committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-17--40 countries discuss depriving world of inexpensive safe energy

It should be no surprise to our readers that socialists across the world would recognize an opportunity in the china-virus pandemic to further handicap the use of inexpensive dependable fossil fuels to raise the standard of living of the poorest of the world by forcing them to use only undependable expensive wind and solar energy .
The pandemic has allowed a world wide experiment in socialism where governments have been able to exercise tyrannical power over their citizens .
On Thursday , July 9 , the International Energy Agency ( IEA ) convened a huge on-line event , pictured above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government representatives of 40 of the world ’ s largest economies as well as developing nations , accounting for 80 % of global greenhouse gas emissions .
IEA executive director Dr. Fatih Birol the summit “ the most important global event on energy and climate issues of 2020 , ” it was really just about politically-correct propaganda , with politicians boasting about how much ‘ clean energy ’ their nations are bringing on line .
Wind and solar power were the sources primarily promoted by the speakers on the call .
We now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are among the dirtiest and most environmentally damaging energy sources on the planet which were shown in the new documentary movie Planet For The Humans .
The IEA told us in advance of the conference call that , “ discussions will be informed by the IEA ’ s report.
” And what did that document recommend ?
We need to “ accelerate the growth of wind and solar PV [ photovoltaics ] .
” Speaker after speaker on the call extolled the virtues of their nations ’ energy policies focused on making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar .
It didn ’ t seem to cross their minds that enabling an economic recovery from the COVID-19-induced shutdown will be difficult and expensive enough without their attempts to re-engineer the world ’ s energy infrastructure .
We were told that we must return to a ‘ new normal , ’ one in which action on climate change is put front and center .
None of these folks were paying attention to what is happening in the world outside this on-line video call .
Wind and solar power have failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of world energy generated by fossil fuels .
IEA ’ s own data shown below indicates that , despite interminable climate change agreements and the installation of 300,000 industrial wind turbines across the world , the fraction of world total primary energy supply derived from coal , natural gas and oil has remained steady at about 80 % for decades .
That ’ s because , no matter how much governments might wish otherwise , and no matter how much tax-payer funded subsidies they pour into wind and solar power , no modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar power .
They are simply too expensive and unreliable .
Planet For The Humans , the Michael Moore produced movie , was released for free to the general public on this year ’ s Earth Day , April 22 .
It reveals the extensive damage done to nature ’ s bio-systems when vast regions are converted into wind and solar power plants .
The film shows open-pit mines gouged deep into the Earth to extract iron , aluminum , copper , and other minerals needed for these plants .
Hundreds of tons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base of the 300-500-foot-high industrial wind turbines which slaughter millions of birds and bats every year .
And then there are untold tons of earth and rocks blasted with thousands of pounds of dynamite to extract relatively small amounts of rare earth metals , often produced with few environmental controls in China .
This is what theClean Energy Transition Summit is demanding .
And , what is there in the background ready to take up the slack when the wind does not blow or the Sun does not shine ?
Fossil-fuel power plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in reality , just a front for more , not less , fossil fuel plants .
This is why you rarely find electric utilities opposing wind and solar as they know they get to build a new backup fossil fuel generating plant and then raise their charges for energy .
These socialist leaning countries on the phone conference now will have to deal with one of their own , Michael Shellenberger turning against them after nearly a quarter century of wrong headed environmental activism .
Shellenberger ’ s June 20 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment damage from industrial wind turbines in perspective/ He says It is notable that many of the conservationists defending wildlife from industrial wind turbines and transmission lines view the Democrats refurbished Green New Deal and its call for the of wind and transmission lines not as a climate dream but rather as an ecological nightmare .
And now , Shellenberger has driven a stake into the very heart of the environmental establishment with his new book , “ APOCALYPSE NEVER : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All , ” released on June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today ’ s 0.5 % to 50 % .
We should want cities , farms , and power plants to have higher , not lower , power densities…The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
” It is my belief that the July 9 , 2020 , 40 country energy summit will backfire to benefit sensible energy production around the world .
It openly declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts that will worsen the plight of over a billion folks in the world who remain without electricity .

It should be no surprise to our readers that socialists across the world would recognize an opportunity in the china-virus pandemic to further handicap the use of inexpensive dependable fossil fuels to raise the standard of living of the poorest of the world by forcing them to use only undependable expensive wind and solar energy. The pandemic has allowed a world wide experiment in socialism where governments have been able to exercise tyrannical power over their citizens.
On Thursday, July 9, the International Energy Agency (IEA) convened a huge on-line event, pictured above, misleadingly titled the Clean Energy Transitions Summit . It brought together government representatives of 40 of the world’s largest economies as well as developing nations, accounting for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Although IEA executive director Dr. Fatih Birol called the summit “the most important global event on energy and climate issues of 2020,” it was really just about politically-correct propaganda, with politicians boasting about how much ‘clean energy’ their nations are bringing on line.
Wind and solar power were the sources primarily promoted by the speakers on the call. We now know they are anything but clean. They are among the dirtiest and most environmentally damaging energy sources on the planet which were shown in the new documentary movie Planet For The Humans.
The IEA told us in advance of the conference call that, “discussions will be informed by the IEA’s World Energy Outlook Sustainable Recovery report.” And what did that document recommend? We need to “accelerate the growth of wind and solar PV [photovoltaics].”
Speaker after speaker on the call extolled the virtues of their nations’ energy policies focused on making great strides in the promotion of wind and solar. It didn’t seem to cross their minds that enabling an economic recovery from the COVID-19-induced shutdown will be difficult and expensive enough without their attempts to re-engineer the world’s energy infrastructure. We were told that we must return to a ‘new normal,’ one in which action on climate change is put front and center.
None of these folks were paying attention to what is happening in the world outside this on-line video call. Wind and solar power have failed to make a small dent in the fraction of world energy generated by fossil fuels. IEA’s own data shown below indicates that, despite interminable climate change agreements and the installation of 300,000 industrial wind turbines across the world, the fraction of world total primary energy supply derived from coal, natural gas and oil has remained steady at about 80% for decades.
That’s because, no matter how much governments might wish otherwise, and no matter how much tax-payer funded subsidies they pour into wind and solar power, no modern industrial society can operate on wind and solar power. They are simply too expensive and unreliable.
Planet For The Humans, the Michael Moore produced movie, was released for free to the general public on this year’s Earth Day, April 22. It reveals the extensive damage done to nature’s bio-systems when vast regions are converted into wind and solar power plants. The film shows open-pit mines gouged deep into the Earth to extract iron, aluminum, copper, and other minerals needed for these plants. Hundreds of tons of cement are required to anchor the base of the 300-500-foot-high industrial wind turbines which slaughter millions of birds and bats every year. And then there are untold tons of earth and rocks blasted with thousands of pounds of dynamite to extract relatively small amounts of rare earth metals, often produced with few environmental controls in China. This is what theClean Energy Transition Summit is demanding.
And, what is there in the background ready to take up the slack when the wind does not blow or the Sun does not shine? Fossil-fuel power plants, of course. Solar stations are, in reality, just a front for more, not less, fossil fuel plants. This is why you rarely find electric utilities opposing wind and solar as they know they get to build a new backup fossil fuel generating plant and then raise their charges for energy.
These socialist leaning countries on the phone conference now will have to deal with one of their own, Michael Shellenberger turning against them after nearly a quarter century of wrong headed environmental activism.
Shellenberger’s June 20, 2020 Forbes magazine article, “ Democrats ’ New Climate Plan Will Kill Endangered Species, Environmentalists Fear ” puts the environment damage from industrial wind turbines in perspective/ He says “ It is notable that many of the conservationists defending wildlife from industrial wind turbines and transmission lines view the Democrats ’ refurbished Green New Deal and its call for the “ rapid deployment ” of wind and transmission lines not as a climate dream but rather as an ecological nightmare. ”
And now, Shellenberger has driven a stake into the very heart of the environmental establishment with his new book, “APOCALYPSE NEVER: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All,” released on June 30. He writes:
“100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%. We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities…The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.”
It is my belief that the July 9, 2020, 40 country energy summit will backfire to benefit sensible energy production around the world. It openly declared itself on the side of irrational unproductive efforts that will worsen the plight of over a billion folks in the world who remain without electricity.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-18--Is peer review bad for science?

Is peer review bad for science?

