committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-04--It’s the nonsense, not the climate, that is reaching extremes

So feast your eyes on this : Is this a Monty Python skit or something ?
I can not figure out how the usual suspects don ’ t stop and say , wait a minute , maybe I should look and make sure that there is not a counter argument .
It is because they do not care a lick about that , they care about getting a message out that at the least should be questioned and most likely is just a means to a political end .
So we have the usual suspects promoting Laura as why we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first of all , this crowd is like someone who hides , never makes a forecast , then comes out of the woods when the obvious is happening .
No different than the out of shape fan that thinks he could play the game if he had gotten the breaks .
In terms of extreme events , that ’ s what these people are .
Oblivious like many fans to the amount of work a pro athlete actually has to do , ( or the ultimate insult , believing they are in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heroes .
If it is a war , it ’ s a phony one ) they are know little about the many things going on that lead to what they try to use as examples of why they know better and we should all bow down and follow them .
Now here is my first question : Why is it , April 7th , did a known skeptic as to whether co2 is now the climate control knob , moi ( that is very different from saying it has nothing to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things must be looked at , but it ’ s a question of attribution ) put out this map OUTLINING HOW THIS SEASON WOULD TURN OUT , INCLUDING IN CLOSE DEVELOPMENT !
( note the blue is major hurricane Laura ) .
Where were any of these people , not with numbers of storms ( who cares if they are out in the middle of nowhere ) , but showing the why before the what of the season ?
( no co2 btw was used in the development of this forecast ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever but how strong they may get or where they may go is what is important .
So let me ask this 2cnd question , as I did in a previous blog , did any of these people simply look at the phase of the MJO , IN THE SAME PHASE AS THE RAPID IN CLOSE DEVELOPERS HARVEY AND MICHAEL ?
Why did it take 11 days for Laura to come across before “ exploding ” the way it did ?
How come not faster , like some of the major long tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How is it that this decade is tied for least major hurricane hits of any decade in NHC records since the early 1900s .
The 1970s and 1980s had 4 each , which is where we are this decade .
Some storms mentioned in the article : Florence .
Why DID IT WEAKEN FROM A MAJOR TO A CAT 1 ?
It slowed down , water upwelled , the upward motion pattern in the western Atlantic became less favorable , and surface pressures were lower than average over much of North America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming , but some had negative affects on the storm .
How about Katrina , why did it not hit as a 5 as Camille did in 1969 ?
The point is it weakened , hitting as a 3 .
And by the way the aforementioned Camille in 1969 took 11 days like Laura to cross the ocean , then exploded into a cat 5 , outdoing Laura by a whole category .
Camille ranks 2cnd strongest SLP ( 1969 ) .
The 1935 Labor day hurricane , another storm that exploded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lowest pressure ever record on land in western hemisphere .
Celia 1970 , the last 24 hours into Corpus Christi went from a 1 to a borderline 4 .
I can go on and on , but I doubt any of the Green new Dealers know anything about these .
As far as this statement from the article : “ That kind of rapid intensification — to use the scientific term for it — used to be rare .
In recent years , it has become more common .
And that change is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is… affecting hurricanes , ” reports the Times .
The person has not looked or simply accepted what they are being told .
More cat 4 and 5 storms ?
We are seeing more out at sea .
How is it the decades of the 30-60s averaged 9 major hits/decade .
The last 3 in the warm era , around 6 ?
You don ’ t think if we had the kind of satellite and recon we do today there would not have been stronger storms see ?
.
What is it magic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their peak , none of them weakened ?
( we did not have the kind of recon we do now , and besides , planes were doing other things in 1944 , like defending our way of life . )
In fact the 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was the first time recon was used on a storm !
What about all the storms before ?
The plane sustained much structural damage .
It was 1 of 2 MAJOR HURRICANES to hit the US in 1944 , by the way , the other being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to as becoming more common in the article .
In fact , this phenomena was taught to us at Penn State in the NINETEEN SEVENTIES !
Notice the 1944 Great Atlantic track , how it bent to the northwest and the storm intensified : Look at the one that hit later in the season , The bend and then the rapid intensification : Hurricane Michael , bend to the northwest and intensification follows : Why ?
Because one of the known rapid intensification parameters is when a tropical feature “ busts ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the track , and once it gets through it is under the anticyclone that is a known to any hurricane follower for intensification .
The storm can ripped apart by the trough , but if it makes it thru look out .
