerable — but most weren’t; the median age of death is well over 80. Driving is more dangerous.
At least half of deaths globally have been in aged-care homes, which were already locked down. We understood you could catch COVID-19 again — also wrong. We closed schools and wore masks, but the evidence we needed to do so is scant.
The raw numbers speak for themselves. The death toll globally is on track to be smaller than the flu pandemics of the 1950s and 60s, when the world’s population was less than half that today.
Indeed, if you put the number of global deaths last year, this year, and next year (about 60 million each year) on a simple column chart you’ll struggle to see the impact of COVID-19.
Future historians will be shocked at the disproportionate response. At least they will chuckle at SAGE, the acronym for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the expert panel advising the British government, which has presided over the worst performance of any country.
But it wasn’t only the British. Experts in Sweden warned 100,000 would die by June if it didn’t lockdown as the rest of Europe had yet fewer than 5,000 were lost. Experts said 420,000 might die in Japan without a hard lockdown. Fewer than 950 did.
Our own experts at the Doherty Institute said 5000 intensive care unit beds would be required, even with strict isolation and social distancing; fewer than 50 were needed. For anyone here who is worried about the second wave of COVID-19, we’re still waiting on the first one.
Climate modeling was struggling even before the pandemic, given the planet has warmed about half as much as forecast by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in back 1990.
“Almost the entire alarm about global warming is based on model predictions. If you just look at the last 30 to 40 years of data, nothing spectacular has happened, there’s no sign temperature increase is accelerating,” says Benny Peiser, founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.
It’s remarkable we put so much faith in expert models, given their history of failure. The Club of Rome in 1972 notoriously forecast that growth would collapse as the world’s resources ran out, ignoring human ingenuity and the shale revolution.
Financial models failed to account for — indeed they probably facilitated — the global financial crisis. And as almost every utterance by a central bank governor since has reminded us, economists struggle to know what happened last month, let alone forecast the impact of a policy change tomorrow.
In the late 1990s, models suggested the entire Great Barrier Reef would bleach every year by 2020, but in the last 15 years parts of the reef have bleached on only three occasions, with each event affecting only one-third of the reef,” says physicist Peter Ridd, a former professor of James Cook University.
In the last 15 years, parts of the Great Barrier reef have bleached on only three occasions.
It’s remarkable we put so much faith in climate modeling, given it is a far more complex task. “Climate sensitivity” — the size and speed of the response of global temperatures to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — is harder to predict than a spreading virus.
Even if we knew it, drawing implications about future economic growth are even more heroic.
“The big mistake that’s clearly been made is the failure to systematically appraise the models that underpin policy with actual data,” notes Gordon Hughes, a former professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh, speaking on a panel about the pitfalls of mathematical modeling last month.
By April, we knew the coronavirus was not as dangerous as feared yet modelers and governments doubled down on the catastrophe narrative. It’s almost July and people in our capitals are wearing masks in their own cars.
How can we avoid hysteria next time? It won’t be easy. All the incentives are stacked in favor of dodgy doomsday modeling; apocalyptic scenarios allow politicians to increase their power and appear caring.
Public health experts enjoy more prestige. And some of the media naturally prefer models with horrifying forecasts to draw eyeballs.
Humans have a natural tendency to focus on extremes — what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. Models are almost cartoons, highly simplified versions of reality. History has proved a better guide to the future.
It’s a pity we’re wasting resources on a royal commission into the bushfires. How and why authorities have overreacted so much, and how we can avoid doing so again, would be a better line of inquiry.
h/t GWPF
Read more at The Australian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-19--The Climate Crusade Has Nothing To Do With The Climate

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news Here in the United States , the environmental movement has been completely taken over by the campaign to ban the use of fossil fuels , with the stated goal of slowing or preventing “ climate change.
” But at this point , is the “ climate ” campaign really about the climate in any meaningful way ?
The alternative hypothesis is that the principal goal of the anti-fossil-fuel movement in the United States is the destruction of the American freedom-based economic system , commonly going by the name of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the anti-fossil-fuel campaign in the U.S. could really be about its avowed goal of saving the planet from climate change caused by greenhouse gases .
If that were the case , then the campaigners would be principally focused on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions , mostly CO2 , not only in the U.S. but in the world .
The campaigners are definitely focused on blocking any and all fossil fuel development in the United States .
Environmental groups with what seems like infinite funding sources bring litigations on any and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely every proposed fossil-fuel development in this country .
To illustrate the relentlessness of the litigation war , consider something called the Atlantic Coast Pipeline ( ACP ) , a multi-billion dollar project intended to deliver natural gas from sources in West Virginia over to the Atlantic coast of Virginia .
An environmental group called the Cowpasture River Preservation Association , represented by environmental lawyers from the Southern Environmental Law Center , brought a suit to stop the pipeline on the ground that its permit to cross the Appalachian Trail , which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not properly authorized .
As you are likely aware , earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled in that case that the Forest Service had the power to issue the permit .
So is it now all clear sailing for the ACP ?
Not so fast .
The SELC takes the position that the pipeline is “ still lacking 8 permits.
” As just a single example , one of those is a dredging permit from the Army Corps of Engineers .
The pipeline developers thought they had that one because back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide permit for all pipeline projects with impact on waterways below certain thresholds deemed de minimus .
Just in May , that permit was vacated by an Obama-appointed federal judge in Montana , in a case involving the Keystone XL pipeline .
A law firm here warns that the Montana ruling may well have a nationwide impact on all pending natural gas pipeline construction .
So everyone including ACP awaits hearing from the Ninth Circuit on that one , a year or more from now .