After studying the popular practice of peer review of scientific journal articles for several years , I have reluctantly concluded that peer review is bad for science .
While the practice has its good side , there are several ways that it greatly impedes progress , and the bad greatly outweighs the good .
To begin with , let ’ s look at what peer review tries to do .
The obvious thing is to block the publication of fake science .
However this appears to be a rare event in most sciences .
There are several million journal articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , typically by two or three reviewers .
Clearly these many millions of reviews did not keep any of these myriad articles from being published .
Paradoxically , however , most of these articles were in fact rejected based on peer review ; many were rejected many times .
Top journals often boast of having high rejection rates , like 80 % or so .
If this is the general practice then the average article must be submitted to something like five journals before it is accepted and published .
If each submission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of reviews per article , perhaps ten to fifteen on average .
Given that all of these multiply rejected articles eventually get published , something other than simple gate keeping must be going on .
This something looks to be an extremely laborious sorting process , whereby each article eventually finds the “ right ” journal .
It is hard to see any value being added by these many millions of peer reviews .
Given modern search technologies , which journal an article ultimately appears in no longer seems very important .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ well known .
This is where gate keeping keeps great new ideas from being published .
Max Planck , who discovered the quantum nature of energy , put it very nicely , saying something like “ Your ideas will ( only ) be accepted when your students become journal editors.
” This is the dark side of peer review blocking science , the novel good ideas get blocked as bad ideas .
But there are several other bad things that flow from peer review that I have not seen mentioned .
These down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consuming and laborious nature of the practice .
First there is the huge time delay between the time a paper is written and when it is finally published .
Let ’ s say that peer review takes four months , which is probably pretty fast .
If the average paper is reviewed five times then that is almost two years of reviews before it is finally accepted .
( Also , there are many other steps between these reviews , so the average might be more like four years from first submission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ papers are published each year , with an average delay of say two years each , due to peer review , that is an accumulation of four million years of delay every year .
It is reasonable to believe that eliminating this vast tide of delay would dramatically speed up the progress of science .
Then there is the cost .
Organizing and managing the peer review process is probably the greatest expense that journal publishers face .
Keep in mind that given an 80 % rejection rate , something like five articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At three reviews each that means fifteen reviews per published articles .
The high cost of journals and articles is a major obstacle to access by all but the richest universities and researchers .
This to probably greatly impedes the progress of science .
Then there is the huge amount of time that researchers spend reviewing each other ’ s articles .
Reviews are expected to be comprehensive , so they probably take from 10 to 20 hours each , maybe more .
If there are fifteen reviews per article published that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Multiply that by 2 million articles published and we get an incredible 300 to 600 million hours a year devoted to reviewing , rather that to research .
Assuming that a work year is 2000 hours , this is like taking 150 to 300 thousand researchers off the job , just to peer review each other ’ s papers .
Think of what that amount of research might create .
Again , this is a huge loss to the progress of science .
Conclusion : Peer review adds an enormous amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process of science .
It does not do enough good to justify these huge adverse impacts on the rate of scientific progress .
Thus on balance peer review is bad for science .

After studying the popular practice of peer review of scientific journal articles for several years, I have reluctantly concluded that peer review is bad for science. While the practice has its good side, there are several ways that it greatly impedes progress, and the bad greatly outweighs the good.
To begin with, let’s look at what peer review tries to do. The obvious thing is to block the publication of fake science. However this appears to be a rare event in most sciences. There are several million journal articles published each year, all peer reviewed, typically by two or three reviewers. Clearly these many millions of reviews did not keep any of these myriad articles from being published.
Paradoxically, however, most of these articles were in fact rejected based on peer review; many were rejected many times. Top journals often boast of having high rejection rates, like 80% or so. If this is the general practice then the average article must be submitted to something like five journals before it is accepted and published. If each submission is peer reviewed then that is a lot of reviews per article, perhaps ten to fifteen on average.
Given that all of these multiply rejected articles eventually get published, something other than simple gate keeping must be going on. This something looks to be an extremely laborious sorting process, whereby each article eventually finds the “right” journal. It is hard to see any value being added by these many millions of peer reviews. Given modern search technologies, which journal an article ultimately appears in no longer seems very important.
One negative aspect of peer review is well known. This is where gate keeping keeps great new ideas from being published. Max Planck, who discovered the quantum nature of energy, put it very nicely, saying something like “Your ideas will (only) be accepted when your students become journal editors.” This is the dark side of peer review blocking science, the novel good ideas get blocked as bad ideas.
But there are several other bad things that flow from peer review that I have not seen mentioned. These down sides are features of the incredibly time consuming and laborious nature of the practice.
First there is the huge time delay between the time a paper is written and when it is finally published. Let’s say that peer review takes four months, which is probably pretty fast. If the average paper is reviewed five times then that is almost two years of reviews before it is finally accepted. (Also, there are many other steps between these reviews, so the average might be more like four years from first submission to final publication.)
If two million papers are published each year, with an average delay of say two years each, due to peer review, that is an accumulation of four million years of delay every year. It is reasonable to believe that eliminating this vast tide of delay would dramatically speed up the progress of science.
Then there is the cost. Organizing and managing the peer review process is probably the greatest expense that journal publishers face. Keep in mind that given an 80% rejection rate, something like five articles will be reviewed for every one published. At three reviews each that means fifteen reviews per published articles.
The high cost of journals and articles is a major obstacle to access by all but the richest universities and researchers. This to probably greatly impedes the progress of science.
Then there is the huge amount of time that researchers spend reviewing each other’s articles. Reviews are expected to be comprehensive, so they probably take from 10 to 20 hours each, maybe more. If there are fifteen reviews per article published that is 150 to 300 hours of review time.
Multiply that by 2 million articles published and we get an incredible 300 to 600 million hours a year devoted to reviewing, rather that to research. Assuming that a work year is 2000 hours, this is like taking 150 to 300 thousand researchers off the job, just to peer review each other’s papers. Think of what that amount of research might create. Again, this is a huge loss to the progress of science.
Conclusion: Peer review adds an enormous amount of delay, cost and distraction to the process of science. It does not do enough good to justify these huge adverse impacts on the rate of scientific progress. Thus on balance peer review is bad for science.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-19--The coming man-made misery if the Green New Deal is enacted

I have some progressive friends who refuse to believe that agenda-driven zealots pushing the Green New Deal will be able to enact it because we are so much in debt , we can ’ t afford it .
When has that ever stopped zealots before ?
In fact why , given the attacks of our nation ’ s foundational values of life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness , is that not their goal ?
I try to look at everything people who think differently from me look at because of 3 reasons : 1 ) there may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to know what they know .
3 ) refers to 2 , in studying what they are saying if they are right , I wish to adopt it , for it makes me better .
If not I am still better because I did the work to strengthen my ideas .
So other ideas are immensely valuable to me , but in the realm of climate and weather , that is being shut down , which circles back to the real agenda talked about above .
So I listen to proposals from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The proposals out there , about 0 carbon emissions , while perhaps capturing the imagination of people that fear what they have indoctrinated with , is like thinking we will have the technology to pull the Old “ Beam me Up Scotty ” from Star Trek by 2035 .
We did not even have “ shovel ready jobs ” when that was proposed , what makes anyone think that we will be able to supply the energy lifeline for freedom with this .
And the contradictions continue The proponents of this are embracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing , the very things that have been outsourced and we were told would never come back again by those same people .
I certainly agree with buy American , but why would anyone want to put in charge the very people that said those jobs were gone ?
And where is the energy going to come from to power these factories ?
I am an old “ greenie ” I want to take this issue off the table .
It no longer matters what guys like me think about the causes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anymore , its a matter of really finding out who is serious about this without motives that limit American exceptionalism We can do it The republicans have a trillion tree proposal in congress ( there are 2 democrats on board , why not more ? )
.
Just watching the co2 curve shows you what happens when leaves come back on trees in the northern hemisphere .
SO USE NATURE TO CORRECT THE FEARED IMBALANCE NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE !
2 ) embrace nuclear power , Even former Nasa scientist James Hansen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming ) has advocated for that .
3 Carbon Capture .
.
Of course Natural Gas is a co2 friendly source , but rest assured , that industry is going to get hit .
I can not understand why anyone who is truly concerned with this , would not embrace these ideas rather than the same ideas that failed miserably in countries like Spain and Germany .
But let me show you what there is to deal with in hot summers if there is not the energy to cool our homes or businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how hot the summer is .
Well look at this The summer so far has temperatures 2-3 above average , which is warm but not that big a deal yet , in a swath of the nation , Countering cool is in the northwest .
But more people are warmer than average than cooler And in the sulltry southeast , a normal to below normal summer is occurring .
that is not just one year , but 6 ( and keep mind , that period was a track race for US hurricane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures unlike what is going on today , where nighttime lows are higher , it was the core of the day that was scorching Nighttime lows were not as warm because it is so dry , which promotes a greater range of temperatures .
Here is the drought index ( wonder why there was a dustbowl ? )
so if this happened before , why can ’ t it happen again , but imagine if it did and you did not have what we have today to mitigate this ?
contrast that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as drought severity But the whole point of this exercise is to show that if there is not the energy needed to cool our homes ( or warm them in winter ) then misery will ensue .
And it will be manmade , by agendas enacted that would limit your ability to counter what nature is in control of .
I am not against developing any source of energy and encourage it , but shutting down what is known based on a still unknown is not the way to do such a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man is messing up the climate , my ego has to put aside to face the very real idea that we have an increasing bloc of voters that do fear this .
So if there is a way to address the fear that is BENEFICIAL to our nation , supplies those that fear it with a hope for a future , and far less costly than something that requires the belief that somehow you can change what has naturally occurred for the entire life of the planet , then any rational person , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , should be looking for ways to take this issue off the table .
We are going to find out real quick if such ideas as what I have listed come out , who is really serious about this issue , and who is using it for another agenda .
In the meantime , Man-made misery lurks , for a different reason than the one so many have been indoctrinated .