And then , of course , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which will with certainty also be litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court .
You can be sure that every other pipeline project seeking to move forward in the United States is facing a comparable barrage of litigation .
But how about in other countries , including countries with four and more times the population of the U.S. ?
Today ’ s email from the Global Warming Policy Foundation has yet another roundup of accelerating fossil fuel development , mostly coal , from some of the largest countries around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Prime Minister Modi has announced that the government is auctioning off a large group of formerly publicly-owned coal mines in order to spur faster commercial development .
From IANS News Service : “ Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said that the coal sector has finally been pulled out of decades in lockdown and liberated .
.
.
.
‘ Today , we are not just launching the auction of commercial coal mining but are also pulling the coal sector out of years in lockdown , ’ Modi said during the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China continues to accelerate the pace of construction of new coal power plants .
From Bloomberg , June 10 : “ A wave of new coal power plants is under construction or in development after the country lifted curbs on new builds .
.
.
.
About 46 gigawatts worth of new plants were under construction as of May , the study said .
Another 48 gigawatts were under various stages of development .
.
.
.
About 29.9 gigawatts of new coal power capacity was added last year , making a total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China Electricity Council data.
” ( The U.S. has a total of about 220 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity generation capacity , per EIA data. )
.
• Pakistan , a country of over 200 million people , is also moving to rapidly increase power production from coal .
The International News on June 18 reports that Pakistan is planning to increase the share of coal in its energy mix by up to 30 % , and a Thar coal project was commissioned in July 2019 as a “ priority national project.
” So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greenhouse gas emissions be accomplished by the endless climate campaign and litigation barrage in the United States ?
The answer is no .
Damage to the U.S. economy for no discernible purpose is another question .

Written by Francis Menton on Jun 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Here in the United States, the environmental movement has been completely taken over by the campaign to ban the use of fossil fuels, with the stated goal of slowing or preventing “climate change.”
But at this point, is the “climate” campaign really about the climate in any meaningful way?
The alternative hypothesis is that the principal goal of the anti-fossil-fuel movement in the United States is the destruction of the American freedom-based economic system, commonly going by the name of “capitalism.”
So let’s consider whether the anti-fossil-fuel campaign in the U.S. could really be about its avowed goal of saving the planet from climate change caused by greenhouse gases.
If that were the case, then the campaigners would be principally focused on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, mostly CO2, not only in the U.S. but in the world.
The campaigners are definitely focused on blocking any and all fossil fuel development in the United States.
Environmental groups with what seems like infinite funding sources bring litigations on any and every possible theory to seek to block absolutely every proposed fossil-fuel development in this country.
To illustrate the relentlessness of the litigation war, consider something called the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), a multi-billion dollar project intended to deliver natural gas from sources in West Virginia over to the Atlantic coast of Virginia.
An environmental group called the Cowpasture River Preservation Association, represented by environmental lawyers from the Southern Environmental Law Center, brought a suit to stop the pipeline on the ground that its permit to cross the Appalachian Trail, which had been granted by the Forest Service, was not properly authorized.
As you are likely aware, earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled in that case that the Forest Service had the power to issue the permit.
So is it now all clear sailing for the ACP? Not so fast. The SELC takes the position that the pipeline is “still lacking 8 permits.”
As just a single example, one of those is a dredging permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
The pipeline developers thought they had that one because back in 2017 the Corps had issued a nationwide permit for all pipeline projects with impact on waterways below certain thresholds deemed de minimus.
Just in May, that permit was vacated by an Obama-appointed federal judge in Montana, in a case involving the Keystone XL pipeline.
A law firm here warns that the Montana ruling may well have a nationwide impact on all pending natural gas pipeline construction. So everyone including ACP awaits hearing from the Ninth Circuit on that one, a year or more from now.
And then, of course, there are the other six permits, all of which will with certainty also be litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You can be sure that every other pipeline project seeking to move forward in the United States is facing a comparable barrage of litigation.
But how about in other countries, including countries with four and more times the population of the U.S.?
Today’s email from the Global Warming Policy Foundation has yet another roundup of accelerating fossil fuel development, mostly coal, from some of the largest countries around the world:
In India just today, Prime Minister Modi has announced that the government is auctioning off a large group of formerly publicly-owned coal mines in order to spur faster commercial development. From IANS News Service: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said that the coal sector has finally been pulled out of decades in lockdown and liberated. . . . ‘Today, we are not just launching the auction of commercial coal mining but are also pulling the coal sector out of years in lockdown,’ Modi said during the video address during the launch program.”
China continues to accelerate the pace of construction of new coal power plants. From Bloomberg, June 10: “A wave of new coal power plants is under construction or in development after the country lifted curbs on new builds. . . . About 46 gigawatts worth of new plants were under construction as of May, the study said. Another 48 gigawatts were under various stages of development. . . . About 29.9 gigawatts of new coal power capacity was added last year, making a total of about 1,040 gigawatts, according to China Electricity Council data.” (The U.S. has a total of about 220 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity generation capacity, per EIA data.).
Pakistan, a country of over 200 million people, is also moving to rapidly increase power production from coal. The International News on June 18 reports that Pakistan is planning to increase the share of coal in its energy mix by up to 30%, and a Thar coal project was commissioned in July 2019 as a “priority national project.”
So can anything meaningful in terms of world greenhouse gas emissions be accomplished by the endless climate campaign and litigation barrage in the United States?
The answer is no. Damage to the U.S. economy for no discernible purpose is another question.
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-19--NYTimes Debunked: Climate Change NOT Causing Pregnancy Risks

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news The New York Times published a sensationalist June 18 article claiming a new study shows climate change is causing premature , underweight , and stillborn babies .
Google News posted the Times article , titled “ Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks , Affecting Black Mothers Most , ” as Google ’ s top story June 18 under the search term “ climate change.
” An objective review of the study shows the New York Times is telling an alarmist lie , and there has likely been either no climate-change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pregnancy and childbirth .
Before addressing the objective data , it is worth considering who wrote the “ study ” cited by the Times .
The lead author of the study is Bruce Bekkar , who serves on the Board of Directors for the climate activist group Climate Action Campaign .
The Climate Action Campaign is a sock puppet of the renewable power industry , listing Sullivan Solar Power and Calpine Energy Solutions as its two “ Juggernaut Members.
” The name of the first Juggernaut Member , “ Sullivan Solar Power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second Juggernaut Member , Calpine ’ s LinkedIn profile reads , “ Renewables and environment , Incorporating Sensible Sustainability Into Your Organization ’ s Energy Portfolio.
” The Climate Action Campaign ’ s funding is not the only part of the organization that lacks objectivity regarding climate issues .
The Climate Action Campaign ’ s mission statement reads , “ Climate Action Campaign has a simple mission : STOP THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
” It is , of course , possible that a board member of a climate activist group that receives its primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry can produce an accurate , objective study .
However , given the financial self-interest of Bekkar ’ s primary donors and Bekkar ’ s unashamed activism on the climate change topic , one would imagine an objective news outlet would give the claims made in Bekkar ’ s study a little extra scrutiny .
The Times , however , gave the study ’ s methodology and claims no critical scrutiny at all .
Bekkar did not conduct any primary medical or scientific research .
Bekkar simply looked at a group of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personally selected , and then claimed to tease out some data regarding climate change and pregnancy .
Given Bekkar ’ s financial and ideological self-interest in finding data that would suggest climate change harm , Bekkar ’ s methodology is quite suspect .
For example , did Bekkar select some studies to review , and leave out others , based on how alarmist they were ?
We don ’ t know , but it certainly seems possible .
After all , it is quite possible that such an agenda-driven author would only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate data that exists in the worst possible light , and ignore or bury countervailing data that exculpates or provides proper context to Bekkar ’ s predetermined agenda .
Now let ’ s look at Bekkar ’ s asserted findings .
Bekkar ’ s study makes two primary climate assertions .
Bekkar ’ s first assertion is that the risk of premature birth rises by 11.6 % for every 5.6 degrees Celsius increase in temperature .
Any medical scientist will tell you that an 11 % variance is generally indistinguishable from random @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NASA , the Earth ’ s temperature has risen approximately 1 degree Celsius during the past 140 years , not 5.6 degrees Celsius .
Assuming for the sake of argument that NASA ’ s temperature numbers are inflated , we still have had only about one-sixth of the warming that would cause the minimal 11 % increase in premature births .
Prorating that out , Bekkar would be claiming that he has teased out from his self-selected studies a 2 % increase in premature births due to climate change .
Given such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-selection of the studies that he teased the number from , and given Bekkar ’ s financial and ideological self-interest in finding the highest number possible under whatever methodology he could utilize , Bekkar ’ s own study shows literally or essentially no global warming impact on premature births .
Bekkar ’ s second assertion is that his analysis shows every temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius during the summer months corresponds with a 6 % increase in the likelihood of stillbirth .
For the same reasons explained in the prior paragraph , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 6 % increase is indistinguishable from background noise , even if we assume Bekkar has objectively collected , analyzed , and presented his numbers .
Just as importantly , Bekkar completely ignores the flip-side of the coin .
If exceptionally hot temperatures during the summer cause an arguable increase in stillbirths , do exceptionally cold temperatures during the winter cause a similar – or perhaps even greater – increase in stillbirths ?
If so , then climate change has had no net impact – or perhaps a beneficial impact – on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate alarmists acknowledge that climate change has caused – and will continue to cause – a reduction in extreme-cold events ( see pgs 135-136 of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 report ) .
Bekkar doesn ’ t address this very important question of winter cold and stillbirths .
Given his financial and ideological self-interest in making alarmist climate claims , we are left to wonder whether Bekkar simply failed to analyze a seemingly vital question related to his stillbirth claims , or whether he did analyze the question and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not publish – the less-than-alarming results .
Given that Bekkar ignored the question , we can look to other sources for guidance .
The prestigious , peer-reviewed medical journal Lancet reports that cold temperatures kill 20 times more people globally than warm or hot temperatures .
One would imagine that stillbirths are included in , or similar to , that equation .
If so , for every one stillbirth that Bekkar claims is caused by climate change and warming temperatures , another 20 stillbirths are being prevented by climate change and fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports the same is true for Americans – more people die in the United States from cold temperatures than hot temperatures .
Now let ’ s get back to the Times ’ coverage of Bekkar ’ s study .
The Times quotes multiple climate activists , like a “ senior climate justice and health scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists ” and “ a field organizer in Houston for Moms Clean Air Force , ” fawning over the study ’ s findings .
The Times does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anybody who might examine the study from a more skeptical , or at least neutral , viewpoint .
That seems quite amazing considering the red flags regarding the lead author ’ s financial and ideological self-interest .
Ultimately , a climate activist produced a very dubious “ study ” in which he claims to have teased out from self-selected data a very small increase in premature births and stillbirths .
His methodology is suspect and he ignored very important questions and data that likely refute his assertion .
Moreover , existing objective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures are more deadly than heat .
The New York Times chose to completely ignore all these red flags and title its article , “ Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks , Affecting Black Mothers Most.