I have some progressive friends who refuse to believe that agenda-driven zealots pushing the Green New Deal will be able to enact it because we are so much in debt, we can’t afford it.
When has that ever stopped zealots before? In fact why, given the attacks of our nation’s foundational values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is that not their goal?
I try to look at everything people who think differently from me look at because of 3 reasons: 1) there may be some common ground 2) I want to know what they know. 3) refers to 2, in studying what they are saying if they are right, I wish to adopt it, for it makes me better. If not I am still better because I did the work to strengthen my ideas.
So other ideas are immensely valuable to me, but in the realm of climate and weather, that is being shut down, which circles back to the real agenda talked about above.
So I listen to proposals from people that are different from me. The proposals out there, about 0 carbon emissions, while perhaps capturing the imagination of people that fear what they have indoctrinated with, is like thinking we will have the technology to pull the Old “Beam me Up Scotty” from Star Trek by 2035. We did not even have “shovel ready jobs” when that was proposed, what makes anyone think that we will be able to supply the energy lifeline for freedom with this. And the contradictions continue The proponents of this are embracing a Buy American first stimulus plan for manufacturing, the very things that have been outsourced and we were told would never come back again by those same people. I certainly agree with buy American, but why would anyone want to put in charge the very people that said those jobs were gone? And where is the energy going to come from to power these factories?
I am an old “greenie” I want to take this issue off the table. It no longer matters what guys like me think about the causes, for this is not a science issue anymore, its a matter of really finding out who is serious about this without motives that limit American exceptionalism We can do it The republicans have a trillion tree proposal in congress ( there are 2 democrats on board, why not more?). Just watching the co2 curve shows you what happens when leaves come back on trees in the northern hemisphere. SO USE NATURE TO CORRECT THE FEARED IMBALANCE NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE! 2) embrace nuclear power, Even former Nasa scientist James Hansen ( ” the godfather” of global warming) has advocated for that. 3 Carbon Capture. . Of course Natural Gas is a co2 friendly source, but rest assured, that industry is going to get hit.
I cannot understand why anyone who is truly concerned with this, would not embrace these ideas rather than the same ideas that failed miserably in countries like Spain and Germany.
But let me show you what there is to deal with in hot summers if there is not the energy to cool our homes or businesses. Its summer, everyone is talking about how hot the summer is. Well look at this
The summer so far has temperatures 2-3 above average, which is warm but not that big a deal yet, in a swath of the nation, Countering cool is in the northwest. But more people are warmer than average than cooler And in the sulltry southeast, a normal to below normal summer is occurring.
As a side note, My company has been bullish on a very warm mid-summer into fall since March, as this kind of pattern also favors the Atlantic basin having the most tropical cyclone activity relative to averages. So this was anticipated though US models from June woefully underestimated this As a side note, My company has been bullish on a very warm mid-summer into fall since March, as this kind of pattern also favors the Atlantic basin having the most tropical cyclone activity relative to averages. So this was anticipated though US models from June woefully underestimated this
Now here comes the perspective, here are the June/Julys 1933-1938 Now here comes the perspective, here are the June/Julys 1933-1938
that is not just one year, but 6 (and keep mind, that period was a track race for US hurricane hits)
Now look at the high temperatures
unlike what is going on today, where nighttime lows are higher, it was the core of the day that was scorching
Nighttime lows were not as warm
because it is so dry, which promotes a greater range of temperatures. Here is the drought index ( wonder why there was a dustbowl?)
so if this happened before, why can’t it happen again, but imagine if it did and you did not have what we have today to mitigate this?
contrast that to what is going on now as far as drought severity
it is wet in many places where we grow food. it is wet in many places where we grow food.
But the whole point of this exercise is to show that if there is not the energy needed to cool our homes ( or warm them in winter) then misery will ensue. And it will be manmade, by agendas enacted that would limit your ability to counter what nature is in control of. I am not against developing any source of energy and encourage it, but shutting down what is known based on a still unknown is not the way to do such a thing. And while I may not believe man is messing up the climate, my ego has to put aside to face the very real idea that we have an increasing bloc of voters that do fear this. So if there is a way to address the fear that is BENEFICIAL to our nation, supplies those that fear it with a hope for a future, and far less costly than something that requires the belief that somehow you can change what has naturally occurred for the entire life of the planet, then any rational person, no matter whether they fear it or not, should be looking for ways to take this issue off the table.
We are going to find out real quick if such ideas as what I have listed come out, who is really serious about this issue, and who is using it for another agenda. In the meantime, Man-made misery lurks, for a different reason than the one so many have been indoctrinated.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-20--They came in peace for all mankind — July 20, 1969

On July 20 , 1969 , Apollo XI astronauts landed on the moon .
It was one of the greatest scientific achievements in history .
America ’ s pioneers in space were “ steely-eyed missile men ; ” a term they devised which meant no-nonsense , quick-thinking , objective , problem solvers .
They had to be .
There was no room for fudged data , dodgy math , or politically correct science .
It was a matter of life or death .
A few years ago a huge number of astronauts , space engineers and mission control staff co-signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space agency to knock off the climate campaigning and get back to hard space science .
We posted the entire letter and list of signatories at CFACT.org .
Here ’ s a sample : We believe the claims by NASA and GISS , that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated , especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data .
With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts , coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear that the science is NOT settled .
The names of those who signed the letter , or have otherwise spoken in favor of climate realism , are stunning .
They are larger than life .
In America , if it doesn ’ t make the movies , or TV , it didn ’ t happen .
Hollywood has immortalized these scientific titans time and again , yet the media won ’ t report where they stand on climate .
Consider commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the moon landing by binge-watching HBO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Moon , which has just been digitally remastered .
Tom Hanks does a splendid job both narrating , and producing this important historical take .
He did similar great work with Band of Brothers and The Pacific .
While watching HBO ’ s and other great films about America ’ s exploration of space , keep your eyes open for some of the world ’ s most carefully selected , vetted , and respected scientific experts , who also number among the world ’ s most respected climate skeptics .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of years .
If it ’ s warming now , it may cool off later .
I ’ m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today .
I ’ m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all , I think the world is causing it .
Among the many slurs the global warming Left likes to hurl at those of us who correct their dogma is “ Flat Earthers.
” Would they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walt Cunningham , Jack Schmitt , Charlie Duke , Al Worden and the rest ?
They ’ ve seen the curvature of the Earth from a unique perspective .
Walt Cunningham was a member of the courageous Apollo VII crew .
They were the first to launch into the space after the loss of Apollo One to fire and tragedy .
Walt has worked closely with CFACT , accompanying us to UN Summits in Poland , and Peru and speaking on college campuses .
In Peru he jumped off a mountain on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1932 ) to highlight his conviction that climate science is anything but settled .
You should have seen the faces of the Obama team manning the NASA display at a UN climate conference when Colonel Cunningham walked in and challenged them point blank .
Jack Schmitt is the preeminent scientist to walk on the Moon .
Here ’ s what he said at a recent project Apollo commemoration : I ’ m a geologist .
I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going through climate change at the present time… Right now , in my profession , there is no evidence .
There are models .
But models of very , very complex natural systems are often wrong .
The observations that we make as geologists , and observational climatologists , do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this .
When America ’ s Apollo astronauts speak out , attention must be paid .
A version of this article appeared at CFACT.org in 2019 .