” No wonder people increasingly distrust the establishment media .

Written by James Taylor on Jun 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The New York Times published a sensationalist June 18 article claiming a new study shows climate change is causing premature, underweight, and stillborn babies.
Google News posted the Times article, titled “Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks, Affecting Black Mothers Most,” as Google’s top story June 18 under the search term “climate change.”
An objective review of the study shows the New York Times is telling an alarmist lie, and there has likely been either no climate-change impact or a beneficial climate-change impact regarding pregnancy and childbirth.
Before addressing the objective data, it is worth considering who wrote the “study” cited by the Times.
The lead author of the study is Bruce Bekkar, who serves on the Board of Directors for the climate activist group Climate Action Campaign.
The Climate Action Campaign is a sock puppet of the renewable power industry, listing Sullivan Solar Power and Calpine Energy Solutions as its two “Juggernaut Members.”
The name of the first Juggernaut Member, “Sullivan Solar Power,” speaks for itself. Regarding the second Juggernaut Member, Calpine’s LinkedIn profile reads, “Renewables and environment, Incorporating Sensible Sustainability Into Your Organization’s Energy Portfolio.”
The Climate Action Campaign’s funding is not the only part of the organization that lacks objectivity regarding climate issues.
The Climate Action Campaign’s mission statement reads, “Climate Action Campaign has a simple mission: STOP THE CLIMATE CRISIS.”
It is, of course, possible that a board member of a climate activist group that receives its primary funding from the solar and renewable power industry can produce an accurate, objective study.
However, given the financial self-interest of Bekkar’s primary donors and Bekkar’s unashamed activism on the climate change topic, one would imagine an objective news outlet would give the claims made in Bekkar’s study a little extra scrutiny.
The Times, however, gave the study’s methodology and claims no critical scrutiny at all.
Let’s start with the methodology.
Bekkar did not conduct any primary medical or scientific research. Bekkar simply looked at a group of other studies, which he and his team personally selected, and then claimed to tease out some data regarding climate change and pregnancy.
Given Bekkar’s financial and ideological self-interest in finding data that would suggest climate change harm, Bekkar’s methodology is quite suspect.
For example, did Bekkar select some studies to review, and leave out others, based on how alarmist they were? We don’t know, but it certainly seems possible.
After all, it is quite possible that such an agenda-driven author would only be looking for frightening climate data, manipulate the climate data that exists in the worst possible light, and ignore or bury countervailing data that exculpates or provides proper context to Bekkar’s predetermined agenda.
Now let’s look at Bekkar’s asserted findings.
Bekkar’s study makes two primary climate assertions. Bekkar’s first assertion is that the risk of premature birth rises by 11.6% for every 5.6 degrees Celsius increase in temperature.
Any medical scientist will tell you that an 11% variance is generally indistinguishable from random background noise.
Moreover, according to NASA, the Earth’s temperature has risen approximately 1 degree Celsius during the past 140 years, not 5.6 degrees Celsius.
Assuming for the sake of argument that NASA’s temperature numbers are inflated, we still have had only about one-sixth of the warming that would cause the minimal 11% increase in premature births.
Prorating that out, Bekkar would be claiming that he has teased out from his self-selected studies a 2% increase in premature births due to climate change.
Given such a tiny number, given Bekkar’s self-selection of the studies that he teased the number from, and given Bekkar’s financial and ideological self-interest in finding the highest number possible under whatever methodology he could utilize, Bekkar’s own study shows literally or essentially no global warming impact on premature births.
Bekkar’s second assertion is that his analysis shows every temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius during the summer months corresponds with a 6% increase in the likelihood of stillbirth.
For the same reasons explained in the prior paragraph, Bekkar’s claim to tease out a 6% increase is indistinguishable from background noise, even if we assume Bekkar has objectively collected, analyzed, and presented his numbers.
Just as importantly, Bekkar completely ignores the flip-side of the coin. If exceptionally hot temperatures during the summer cause an arguable increase in stillbirths, do exceptionally cold temperatures during the winter cause a similar – or perhaps even greater – increase in stillbirths?
If so, then climate change has had no net impact – or perhaps a beneficial impact – on the number of stillbirths.
After all, climate alarmists acknowledge that climate change has caused – and will continue to cause – a reduction in extreme-cold events (see pgs 135-136 of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 report).
Bekkar doesn’t address this very important question of winter cold and stillbirths.
Given his financial and ideological self-interest in making alarmist climate claims, we are left to wonder whether Bekkar simply failed to analyze a seemingly vital question related to his stillbirth claims, or whether he did analyze the question and didn’t like – and therefore did not publish – the less-than-alarming results.
Given that Bekkar ignored the question, we can look to other sources for guidance. The prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal Lancet reports that cold temperatures kill 20 times more people globally than warm or hot temperatures.
One would imagine that stillbirths are included in, or similar to, that equation. If so, for every one stillbirth that Bekkar claims is caused by climate change and warming temperatures, another 20 stillbirths are being prevented by climate change and fewer cold temperature events.
Also, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports the same is true for Americans – more people die in the United States from cold temperatures than hot temperatures.
Now let’s get back to the Times’ coverage of Bekkar’s study.
The Times quotes multiple climate activists, like a “senior climate justice and health scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists” and “a field organizer in Houston for Moms Clean Air Force,” fawning over the study’s findings.
The Times does not quote, and apparently failed to contact, anybody who might examine the study from a more skeptical, or at least neutral, viewpoint.
That seems quite amazing considering the red flags regarding the lead author’s financial and ideological self-interest.
Ultimately, a climate activist produced a very dubious “study” in which he claims to have teased out from self-selected data a very small increase in premature births and stillbirths.
His methodology is suspect and he ignored very important questions and data that likely refute his assertion.
Moreover, existing objective mortality data and peer-reviewed studies show cold temperatures are more deadly than heat.
The New York Times chose to completely ignore all these red flags and title its article, “Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks, Affecting Black Mothers Most.”
No wonder people increasingly distrust the establishment media.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-19--Green Haste Will Trash Hydrogen’s Promise

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , GWPF , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Desperate policymakers trying to reach Net Zero targets that are unaffordable and infeasible are rushing into the premature adoption of hydrogen as a last-ditch attempt to save the current agenda .
Faced with the task of eliminating carbon dioxide emissions while sustaining economic growth , the UK government , like others around the world , is promoting hydrogen as an energy carrier for sectors of the economy such as heavy transport and peak winter heating that are extremely difficult to decarbonize .
The wisdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on the United Kingdom , is addressed in a new historical and technical study published today by the GWPF .
The study concludes that current enthusiasm is a desperate measure that will jeopardize the long-term promise of hydrogen for the sake of short-term political optics .
Because of the accelerated timetable required by arbitrary targets , it is necessary to manufacture hydrogen via two expensive and energetically inefficient commodity production processes , the electrolysis of water , and the reforming of natural gas .
Electrolysis is extremely expensive , and the reforming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires Carbon Capture and Sequestration , which is not only costly but unproven at the required scale .
Both these commodity processes imply high levels of freshwater consumption .
The prudent approach , obvious since the 1970s and still the official long-range policy of the government of Japan , is to aim for hydrogen production by the thermal decomposition of seawater employing advanced nuclear reactors , which alone might conceivably make hydrogen cheap .
This , however , is from very difficult chemical and nuclear engineering , and its realization lies well into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hasty introduction will not give enough time for safe societal adjustment to the inherent dangers of a fugitive and readily ignited gas that has a strong tendency to technical detonation ( combustion with a supersonic combustion frontier ) .
The learning experience could be needlessly painful and deadly .
Dr. John Constable , the author of the study , said : “ Hydrogen has genuine long term potential as a universal energy carrier to supplement electricity , but current methods of production are hugely expensive and will stress freshwater supplies .
Target-driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Counterproductive and naive policies are compromising the hydrogen future.
” The full paper can be downloaded from the GWPF website Hydrogen : The Once And Future Fuel ( pdf )

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on Jun 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Desperate policymakers trying to reach Net Zero targets that are unaffordable and infeasible are rushing into the premature adoption of hydrogen as a last-ditch attempt to save the current agenda.
Faced with the task of eliminating carbon dioxide emissions while sustaining economic growth, the UK government, like others around the world, is promoting hydrogen as an energy carrier for sectors of the economy such as heavy transport and peak winter heating that are extremely difficult to decarbonize.
The wisdom of this policy, with a special focus on the United Kingdom, is addressed in a new historical and technical study published today by the GWPF.
The study concludes that current enthusiasm is a desperate measure that will jeopardize the long-term promise of hydrogen for the sake of short-term political optics.
Because of the accelerated timetable required by arbitrary targets, it is necessary to manufacture hydrogen via two expensive and energetically inefficient commodity production processes, the electrolysis of water, and the reforming of natural gas.
Electrolysis is extremely expensive, and the reforming of methane emits carbon dioxide and so requires Carbon Capture and Sequestration, which is not only costly but unproven at the required scale. Both these commodity processes imply high levels of freshwater consumption.
The prudent approach, obvious since the 1970s and still the official long-range policy of the government of Japan, is to aim for hydrogen production by the thermal decomposition of seawater employing advanced nuclear reactors, which alone might conceivably make hydrogen cheap.
This, however, is from very difficult chemical and nuclear engineering, and its realization lies well into the future.
The paper also notes that hasty introduction will not give enough time for safe societal adjustment to the inherent dangers of a fugitive and readily ignited gas that has a strong tendency to technical detonation (combustion with a supersonic combustion frontier). The learning experience could be needlessly painful and deadly.
Dr. John Constable, the author of the study, said:
“Hydrogen has genuine long term potential as a universal energy carrier to supplement electricity, but current methods of production are hugely expensive and will stress freshwater supplies. Target-driven haste is already resulting in accidents. Counterproductive and naive policies are compromising the hydrogen future.”
The full paper can be downloaded from the GWPF website
Hydrogen: The Once And Future Fuel (pdf)
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-22--Sahara Dust Reaches Caribbean, Hampering New Hurricanes

Written by Brandon Noriega on .
Posted in Latest news An abnormally large plume of dust from the Sahara Desert in Africa arrived in the Caribbean on Sunday after spending the past week crossing the Atlantic Ocean and is bound for the Gulf Coast .
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) said the plume was first captured on June 7 , blowing west off the African continent over the Atlantic .
According to NOAA , very dry and dusty air known as the Saharan Air Layer ( SAL ) forms over the Sahara Desert during the late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which then moves over the tropical Atlantic .
The National Hurricane Center ’ s ( NHC ) Tropical Analysis and Forecast Branch said Sunday on Twitter the SAL plume reached the eastern Caribbean Sea and will continue spreading westward .
The plume can be seen in deep orange and light pink blob on satellite imagery .
The NHC said a second plume is also coming off Africa and making its way over the eastern Atlantic .
A NASA satellite photo showed the cloud of dust over the Atlantic on Thursday , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Although much of the dust remains above the surface and causes hazy skies and colorful sunsets , it can aggravate those with respiratory issues .