On July 20, 1969, Apollo XI astronauts landed on the moon. It was one of the greatest scientific achievements in history.
America’s pioneers in space were “steely-eyed missile men;” a term they devised which meant no-nonsense, quick-thinking, objective, problem solvers. They had to be. There was no room for fudged data, dodgy math, or politically correct science. It was a matter of life or death.
A few years ago a huge number of astronauts, space engineers and mission control staff co-signed a strongly-worded letter to NASA asking the space agency to knock off the climate campaigning and get back to hard space science.
We posted the entire letter and list of signatories at CFACT.org. Here’s a sample:
We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The names of those who signed the letter, or have otherwise spoken in favor of climate realism, are stunning. They are larger than life.
In America, if it doesn’t make the movies, or TV, it didn’t happen. Hollywood has immortalized these scientific titans time and again, yet the media won’t report where they stand on climate.
Consider commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the moon landing by binge-watching HBO’s excellent series From the Earth to the Moon, which has just been digitally remastered. Tom Hanks does a splendid job both narrating, and producing this important historical take. He did similar great work with Band of Brothers and The Pacific.
While watching HBO’s and other great films about America’s exploration of space, keep your eyes open for some of the world’s most carefully selected, vetted, and respected scientific experts, who also number among the world’s most respected climate skeptics.
Buzz Aldrin celebrated the anniversary of his historic moon landing. Here’s what he told The Daily Mail:
I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.
Among the many slurs the global warming Left likes to hurl at those of us who correct their dogma is “Flat Earthers.” Would they try that one on Buzz Aldrin, Walt Cunningham, Jack Schmitt, Charlie Duke, Al Worden and the rest? They’ve seen the curvature of the Earth from a unique perspective.
Walt Cunningham was a member of the courageous Apollo VII crew. They were the first to launch into the space after the loss of Apollo One to fire and tragedy. Walt has worked closely with CFACT, accompanying us to UN Summits in Poland, and Peru and speaking on college campuses. In Peru he jumped off a mountain on a hang glider (he was born in 1932) to highlight his conviction that climate science is anything but settled. You should have seen the faces of the Obama team manning the NASA display at a UN climate conference when Colonel Cunningham walked in and challenged them point blank.
Jack Schmitt is the preeminent scientist to walk on the Moon. Here’s what he said at a recent project Apollo commemoration:
I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time… Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence. There are models. But models of very, very complex natural systems are often wrong. The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this.
When America’s Apollo astronauts speak out, attention must be paid.
A version of this article appeared at CFACT.org in 2019.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-20--Hold China accountable – or give it more control?

China unleashed Covid-19 on an unsuspecting world .
It knew by early January 2020 ( if not by December 2019 or earlier ) that it was dealing with a vicious , fast-spreading disease in Wuhan , a city with more people than Chicago and New York City combined .
But first it said nothing .
Then it lied repeatedly , expelled foreign journalists , and threatened , silenced or “ disappeared ” Wuhan doctors who tried to warn the world .
The Chinese Communist Party used its influence with the World Health Organization to advance its false claims about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a laboratory or wet market in the city ) and absence of human-to-human transmission .
The CCP even claimed the virus was brought to Wuhan by US soldiers during an October 2019 military sports tournament .
It shut down domestic travel to and from Wuhan , while allowing millions to fly between Wuhan and Europe , the United States , Africa and Latin America .
By July 1 , the Wuhan virus had sickened 11 million people worldwide and killed a half million – with 2.7 million ill and 130,000 dead in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars in economic damage , as the world issued stay-home orders , closed down global trade and made hundreds of millions jobless .
Amid the pandemic , China shipped defective respirator masks , engaged in hoarding and price gouging on medical supplies , and expanded its campaign to blame other countries for the disaster .
A University of Southampton study concluded that , if China had been honest and transparent , and stopped foreign travel to and from Wuhan even three weeks before it actually did , global Covid-19 transmission could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands would not have died .
Nor would the world economy have imploded .
( The WHO refused to declare a global pandemic until March 11 . )
China ’ s outrageous behavior is nothing new .
Companies wanting to sell products in China have long been compelled to build factories in China and share their technological and manufacturing secrets – while Chinese students , agents and hackers have systematically stolen other intellectual property and trade and defense secrets .
Its treatment of Hong Kong , Laos and Chinese Uighurs is duplicitous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be held accountable , punished , and made to pay reparations and financial penalties .
Justice certainly demands that .
In a more perfect world , it might even happen .
However , securing a verdict on reparations would be a tall order , enforcing any verdict highly doubtful .
China ’ s status as a global economic and military superpower is augmented by its positions on the United Nations Security Council , in the World Trade Organization , and on the UN Human Rights Council ( along with Iran , North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its predatory lending practices make China an even more untrustworthy pariah , and conditions in its mines , processing plants and factories show that it has little regard for workers ’ health or basic rights .
Indeed , it demands that we ignore human rights issues .
These problems are compounded by China ’ s control of numerous vital supply chains .
China dominates not just manufacturing of US drugs like heparin , vaccines and penicillin , but the active ingredients that allow US companies to make other essential medicines .
Chinese companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and up to 95 % of antibiotics and hydrocortisone .
In 2008 , contaminated heparin from China caused 81 US deaths .
Much of the USA ’ s basic and high-tech medical equipment ( respirators , surgical masks , protective gowns , and MRI and CT scan equipment ) is also imported from China .
The United States is also beholden to China for metals and minerals in energy , aerospace , defense , telecom and other industries .
Joe Biden , AOC , Democrats and environmentalist groups would not just shut down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for power generation and manufacturing .
They would effectively turn our energy systems , manufacturing , defense , livelihoods and living standards over to China .
Chinese computer chips are in countless products – and Trojan horse viruses or backdoors for hackers could enable steady information theft , take over GPS systems or crash electrical grids .
Minerals , metals and components essential for aircraft , night vision goggles , computers , wind turbines , solar panels , rechargeable batteries , electric vehicles and other technologies are sourced directly from China or through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Africa , Asia and Latin America .
Supplies of these materials or products could easily be restricted or cut off amid trade or other conflicts .
Incredibly , America has nearly all the metals and minerals needed to manufacture these products , and many more .
However , because of unrelenting environmentalist and Democrat opposition to exploration and mining , the nation ’ s vast , mineral-rich federal lands ( worth many trillions of dollars ) remain off limits and undeveloped , forcing the United States to import the vast majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , America is needlessly 100 % dependent on imports for 35 “ critical ” minerals and metals that are needed for defense , aerospace , transportation , communication , “ renewable ” energy and healthcare technologies – including 15 different rare earth elements ( REEs ) .
At least 25 of them come from China .
Another half dozen come from Russia .
Not one is renewable , clean , green , cheap or sustainable .
That means America imports nearly two-thirds of its critical minerals and metals from adversaries and enemies !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ led the world in producing REEs , China now makes 95 % of all the world ’ s rare earth metals , using technologies that the U.S. gave them – for free .
Thin-film solar panels require indium and tellurium , to convert the sun ’ s rays to electricity .
Making solar panels also requires lead , cadmium , copper , gallium , silver , polyvinyl fluoride , and other materials and chemicals .
Just building the 500 square miles of solar panels that Dominion Energy Virginia is planning would involve some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these other materials .
A single 2-megawatt wind turbine requires some 3.5 tons of copper to generate and transmit electricity – plus 900 tons of steel , 2,500 tons of concrete , 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic composites , several tons of rare earth elements , and many tons of manganese , cobalt , aluminum and other metals and minerals .
Magnets in hybrid gas-electric vehicle motors require dysprosium and neodymium , while a single 100-kilowatt-hour Tesla rechargeable battery pack ( for all-electric vehicles and backup power systems ) requires 140 pounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nickel , graphite , aluminum and copper , and smaller amounts of manganese and rare earth metals .
The raw material demands go on and on .
Multiply these requirements by the tens of thousands of offshore wind turbines , millions of onshore turbines , billions of solar panels and billions of 1,200-pound battery packs that would be needed under the Green New Deal – and the demand for raw materials would translate into unimaginable increases in mining around the world .
It would also bring unsustainable global ecological impacts , enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions , indefensible reliance on Chinese ( and Russian ) raw material and finished product imports , and vastly more slave and child labor and human rights violations around the world .
Transformers , smart grid control systems , electric vehicles and thousands of miles of additional transmission lines under the GND would add even more to the increases in raw materials demand .
Modern civilizations also need numerous other metals : arsenic for microwave communications , fluorspar for aluminum and steel production and uranium processing , gallium for LEDs and cell phones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for lightweight alloys and fuel cells , bismuth for pharmaceuticals and lead-free solders , antimony for lead-acid batteries and flame retardants , and countless others .
It bears repeating : Almost every one of these essential materials could be mined and processed domestically .
But instead many are 100 % imported , mostly from China .
Many Americans ’ disdain for mining and manufacturing means US energy , jobs , living standards , health and national security will be almost entirely dependent on China , Russia and other countries that are not exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain .
Unlike US technologies and intellectual property that are constantly at risk of theft by China – there is absolutely nothing about US mineral resource policies that the CCP would ever want to copy , much less steal !
And the Chinese certainly have no interest in copying our pollution control , mined land reclamation , wildlife protection , workplace safety , fair wage , child labor or human rights laws .
Sadly , not one of these realities seems to merit even a moment ’ s consideration by GND proponents .