The dust does typically hamper the formation of tropical cyclones and hurricane strengthening .
As of Sunday , the NHC is not forecasting any activity in the Atlantic Basin for at least the next week .
Another feature that comes with these massive dust clouds is really beautiful sunrises and sunsets as the sun reflects off of the dust .
Dramatic sunsets can be expected across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , winds typically loft about 800 million metric tons of desert dust from North Africa .
The dust can end up affecting air quality as far away as North and South America , but also plays an important ecological role , such as fertilizing soils in the Amazon and building beaches in the Caribbean .

Written by Brandon Noriega on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
An abnormally large plume of dust from the Sahara Desert in Africa arrived in the Caribbean on Sunday after spending the past week crossing the Atlantic Ocean and is bound for the Gulf Coast.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the plume was first captured on June 7, blowing west off the African continent over the Atlantic.
According to NOAA, very dry and dusty air known as the Saharan Air Layer (SAL) forms over the Sahara Desert during the late spring, summer, and early fall, which then moves over the tropical Atlantic.
The National Hurricane Center’s (NHC) Tropical Analysis and Forecast Branch said Sunday on Twitter the SAL plume reached the eastern Caribbean Sea and will continue spreading westward.
The plume can be seen in deep orange and light pink blob on satellite imagery.
The NHC said a second plume is also coming off Africa and making its way over the eastern Atlantic.
A NASA satellite photo showed the cloud of dust over the Atlantic on Thursday, which the space agency described as “tremendous.”
A tremendous plume of dust is in the process of traversing the Atlantic Ocean. https://t.co/GWFoFqTabb pic.twitter.com/XE1ZJDHDeu — NASA Earth (@NASAEarth) June 19, 2020
Although much of the dust remains above the surface and causes hazy skies and colorful sunsets, it can aggravate those with respiratory issues.
The dust does typically hamper the formation of tropical cyclones and hurricane strengthening.
As of Sunday, the NHC is not forecasting any activity in the Atlantic Basin for at least the next week.
Another feature that comes with these massive dust clouds is really beautiful sunrises and sunsets as the sun reflects off of the dust.
Dramatic sunsets can be expected across the South this week.
According to NASA, winds typically loft about 800 million metric tons of desert dust from North Africa.
The dust can end up affecting air quality as far away as North and South America, but also plays an important ecological role, such as fertilizing soils in the Amazon and building beaches in the Caribbean.
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--2020-06-22--Netflix’s ‘The Politician’ Turns Climate Change Into A Hot Mess

Written by Lindsay Kornick on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Even though this is 2020 , we apparently need to talk more about elections .
At least , that ’ s what The Politician would have us believe .
We ’ re still more than four months away from November , but the Netflix series is determined to remind us of everything we hate about election season .
Namely , it ’ s once again filled with lies , smug liberals , and countless scandals .
The new season , which premiered June 19 , follows Payton Hobart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quest to one day become President of the United States .
This time , he plans to run for State Senator of New York ’ s 27th District against longtime incumbent Dede Standish ( Judith Light ) .
As the election continues , scandals start flying as both sides are determined to win at seemingly any cost .
Considering this is New York , it is shoved with progressive politics to the point where the term “ right-wing ” is used as a pejorative .
Both candidates are overtly liberal , but Payton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single issue : climate change .
He pushes it as a spearheading platform to reel in young voters , but it really becomes an excuse for the show to remind us we ’ re all going to die in ten years .
Within seven episodes , climate change is referred to as a “ climate catastrophe that threatens all of civilization as we know it ” as well as the “ greatest long-term threat to human existence.
” Payton lays it all down in the season premiere “ New York State of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a climate rally .
Payton : Now , listen .
Every one of us here today knows that we are in a generational fight that will determine our species ’ future on this planet .
But politicians like Dede Standish…they can not accept our urgency to clean up this mess , because if they did , they would have to admit that they are the ones who made it !
Well , Senator Standish , if you are listening today , I do not want my children and grandchildren living in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding back a dying ocean on a scorched Earth with tens of millions of climate refugees… Payton : And fascist governments around the globe are committing wholesale genocide while we fight for dwindling supplies of food and water !
That is where this world is heading if we continue to do nothing , Dede Standish .
And when you say that we can ’ t afford to take action , I say this : It ’ s because of your generation ’ s policies that my generation has no other choice !
…Netflix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rapid decline of standards and politics on television .
But what else is new ?
After watching this episode , I came away with one thought : the entire season is completely fact-free and based solely on hyped-up emotion , worst-case scenarios ( that only dim-witted 20-something liberals believe ) , and some of the worst propaganda talking points outside a climate rally .
They tried to take Ocasio-Cortez ’ s progressive nuttiness and somehow make it palatable .
They failed .
–CCD Ed .

Written by Lindsay Kornick on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Even though this is 2020, we apparently need to talk more about elections. At least, that’s what The Politician would have us believe.
We’re still more than four months away from November, but the Netflix series is determined to remind us of everything we hate about election season. Namely, it’s once again filled with lies, smug liberals, and countless scandals.
The new season, which premiered June 19, follows Payton Hobart (Ben Platt) still on his quest to one day become President of the United States.
This time, he plans to run for State Senator of New York’s 27th District against longtime incumbent Dede Standish (Judith Light). As the election continues, scandals start flying as both sides are determined to win at seemingly any cost.
Considering this is New York, it is shoved with progressive politics to the point where the term “right-wing” is used as a pejorative.
Both candidates are overtly liberal, but Payton goes above and beyond by running on a single issue: climate change.