China unleashed Covid-19 on an unsuspecting world. It knew by early January 2020 (if not by December 2019 or earlier) that it was dealing with a vicious, fast-spreading disease in Wuhan, a city with more people than Chicago and New York City combined. But first it said nothing. Then it lied repeatedly, expelled foreign journalists, and threatened, silenced or “disappeared” Wuhan doctors who tried to warn the world.
The Chinese Communist Party used its influence with the World Health Organization to advance its false claims about the origins of the Wuhan virus (likely a laboratory or wet market in the city) and absence of human-to-human transmission. The CCP even claimed the virus was brought to Wuhan by US soldiers during an October 2019 military sports tournament. It shut down domestic travel to and from Wuhan, while allowing millions to fly between Wuhan and Europe, the United States, Africa and Latin America.
By July 1, the Wuhan virus had sickened 11 million people worldwide and killed a half million – with 2.7 million ill and 130,000 dead in the USA alone. The virus caused trillions of dollars in economic damage, as the world issued stay-home orders, closed down global trade and made hundreds of millions jobless. Amid the pandemic, China shipped defective respirator masks, engaged in hoarding and price gouging on medical supplies, and expanded its campaign to blame other countries for the disaster.
A University of Southampton study concluded that, if China had been honest and transparent, and stopped foreign travel to and from Wuhan even three weeks before it actually did, global Covid-19 transmission could have been reduced by 95% and hundreds of thousands would not have died. Nor would the world economy have imploded. (The WHO refused to declare a global pandemic until March 11.)
China’s outrageous behavior is nothing new. Companies wanting to sell products in China have long been compelled to build factories in China and share their technological and manufacturing secrets – while Chinese students, agents and hackers have systematically stolen other intellectual property and trade and defense secrets. Its treatment of Hong Kong, Laos and Chinese Uighurs is duplicitous and immoral.
Many have said China must be held accountable, punished, and made to pay reparations and financial penalties. Justice certainly demands that. In a more perfect world, it might even happen. However, securing a verdict on reparations would be a tall order, enforcing any verdict highly doubtful.
China’s status as a global economic and military superpower is augmented by its positions on the United Nations Security Council, in the World Trade Organization, and on the UN Human Rights Council (along with Iran, North Korea and other moral exemplars). Its predatory lending practices make China an even more untrustworthy pariah, and conditions in its mines, processing plants and factories show that it has little regard for workers’ health or basic rights. Indeed, it demands that we ignore human rights issues.
These problems are compounded by China’s control of numerous vital supply chains. China dominates not just manufacturing of US drugs like heparin, vaccines and penicillin, but the active ingredients that allow US companies to make other essential medicines. Chinese companies thereby control 70% of acetaminophen, and up to 95% of antibiotics and hydrocortisone. In 2008, contaminated heparin from China caused 81 US deaths. Much of the USA’s basic and high-tech medical equipment (respirators, surgical masks, protective gowns, and MRI and CT scan equipment) is also imported from China.
The United States is also beholden to China for metals and minerals in energy, aerospace, defense, telecom and other industries. Joe Biden, AOC, Democrats and environmentalist groups would not just shut down fossil fuel production, pipelines and fuels for power generation and manufacturing. They would effectively turn our energy systems, manufacturing, defense, livelihoods and living standards over to China.
Chinese computer chips are in countless products – and Trojan horse viruses or backdoors for hackers could enable steady information theft, take over GPS systems or crash electrical grids. Minerals, metals and components essential for aircraft, night vision goggles, computers, wind turbines, solar panels, rechargeable batteries, electric vehicles and other technologies are sourced directly from China or through Chinese companies that conduct horrific mining operations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Supplies of these materials or products could easily be restricted or cut off amid trade or other conflicts.
Incredibly, America has nearly all the metals and minerals needed to manufacture these products, and many more. However, because of unrelenting environmentalist and Democrat opposition to exploration and mining, the nation’s vast, mineral-rich federal lands (worth many trillions of dollars) remain off limits and undeveloped, forcing the United States to import the vast majority of its essential raw materials.
In fact, America is needlessly 100% dependent on imports for 35 “critical” minerals and metals that are needed for defense, aerospace, transportation, communication, “renewable” energy and healthcare technologies – including 15 different rare earth elements (REEs). At least 25 of them come from China. Another half dozen come from Russia. Not one is renewable, clean, green, cheap or sustainable.
That means America imports nearly two-thirds of its critical minerals and metals from adversaries and enemies! Amazingly, although the United States once led the world in producing REEs, China now makes 95% of all the world’s rare earth metals, using technologies that the U.S. gave them – for free.
Thin-film solar panels require indium and tellurium, to convert the sun’s rays to electricity. Making solar panels also requires lead, cadmium, copper, gallium, silver, polyvinyl fluoride, and other materials and chemicals. Just building the 500 square miles of solar panels that Dominion Energy Virginia is planning would involve some 5,000,000 pounds of cadmium and enormous amounts of these other materials.
A single 2-megawatt wind turbine requires some 3.5 tons of copper to generate and transmit electricity – plus 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic composites, several tons of rare earth elements, and many tons of manganese, cobalt, aluminum and other metals and minerals.
Magnets in hybrid gas-electric vehicle motors require dysprosium and neodymium, while a single 100-kilowatt-hour Tesla rechargeable battery pack (for all-electric vehicles and backup power systems) requires 140 pounds of lithium, large amounts of cobalt, nickel, graphite, aluminum and copper, and smaller amounts of manganese and rare earth metals. The raw material demands go on and on.
Multiply these requirements by the tens of thousands of offshore wind turbines, millions of onshore turbines, billions of solar panels and billions of 1,200-pound battery packs that would be needed under the Green New Deal – and the demand for raw materials would translate into unimaginable increases in mining around the world. It would also bring unsustainable global ecological impacts, enormous increases in global fossil fuel use and emissions, indefensible reliance on Chinese (and Russian) raw material and finished product imports, and vastly more slave and child labor and human rights violations around the world.
Transformers, smart grid control systems, electric vehicles and thousands of miles of additional transmission lines under the GND would add even more to the increases in raw materials demand. Modern civilizations also need numerous other metals: arsenic for microwave communications, fluorspar for aluminum and steel production and uranium processing, gallium for LEDs and cell phones, graphite for rechargeable batteries, scandium for lightweight alloys and fuel cells, bismuth for pharmaceuticals and lead-free solders, antimony for lead-acid batteries and flame retardants, and countless others.
It bears repeating: Almost every one of these essential materials could be mined and processed domestically. But instead many are 100% imported, mostly from China. Many Americans’ disdain for mining and manufacturing means US energy, jobs, living standards, health and national security will be almost entirely dependent on China, Russia and other countries that are not exactly friendly or reliable.
One thing is certain. Unlike US technologies and intellectual property that are constantly at risk of theft by China – there is absolutely nothing about US mineral resource policies that the CCP would ever want to copy, much less steal! And the Chinese certainly have no interest in copying our pollution control, mined land reclamation, wildlife protection, workplace safety, fair wage, child labor or human rights laws.
Sadly, not one of these realities seems to merit even a moment’s consideration by GND proponents.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-21--Climate fork in the road this November

Climate fork in the road this November

National elections are about many things , ranging from policy issues , candidates ’ personalities and the conditions of the country .
The upcoming presidential election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in November will continue that reality .
No single issue or event will decide who will be elected president for the next four years .
There are simply too many swirling for one to be decisive .
One issue that will be decided , whether or not voters realize , is the direction of climate policies since the two presidential candidates have polar opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ man-made ” climate change has having any significant impact on the planet ’ s temperature trajectory .
He has condemned the proposed Green New Deal in its various multi-trillion dollar iterations , and withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accords that committed ( some ) signatory nations to reduce carbon emissions .
Among the reasons for opposition to the Accords—an international treaty that was never approved by the U.S. Senate—is the unfair economic burden on the U.S. while other industrialized nations had no immediate commitments .
Incidentally , the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Accords .
The President also is committed to reducing the time it takes for environmental reviews of infrastructure projects , which he publicly unveiled last week in Georgia , and as CFACT previously reported .
And , the Trump administration is fully supportive of fossil fuel energy sources , including coal , oil and natural gas , with the latter source using hydraulic fracturing .
Former Vice President Joe Biden offers a sharp contrast on environment and climate policies .
He is all-in on the Green New Deal , beginning last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion plan for replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy , retrofitting buildings , subsidizing the creation of “ Green jobs , ” and a panoply of other climate dreams .
Last week , Mr. Biden updated his climate plan that calls for a “ green energy revolution ” where he promised a “ carbon pollution-free electric sector ” in five years .
Amazing how “ carbon , ” without which the planet can not survive , has been twisted into a “ pollutant.
” He said that the “ climate crisis …is literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our planet and to our very survival.
” This is standard climate alarmism , which Biden and so many others are never made to defend or substantiate .
They assert it , and demand trillions in taxpayer money .
A rhetorical twist in Biden ’ s climate plan is his emphasis on union manufacturing jobs , which he claims will be building the promised 60,000 wind turbines and other Green infrastructure .
No doubt he ’ s attempting to undo his gaffe last December when he admitted that he would pursue his climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs – which they will .
Unmentioned in Biden ’ s presentation is that the manufacturing necessary for his “ revolution ” — where he also proposes 500 million solar panels in five years — is impossible without fossil fuels and a lot of mining needed to produce electric cars , turbines , and solar panels .
Then , Biden commits to “ eliminating carbon pollution ” ( that descriptor , again ) from power plants by 2035 , as though he can substitute fossil fuels with something else by then .
Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D.C. fixture since he became a U.S. senator from Delaware in 1973 at the age of 30 , the legal minimum age pursuant to the U.S. Constitution .
Biden ’ s long career has basically followed the Democratic Party ’ s issue direction .
For example , he embraced then-President Clinton ’ s tough-on-crime stance in the 1990 ’ s , which Biden has since back peddled to reflect his Party ’ s shift ; and he supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002 , where most the Democratic leadership in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Obama administration supported hydro fracturing for natural gas ; now Biden opposes it to reflect growing forces in his Party that have long hated fracking .
Since the Democratic billionaire donor class of Green activists , including George Soros , Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer , have made their climate agenda an essential plank for the Party , Biden is there , too .
More so , Biden has become a Trojan horse for climate true believers like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Cong .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who he put on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies he promises to implement .
The November election is a fork in the road for America on many issues .
Among them will be whether we commit as a nation to borrow and spend trillions of dollars to attempt to alter the average global temperature , with all its concomitant impact on jobs , the economy and living standards .
Americans have 100 or so days to decide .