He pushes it as a spearheading platform to reel in young voters, but it really becomes an excuse for the show to remind us we’re all going to die in ten years.
Within seven episodes, climate change is referred to as a “climate catastrophe that threatens all of civilization as we know it” as well as the “greatest long-term threat to human existence.”
Payton lays it all down in the season premiere “New York State of Mind” as he gives a speech at a climate rally.
Payton: Now, listen. Every one of us here today knows that we are in a generational fight that will determine our species’ future on this planet. But politicians like Dede Standish…they cannot accept our urgency to clean up this mess, because if they did, they would have to admit that they are the ones who made it! Well, Senator Standish, if you are listening today, I do not want my children and grandchildren living in a New York City with 20-foot sea walls holding back a dying ocean on a scorched Earth with tens of millions of climate refugees… Infinity: No. No. Payton: And fascist governments around the globe are committing wholesale genocide while we fight for dwindling supplies of food and water! That is where this world is heading if we continue to do nothing, Dede Standish. And when you say that we can’t afford to take action, I say this: It’s because of your generation’s policies that my generation has no other choice!

…Netflix’s The Politician continues to display the rapid decline of standards and politics on television. But what else is new?
After watching this episode, I came away with one thought: the entire season is completely fact-free and based solely on hyped-up emotion, worst-case scenarios (that only dim-witted 20-something liberals believe), and some of the worst propaganda talking points outside a climate rally. They tried to take Ocasio-Cortez’s progressive nuttiness and somehow make it palatable. They failed. –CCD Ed.
Read rest at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-22--Swallowing The Green Manifesto Leaves A Nasty Taste

Written by David Quinn on .
Posted in Latest news Only 8 % of the Irish public believe that tackling climate change should be the next government ’ s top priority , according to the results of an MRBI opinion poll published last week .
This low percentage didn ’ t stop Fine Gael and Fianna Fail caving into the Green Party ’ s very far-reaching demand that we cut our carbon emissions in half over the next 10 years .
The capitulation raises questions about the nature of Irish democracy .
So does the largely uncritical coverage that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the general election , it was obvious that climate change was not a big issue for voters .
Commentators and politicians noted it was rarely raised on the doorsteps .
This was despite enormous media coverage of the issue , with RTE basically campaigning about it for months .
Thousands of schoolchildren had been taking part in climate strikes and we even had a children ’ s parliament , which took over the Dail chamber for a day to discuss the matter .
The environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg seemed to be never off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fine Gael government published a climate action plan , promising to reduce carbon emissions by an average of 3 % a year by 2030 .
Every other day we seemed to have a new UN report issuing dire warnings of impending environmental doom .
Here in Ireland an environmental expert , Professor Peter Thorne of NUI Maynooth , warned that , at some stage in the coming decades , a catastrophic storm during high tide would leave thousands of properties and landmark buildings in Dublin underwater , with significant flooding in the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters still couldn ’ t be persuaded to put climate change at the top of their concerns .
Yet this didn ’ t stop politicians going right ahead and making it the top priority of the next government .
Of all the commitments in the new program for government , none is as radical as the promise to cut carbon emissions by 7 % a year for the next 10 years , and not 3 % as first promised — a target that was already considered very ambitious and expensive .
What has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week is how little discussion there has been of how much the 7 % commitment is going to cost us , and whether it has a proper democratic mandate .
The only real debate seems to be among the 3,000-plus membership of Green Party itself , with its Extinction Rebellion wing opposing the deal on the grounds that it doesn ’ t go far enough .
Unless more than two-thirds of these members approve the program , it ’ s back to the drawing board for the political parties , and maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another election anyway because if you are going to do something so huge and radical , it should have broad support and be properly debated .
If you told people upfront that the commitment on climate would cost tens of billions of euros , inhibit economic growth , and that households would be asked to pay tens of thousands on electric cars and retrofitting their houses , we would have Instant Rebellion .
But we have been told none of this .
A radical commitment has been slipped in as though it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s time for a proper debate , one in which we hear from a broad range of climate experts , engineers , and economists , who represent a range of views , and not simply those who meet with RTE approval , such as Professor John Sweeney of NUI Maynooth ’ s geography department .
He seems to be the go-to guy for RTE on all things climate , yet I can not remember hearing a journalist ask him a single hard question .
We are invited to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply the voice of one expert , but that of science itself , and that everything he says is indisputable .
In fact , climate models seem to be a lot like those epidemiological ones we ’ ve been hearing so much about .
They involve lots of different assumptions and their predictions range over a wide spectrum .
Although we know more about climate than we did about Covid-19 a few months ago , even the UN itself , and its Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change , makes a range of predictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coming decades .
At a minimum , when Sweeney is on a TV or radio show , he needs to be asked which projection he himself believes in and if he is focusing on the worst ones .
Occasionally , he should have to debate with another expert who does not believe in the upper-end predictions .
But is that even permitted any more ?
Are you now banned from the Irish airwaves if you believe in the lower-end predictions for temperature rises and sea-level increases ?
Quite aside from that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engineers , because they are the ones who will have to deliver the conversion from fossil-fuel energy to green energy over the next decade .
Do they think the wholesale switch promised by the program for government is feasible ?
What about the promised reductions in carbon emitted by transport , never mind agriculture ?
And we can ’ t hear only from engineers approved by the Green Party .
We must have a range of opinions .
Then there is the cost .
A report from the Irish Academy of Engineering in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut in emissions by 2030 — just about feasible , in their view — would cost €35bn at an absolute minimum .
Yet cutting it by 50 % , the new commitment , would presumably cost far more and be even less feasible from a practical point of view .