National elections are about many things, ranging from policy issues, candidates’ personalities and the conditions of the country. The upcoming presidential election between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in November will continue that reality.
No single issue or event will decide who will be elected president for the next four years. There are simply too many swirling for one to be decisive. One issue that will be decided, whether or not voters realize, is the direction of climate policies since the two presidential candidates have polar opposite views.
President Trump has never embraced “man-made” climate change has having any significant impact on the planet’s temperature trajectory. He has condemned the proposed Green New Deal in its various multi-trillion dollar iterations, and withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accords that committed (some) signatory nations to reduce carbon emissions.
Among the reasons for opposition to the Accords—an international treaty that was never approved by the U.S. Senate—is the unfair economic burden on the U.S. while other industrialized nations had no immediate commitments. Incidentally, the U.S. has been reducing its carbon emissions without the Accords.
The President also is committed to reducing the time it takes for environmental reviews of infrastructure projects, which he publicly unveiled last week in Georgia, and as CFACT previously reported. And, the Trump administration is fully supportive of fossil fuel energy sources, including coal, oil and natural gas, with the latter source using hydraulic fracturing.
Former Vice President Joe Biden offers a sharp contrast on environment and climate policies. He is all-in on the Green New Deal, beginning last year when he first unveiled his $5 trillion plan for replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, retrofitting buildings, subsidizing the creation of “Green jobs,” and a panoply of other climate dreams.
Last week, Mr. Biden updated his climate plan that calls for a “green energy revolution” where he promised a “carbon pollution-free electric sector” in five years. Amazing how “carbon,” without which the planet cannot survive, has been twisted into a “pollutant.” He said that the “climate crisis …is literally an existential threat to the health of our planet and to our very survival.”
This is standard climate alarmism, which Biden and so many others are never made to defend or substantiate. They assert it, and demand trillions in taxpayer money.
A rhetorical twist in Biden’s climate plan is his emphasis on union manufacturing jobs, which he claims will be building the promised 60,000 wind turbines and other Green infrastructure. No doubt he’s attempting to undo his gaffe last December when he admitted that he would pursue his climate policies even if they eliminate blue-collar jobs – which they will. Unmentioned in Biden’s presentation is that the manufacturing necessary for his “revolution” — where he also proposes 500 million solar panels in five years — is impossible without fossil fuels and a lot of mining needed to produce electric cars, turbines, and solar panels.
Then, Biden commits to “eliminating carbon pollution” (that descriptor, again) from power plants by 2035, as though he can substitute fossil fuels with something else by then.
Joe Biden’s has been a Washington, D.C. fixture since he became a U.S. senator from Delaware in 1973 at the age of 30, the legal minimum age pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Biden’s long career has basically followed the Democratic Party’s issue direction. For example, he embraced then-President Clinton’s tough-on-crime stance in the 1990’s, which Biden has since back peddled to reflect his Party’s shift; and he supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002, where most the Democratic leadership in the Senate stood. As Vice President, the Obama administration supported hydro fracturing for natural gas; now Biden opposes it to reflect growing forces in his Party that have long hated fracking.
Since the Democratic billionaire donor class of Green activists, including George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, have made their climate agenda an essential plank for the Party, Biden is there, too. More so, Biden has become a Trojan horse for climate true believers like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Cong. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who he put on his climate change panel, and whose policies he promises to implement.
The November election is a fork in the road for America on many issues. Among them will be whether we commit as a nation to borrow and spend trillions of dollars to attempt to alter the average global temperature, with all its concomitant impact on jobs, the economy and living standards.
Americans have 100 or so days to decide.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-22--Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ plan hits reset button on Socialism

Al Gore , John Kerry , Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , along with influential socialist United Nations cohorts , are leveraging COVID-19 chaos to advance a transformational “ Great Reset ” of capitalism .
Climbing aboard the movement , Joe Biden ’ s campaign recently rolled out a new “ Build Back Better ” sloganeering bromide that may have already sounded familiar .
Approximately three months earlier , on April 22 , the U.N. announced , “ As the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery , the United Nations is calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ build back better ” by creating more sustainable , resilient and inclusive societies.
” U.N .
Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa further explained , “ With this restart , a window of hope and opportunity opens… an opportunity for nations to green their recovery packages and shape the 21st century economy in ways that are clean , green , healthy , safe and more resilient.
” In June , a meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) attended by some of the planet ’ s most powerful government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change alarmism and coronavirus pandemic disruption to implement an expansively radical plan to establish increasingly socialist policies including global wealth taxes , aggressive social justice regulations , and massive Green New Deal-like climate-premised anti-fossil fuel government programs .
Participants at WEF ’ s virtual internet event included Prince Charles , one of the plan ’ s primary proponents ; Gina Gopinath , chief economist at the International Monetary Fund ; U.N. Secretary General António Guterres ; CEOs and presidents of major international corporations , such as Microsoft , Mastercard and BP ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist groups .
As articulated by WEF ’ s Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab , “ Every country , from the United States to China , must participate , and every industry , from oil and gas to tech , must be transformed .
.
.
In short , we need a ‘ Great Reset ’ of capitalism.
” Schwab emphasized that “ all aspects of our societies and economies ” must be “ revamped , from education to social contracts and working conditions.
” The Great Reset proposes policies that closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sen. Sanders , Rep. Ocasio-Cortez , and other prominent American supporters .
Referring to the coronavirus pandemic , Prince Charles told WEF meeting attendees , “ We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change.
” Prince Charles later added , “ It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.
” “ The threat of climate change has been more gradual [ than COVID-19 ] — but its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their livelihoods around the world , and its ever greater potential to disrupt , surpasses even that of Covid-19 , ” he said .
WEF plans to follow up the June meeting with another in 2021 that will promote and coordinate their agenda with a large youth activist organization called the “ Global Shapers Community ” ( GSC ) with chapters in 400 cities around the world .
GSC , in turn , has close ties to Al Gore ’ s “ Climate Reality Project , ” which has already trained more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gore , who also serves on WEF ’ s Board of Trustees , has a vast network of climate activists of his own — the “ Climate Reality Leadership Corps.
” Although Gore didn ’ t attend the June WEF meeting , he strongly endorsed the Great Reset during a June 19 interview with NBC ’ s “ Today.
” John Kerry , who did attend the meeting , has joined WEF in leveraging the coronavirus crisis as an opportunity to advance Green New Deal policies .
“ This is a big moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Economic Forum .
.
.
is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.
” Kerry , along with self-described socialist Rep. Ocasio-Cortez , has co-chaired presidential candidate Joe Biden ’ s climate change “ Unity Task Force , ” one of several such task forces created to reshape the policy platforms for Biden and the Democratic Party in 2020 and beyond .
Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speculate that Kerry will serve on the new administration ’ s transition team .
This would enable him to exert substantial influence on the Biden agenda and helping him choose cabinet members .
Gore and Kerry amalgamation of Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez socialist Green New Deal with WEF Great Reset efforts — all packaged together as build back better mantra — poses enormously ominous prospects for America .
The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force arrived at a far-left Democratic Party policy platform that incorporates a commitment to eliminating “ carbon pollution ” from power plants by 2035 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the entire country by 2050 .
The plan calls for humongous expenditures in renewable energy , including installing 500 million solar panels and manufacturing 60,000 wind turbines .
“ The Unity Task Force urges that we treat climate change like the emergency that it is and answer the crisis with an ambitious , unprecedented , economy-wide mobilization to decarbonize the economy and build a resilient , stronger foundation for the American people , ” the document says .
Please be very aware that “ build back better ” is much more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Remember where it came from , what it really means , who is promoting it , and where it will take America .
It ’ s not to a place that we should ever wish to go .

Al Gore, John Kerry, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., along with influential socialist United Nations cohorts, are leveraging COVID-19 chaos to advance a transformational “Great Reset” of capitalism.
Climbing aboard the movement, Joe Biden’s campaign recently rolled out a new “Build Back Better” sloganeering bromide that may have already sounded familiar.
Approximately three months earlier, on April 22, the U.N. announced, “As the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery, the United Nations is calling on Governments to seize the opportunity to “build back better” by creating more sustainable, resilient and inclusive societies.”
U.N. Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa further explained, “With this restart, a window of hope and opportunity opens… an opportunity for nations to green their recovery packages and shape the 21st century economy in ways that are clean, green, healthy, safe and more resilient.”
In June, a meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) attended by some of the planet’s most powerful government officials and business leaders called upon using climate change alarmism and coronavirus pandemic disruption to implement an expansively radical plan to establish increasingly socialist policies including global wealth taxes, aggressive social justice regulations, and massive Green New Deal-like climate-premised anti-fossil fuel government programs.
Participants at WEF’s virtual internet event included Prince Charles, one of the plan’s primary proponents; Gina Gopinath, chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; U.N. Secretary General António Guterres; CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft, Mastercard and BP; and representatives from Greenpeace International and other activist groups.
As articulated by WEF’s Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab, “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. . . In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
Schwab emphasized that “all aspects of our societies and economies” must be “revamped, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
The Great Reset proposes policies that closely follow the Green New Deal plan advocated by Sen. Sanders, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, and other prominent American supporters.
Referring to the coronavirus pandemic, Prince Charles told WEF meeting attendees, “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change.”
Prince Charles later added, “It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”
“The threat of climate change has been more gradual [than COVID-19] — but its’ devastating reality for many people and their livelihoods around the world, and its ever greater potential to disrupt, surpasses even that of Covid-19,” he said.
WEF plans to follow up the June meeting with another in 2021 that will promote and coordinate their agenda with a large youth activist organization called the “Global Shapers Community” (GSC) with chapters in 400 cities around the world.
GSC, in turn, has close ties to Al Gore’s “Climate Reality Project,” which has already trained more than 1,300 global shapers in climate activism. Gore, who also serves on WEF’s Board of Trustees, has a vast network of climate activists of his own — the “Climate Reality Leadership Corps.”
His organization launched highly publicized world-wide “climate strikes” last year.
Although Gore didn’t attend the June WEF meeting, he strongly endorsed the Great Reset during a June 19 interview with NBC’s “Today.”
John Kerry, who did attend the meeting, has joined WEF in leveraging the coronavirus crisis as an opportunity to advance Green New Deal policies.
“This is a big moment,” Kerry said. “The World Economic Forum . . . is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”
Kerry, along with self-described socialist Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, has co-chaired presidential candidate Joe Biden’s climate change “Unity Task Force,” one of several such task forces created to reshape the policy platforms for Biden and the Democratic Party in 2020 and beyond.
Should Biden capture the White House, many speculate that Kerry will serve on the new administration’s transition team. This would enable him to exert substantial influence on the Biden agenda and helping him choose cabinet members.
Gore and Kerry amalgamation of Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez socialist Green New Deal with WEF Great Reset efforts — all packaged together as build back better mantra — poses enormously ominous prospects for America.
The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force arrived at a far-left Democratic Party policy platform that incorporates a commitment to eliminating “carbon pollution” from power plants by 2035, and zeroing out net greenhouse emissions across the entire country by 2050. The plan calls for humongous expenditures in renewable energy, including installing 500 million solar panels and manufacturing 60,000 wind turbines.
“The Unity Task Force urges that we treat climate change like the emergency that it is and answer the crisis with an ambitious, unprecedented, economy-wide mobilization to decarbonize the economy and build a resilient, stronger foundation for the American people,” the document says.
Please be very aware that “build back better” is much more than simply another empty, mindless campaign slogan. Remember where it came from, what it really means, who is promoting it, and where it will take America.
It’s not to a place that we should ever wish to go.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-22--CFACT submission on reform of regulations on migratory birds

Official Comment to the U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS ) From : The Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow Title : For EIS No .
20200117 , Draft , USFWS , REG , Regulations Governing Take of Migratory Birds I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the U.S .
Fish & Wildlife Service ’ s ( Service ) proposed regulation ( HQ MB-2018-0090-8411 ) pertaining to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ( MBTR ) .
In its proposed rulemaking , the Service points to the “ potential for a convoluted patchwork of legal standards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying law.
” There is more than “ potential ” at work here ; the convoluted patchwork already exists and is sowing confusion and uncertainty among entities subject to the MBTA .
The proposed rule correctly states that the MBTA is a national law covering companies and projects with potential liability that operate across boundary lines of judicial circuits , some of which have issued conflicting opinions on the scope of the MBTA .
Hence , it is imperative to codify and apply a uniform interpretation of the MBTA stating that its interpretations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation .
This can most effectively be achieved by limiting the scope of the MBTA to actions that are directed against migratory birds , their nests , or their eggs , and by clarifying that injury to or mortality of migratory birds that results from , but is not the purpose of , an action ( i.e.
, incidental taking or killing ) is not prohibited by the MBTA .
Inconsistency and uncertainty built into the current MBTA enforcement regime mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or oil and gas drilling site pose an inherent risk of incidental take .
The proposed rule , as written , addresses this intolerable situation in a constructive manner and , in so doing , reduces the prospects for protracted and pointless litigation .
Thank you very much .
Bonner R. Cohen , Ph .
D. , Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow .

Official Comment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
From: The Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow
By: Bonner Cohen Ph.D.
Title: For EIS No. 20200117, Draft, USFWS, REG, Regulations Governing Take of Migratory Birds
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposed regulation (HQ MB-2018-0090-8411) pertaining to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTR). In its proposed rulemaking, the Service points to the “potential for a convoluted patchwork of legal standards, all purporting to apply to the same underlying law.”
There is more than “potential” at work here; the convoluted patchwork already exists and is sowing confusion and uncertainty among entities subject to the MBTA. The proposed rule correctly states that the MBTA is a national law covering companies and projects with potential liability that operate across boundary lines of judicial circuits, some of which have issued conflicting opinions on the scope of the MBTA. Hence, it is imperative to codify and apply a uniform interpretation of the MBTA stating that its interpretations do not apply to incidental take, based on the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation. This can most effectively be achieved by limiting the scope of the MBTA to actions that are directed against migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs, and by clarifying that injury to or mortality of migratory birds that results from, but is not the purpose of, an action (i.e., incidental taking or killing) is not prohibited by the MBTA. Inconsistency and uncertainty built into the current MBTA enforcement regime mean that owning and operating a power line or oil and gas drilling site pose an inherent risk of incidental take.
The proposed rule, as written, addresses this intolerable situation in a constructive manner and, in so doing, reduces the prospects for protracted and pointless litigation. Thank you very much. Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-22--The Shellenberger Chronicles chronicles part two: Protecting the planet intelligently