Economists need to tell us what the 7 % a year cut will cost households .
How much will we need to pay in higher carbon taxes , and in other charges , to fund all this ?
Retrofitting our homes to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ household between €30,000 and €80,000 , according to one estimate .
The program for government envisages 600,000 homes doing this over the next decade .
Then we also have to consider how the Green Party ’ s agenda might harm economic growth .
Why aren ’ t politicians , experts , and commentators all over the airwaves asking these questions ?
Why do we get to hear only a narrow range of voices ?
That isn ’ t healthy .
A radical green agenda is being imposed on us without our true consent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate so that voters could then make informed choices .
What we are being served up instead amounts to little more than Green Party propaganda .
Read more at The Times

Written by David Quinn on Jun 22, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Only 8% of the Irish public believe that tackling climate change should be the next government’s top priority, according to the results of an MRBI opinion poll published last week.
This low percentage didn’t stop Fine Gael and Fianna Fail caving into the Green Party’s very far-reaching demand that we cut our carbon emissions in half over the next 10 years.
The capitulation raises questions about the nature of Irish democracy. So does the largely uncritical coverage that the Green Party agenda receives.
Even during the general election, it was obvious that climate change was not a big issue for voters. Commentators and politicians noted it was rarely raised on the doorsteps.
This was despite enormous media coverage of the issue, with RTE basically campaigning about it for months.
Thousands of schoolchildren had been taking part in climate strikes and we even had a children’s parliament, which took over the Dail chamber for a day to discuss the matter. The environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg seemed to be never off our screens.
Last summer, the Fine Gael government published a climate action plan, promising to reduce carbon emissions by an average of 3% a year by 2030.
Every other day we seemed to have a new UN report issuing dire warnings of impending environmental doom.
Here in Ireland an environmental expert, Professor Peter Thorne of NUI Maynooth, warned that, at some stage in the coming decades, a catastrophic storm during high tide would leave thousands of properties and landmark buildings in Dublin underwater, with significant flooding in the city center.
Despite all these warnings, voters still couldn’t be persuaded to put climate change at the top of their concerns. Yet this didn’t stop politicians going right ahead and making it the top priority of the next government.
Of all the commitments in the new program for government, none is as radical as the promise to cut carbon emissions by 7% a year for the next 10 years, and not 3% as first promised — a target that was already considered very ambitious and expensive.
What has been notable since the program was published last week is how little discussion there has been of how much the 7% commitment is going to cost us, and whether it has a proper democratic mandate.
The only real debate seems to be among the 3,000-plus membership of Green Party itself, with its Extinction Rebellion wing opposing the deal on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough.
Unless more than two-thirds of these members approve the program, it’s back to the drawing board for the political parties, and maybe another election.
Perhaps we should have another election anyway because if you are going to do something so huge and radical, it should have broad support and be properly debated.
If you told people upfront that the commitment on climate would cost tens of billions of euros, inhibit economic growth, and that households would be asked to pay tens of thousands on electric cars and retrofitting their houses, we would have Instant Rebellion.
But we have been told none of this. A radical commitment has been slipped in as though it is the most reasonable proposal in the world.
It’s time for a proper debate, one in which we hear from a broad range of climate experts, engineers, and economists, who represent a range of views, and not simply those who meet with RTE approval, such as Professor John Sweeney of NUI Maynooth’s geography department.
He seems to be the go-to guy for RTE on all things climate, yet I cannot remember hearing a journalist ask him a single hard question.
We are invited to believe that when Sweeney speaks, it is not simply the voice of one expert, but that of science itself, and that everything he says is indisputable.
In fact, climate models seem to be a lot like those epidemiological ones we’ve been hearing so much about. They involve lots of different assumptions and their predictions range over a wide spectrum.
Although we know more about climate than we did about Covid-19 a few months ago, even the UN itself, and its Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, makes a range of predictions about temperature increases and sea-level rises over the coming decades.
At a minimum, when Sweeney is on a TV or radio show, he needs to be asked which projection he himself believes in and if he is focusing on the worst ones.
Occasionally, he should have to debate with another expert who does not believe in the upper-end predictions.
But is that even permitted any more? Are you now banned from the Irish airwaves if you believe in the lower-end predictions for temperature rises and sea-level increases?
Quite aside from that, we need to hear far more from engineers, because they are the ones who will have to deliver the conversion from fossil-fuel energy to green energy over the next decade.
Do they think the wholesale switch promised by the program for government is feasible? What about the promised reductions in carbon emitted by transport, never mind agriculture?
And we can’t hear only from engineers approved by the Green Party. We must have a range of opinions.
Then there is the cost. A report from the Irish Academy of Engineering in November 2016 estimated that a 30% cut in emissions by 2030 — just about feasible, in their view — would cost €35bn at an absolute minimum.
Yet cutting it by 50%, the new commitment, would presumably cost far more and be even less feasible from a practical point of view.
Economists need to tell us what the 7% a year cut will cost households. How much will we need to pay in higher carbon taxes, and in other charges, to fund all this?
Retrofitting our homes to make them more energy-efficient would cost the average household between €30,000 and €80,000, according to one estimate.
The program for government envisages 600,000 homes doing this over the next decade. Then we also have to consider how the Green Party’s agenda might harm economic growth.
Why aren’t politicians, experts, and commentators all over the airwaves asking these questions? Why do we get to hear only a narrow range of voices? That isn’t healthy. A radical green agenda is being imposed on us without our true consent.
A properly democratic country would allow debate so that voters could then make informed choices. What we are being served up instead amounts to little more than Green Party propaganda.
Read more at The Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print