If you read Part One of this series of articles still appearing at cfact.org on the shocking reversal of one of the nation ’ s leading global warming and environmental alarmists you know that his new book Apocalypse Never released this June is receiving immense well warranted attention .
Michael Shellenberger spent a quarter century scaring people with the gloom and doom stories you know so well .
Somewhere along the way , in recent years , he must have learned of the scientific method of evaluating data , to learn what was really going on .
He also learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups .
While I fault him for his earlier mistakes , I welcome him into the realm of reality , teaching science and its impact on mankind .
He set about seeing the real problems of the world up close and personal traveling from place to place .
He learned that the apocalypse promotion of the left was a political movement not an effort to solve the Earth ’ s problems or the unfortunate plight of those mired in poverty .
We know many years ago Patrick Moore , co-founder of Greenpeace recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left and became a great warrior for real environmental protection .
We know that recently leftist Michael Moore did us a great favor with his movie Planet For The Humans exposing the fraud of the idea that the world could run on wind and solar power .
It is possible that Mr. Shellenberger ’ s conversion to the right side of science and his widely quoted “ mea culpa ” for past sins for promoting misinformation , will be an even more important contribution to our nation and those abroad .
I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of environmentalists everywhere , I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years .
Climate change is happening .
It ’ s just not the end of the world .
It ’ s not even our most serious environmental problem ” , said Shellenberger .
It would have been even better had he revealed that Mankind has nothing to do with the planet ’ s thermostat .
He is not there yet , along with the many Luke warmers who , though they can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the world ’ s temperature , they refuse to default to the most relevant number which is zero .
Further Shellenberger says “ Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been , often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations , it is hard not to feel duped.
” Among the best worded explanations for what the world has experienced in these past three decades of environmental fraud is expressed in a paragraph early in his 6th chapter .
“ The story of a small band of committed nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is the story we learn from TV and movie documentaries , books , and news reports .
It is an exciting drama with obvious heroes and villains .
On the one side there are greedy , cowardly people destroying nature for profit , and on the other side there are idealistic , brave youths .
It is a story that has inspired millions to take action .
The only problem with it as a guide for protecting the environment is that nearly everything about it is wrong.
” In Apocalypse Never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretenders , exposing their ignorance and lies , while being kinder to them than many of us would be .
Shellenberger , with unknown financing , decided to see the environment up close and personal in 2015 .
First he traveled to Congo , Rwanda and Uganda before going to Indonesia .
There he met a 24 year old Indonesian journalist who went by the name of Ipeh .
She set up interviews with factory workers who told a very different story about the difficult working conditions screamed about in opposition to Nike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very important roles in lifting the economy and standard of living in Indonesia .
History tells us that most developing economies transformed themselves through manufacturing .
Poor nations can become as efficient as rich nations in making things .
Goods made in factories are easy to sell .
Factories are labor intensive which allow them to absorb large numbers of unskilled workers .
It all ties back to energy Shellenberger tells us with interesting statistics .
The average Congolese consumes the energy equivalent of 1.1 kilograms of oil per day ( 1.1kg/day ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.5 kg/day .
In the US we consume 19 kg/day .
Contrary to what many believe Shellenberger learned that the positive impacts of manufacturing outweigh the negatives .
He says we should thus feel pride not guilt when buying products made in these countries .
Shellenberger got very comfortable exposing misinformation if not out and out frauds .
These include the movie Gasland that tried to show hydraulic fracturing to capture natural gas to be hazardous , entirely through lies .
More gently he admitted to having been a vegetarian for environmental reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to environmental welfare and having less energy in the bargain .
Better yet was his exposure of the vegans who dwell on poor treatment of animals and erroneously claim negative impacts of eating meat .
The authors research on this issue is meticulous .
How many readers would ever have known that McDonalds hired the world renowned animal behaviorist Temple Grandin to advise them on how to treat animals in a manner that makes them most relaxed and happy , because happy animals also grow healthier .
One of the few areas Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist ’ s career was his opposition to nuclear energy .
In a brilliant 30 page chapter of his book he summarizes where the world has been on the issue , where it is now and where it should be .
He opens the chapter with the March 11 , 2011 Fukushima disaster .
Hours later I was called to a CNN TV studio to explain what really happened and what would happen .
I had just edited The Encyclopedia of Nuclear Energy introduced that month by publisher John Wiley & Sons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ currents and the amount of escaping radiation no one should be sickened or die from the radiation I was paired with an anti-nuke person on 23 network TV shows in the next 3 weeks .
I got hate mail and death threats for the next 3 years .
I am sure my readers remember the fear spewed out over it for years .
You may not know that no one got radiation sickness or died .
However as a result of moving elderly sick people miles away from their homes near Fukishima it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occur .
Shellenberger now has an understanding of the wonders of nuclear power clear and accurate with the exception he like most still believe eventually fusion of atoms will become a source of commercial energy .
Einstein , who I knew at Princeton , thought it was 50 years away in 1954 .
It is still 50 years away and unlikely ever to be achieved .
In the final part of this chronical of Shellenberger work in recent years , you will learn of the truly evil web woven by the most prominent @ @ @ @ @

If you read Part One of this series of articles still appearing at cfact.org on the shocking reversal of one of the nation’s leading global warming and environmental alarmists you know that his new book Apocalypse Never released this June is receiving immense well warranted attention. Michael Shellenberger spent a quarter century scaring people with the gloom and doom stories you know so well. Somewhere along the way, in recent years, he must have learned of the scientific method of evaluating data, to learn what was really going on. He also learned of the intentional duplicity of most green groups.
While I fault him for his earlier mistakes, I welcome him into the realm of reality, teaching science and its impact on mankind. He set about seeing the real problems of the world up close and personal traveling from place to place. He learned that the apocalypse promotion of the left was a political movement not an effort to solve the Earth’s problems or the unfortunate plight of those mired in poverty.
We know many years ago Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace recognized his organization had been hi-jacked by the left and became a great warrior for real environmental protection. We know that recently leftist Michael Moore did us a great favor with his movie Planet For The Humans exposing the fraud of the idea that the world could run on wind and solar power. It is possible that Mr. Shellenberger’s conversion to the right side of science and his widely quoted “mea culpa” for past sins for promoting misinformation, will be an even more important contribution to our nation and those abroad.
I will quote it again here “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem”, said Shellenberger.
It would have been even better had he revealed that Mankind has nothing to do with the planet’s thermostat. He is not there yet, along with the many Luke warmers who, though they can not pin down any real impact we have on the world’s temperature, they refuse to default to the most relevant number which is zero.
Further Shellenberger says “Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.” Among the best worded explanations for what the world has experienced in these past three decades of environmental fraud is expressed in a paragraph early in his 6th chapter.
“The story of a small band of committed nature lovers saving the environment appeals to us. It is the story we learn from TV and movie documentaries, books, and news reports. It is an exciting drama with obvious heroes and villains. On the one side there are greedy, cowardly people destroying nature for profit, and on the other side there are idealistic, brave youths. It is a story that has inspired millions to take action. The only problem with it as a guide for protecting the environment is that nearly everything about it is wrong.”
In Apocalypse Never, he spares none of the do-gooder pretenders, exposing their ignorance and lies, while being kinder to them than many of us would be.
Shellenberger, with unknown financing, decided to see the environment up close and personal in 2015. First he traveled to Congo, Rwanda and Uganda before going to Indonesia. There he met a 24 year old Indonesian journalist who went by the name of Ipeh. She set up interviews with factory workers who told a very different story about the difficult working conditions screamed about in opposition to Nike in the US. These factories played very important roles in lifting the economy and standard of living in Indonesia. History tells us that most developing economies transformed themselves through manufacturing.
Poor nations can become as efficient as rich nations in making things. Goods made in factories are easy to sell. Factories are labor intensive which allow them to absorb large numbers of unskilled workers.
It all ties back to energy Shellenberger tells us with interesting statistics. The average Congolese consumes the energy equivalent of 1.1 kilograms of oil per day (1.1kg/day), while the average Indonesian now consumes 2.5 kg/day. In the US we consume 19 kg/day.
Contrary to what many believe Shellenberger learned that the positive impacts of manufacturing outweigh the negatives. He says we should thus feel pride not guilt when buying products made in these countries.
Shellenberger got very comfortable exposing misinformation if not out and out frauds. These include the movie Gasland that tried to show hydraulic fracturing to capture natural gas to be hazardous, entirely through lies. More gently he admitted to having been a vegetarian for environmental reasons till he learned he was contributing nothing to environmental welfare and having less energy in the bargain. Better yet was his exposure of the vegans who dwell on poor treatment of animals and erroneously claim negative impacts of eating meat. The authors research on this issue is meticulous.
How many readers would ever have known that McDonalds hired the world renowned animal behaviorist Temple Grandin to advise them on how to treat animals in a manner that makes them most relaxed and happy, because happy animals also grow healthier.
One of the few areas Mr. Shellenberger capitulated on early in his environmental activist’s career was his opposition to nuclear energy. In a brilliant 30 page chapter of his book he summarizes where the world has been on the issue, where it is now and where it should be. He opens the chapter with the March 11, 2011 Fukushima disaster. Hours later I was called to a CNN TV studio to explain what really happened and what would happen. I had just edited The Encyclopedia of Nuclear Energy introduced that month by publisher John Wiley &Sons.
When I explained that due to wind currents and the amount of escaping radiation no one should be sickened or die from the radiation, I was paired with an anti-nuke person on 23 network TV shows in the next 3 weeks. I got hate mail and death threats for the next 3 years. I am sure my readers remember the fear spewed out over it for years. You may not know that no one got radiation sickness or died. However as a result of moving elderly sick people miles away from their homes near Fukishima it is estimated that 1600 premature deaths did occur.
Shellenberger now has an understanding of the wonders of nuclear power clear and accurate. The exception he, like most, still believes eventually fusion of atoms will become a source of commercial energy. Einstein, who I knew at Princeton, thought it was 50 years away in 1954. It is still 50 years away and unlikely ever to be achieved.
In the final part of this chronical of Shellenberger work in recent years, you will learn of the truly evil web woven by the most prominent environmental non profit groups.