Its like a tailback busting an 8 man front , its on its way .
This is nothing new .
It has been happening since we were observing these storms .
But when people want to push an agenda , they decide to make their point , they will not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people don ’ t have the time to research these things .
So then they push their conclusion , we need the green new to save us .
What is the goal to go back to 9 hits a decade when co2 was much lower ?
Laura was 17th strongest SLP wise .
I don ’ t think it is in a New Years bowl if there is one for hurricanes .
But it is part and parcel of the pattern we identified back in March and April and should surprise no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1935 Celia , and the list can go on and on are long tracked waves that for 90 % of their lives DID NOT have conditions favorable , and then wound up in the right place at the right time for intensification .
But that is nature , not man , or anything man can correct .
Here is another thing .
One of the metrics we look at to judge intensity is the ACE index : The measure of total seasonal activity used by NOAA is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy ( ACE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storms this year with a total ACE/storm , which tells us how much total wind energy the storm is producing OF 3 PER STORM !
Now I want you to look at this chart of the top 10 total ACE seasons , with my rough calculations at the right of ACE/storm .
Chart from Wikipedia , with my calculations ( some rounded ) Lets look at the years in ranking .
1926,1893,1961,2004 , tie 2017,1950,1933,1998,1995,2005 Now lets take the 5 in the pre AGW ERA ( started in 1988 when James Hansen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing telling us all how the earth was burning up .
The average of the 5 that occurred when co2 was much lower was .
16.4 The top 5 of the modern era ?
12.4 .
Only ONE of the top 5 in the modern AGW era exceeded the average of the pre AGW era .
What can we conclude ?
• There were more storms before , we didn ’ t see them , so the numbers are skewed up .
But then again maybe if we did see them , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see how strong , how long they were • We are naming more storms now than we were before because we see them .
This year is so classic , and such a thumb in the eye of the storms are getting stronger crowd , as we are averaging a laughable 3/storm • Storms were stronger before , no matter what the number • You cant simply conclude , when there is competing evidence to the contrary , that storms are getting stronger now • These people that push this obviously don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at the very least , they would let you know about the opposite argument .
( which of course is a mark of free , open minded debate ) • Above all , who cares unless they are hitting with more ferocity , which they are not .
If we use 3,4,5 and create an impact scale based on the total category at landfall , this decade has 17 .
1891-1900 : 27 1911-1920 .
27 .
1921-1930 20 .
Now watch this : 1931-1940 28 .
1941-1950 34 .
1951-1960 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what has happened this decade .
Even the vaunted 2001-2010 decade with 22 does not rank In the pre AGW top 5 and the previous decade is at 20 .
All of this is linked to the warm cycle of the Atlantic btw which in this current cycle , which started in the mid 90s , has not mustered a competitive decade to multiple decades before Now I am going to give you an example of something I have never seen , but I have to look more .
I am using this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majesty of the weather lends it to swings all the time , if one just looks .
I have been tweeting about this for a week , the double hit of typhoons within 4 days not only on the South Korean coast , but very close to the city of Busan which has almost 3.5 million people living in it .
That is about 8 times the size of New Orleans .
The first one passed just to their west .
The second may pass just to their east .
But have we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
No .
Why ?
BECAUSE THEY DON ’ T LOOK OR CARE ABOUT IT TILL IT HAPPENS , BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN USE IT .
So what I love to do is put it out there way in advance , then wait and see who will use it first .
Its why I keep showing our map from the pre- season .
They draw attention to a forecast that they had no idea was out there , explaining what they were going to see , before they even saw it !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out !
Cause everytime they say something , I can point back to a forecast that said this is what to look for and its all using natural ideas .
But they don ’ t really care about anything except whatever their agenda can use .
But here I am “ feeding ” them extreme information , but even that is a trap for them .
How so ?
Because while we saw this double shot of typhoon madness , there are 2 factors that must be considered .
1 ) Both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their peak intensity ( which has been happening a lot in the warm era in Asia and the US , opposite of what you are being led to believe ) .
So I can counter there .
2 ) .
The western Pacific is on pace for a record low ACE season .
There lowest on record is 109 .
The average is a bit over 300 .
To put that in perspective , its 3 times more active on average than the Atlantic basin .
And as mentioned many times , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NAMED STORMS , the ace index per storm is a top 5 lowest on record , at 3 per storm .
While I have you here , might as well talk other extremes .
California is frying and there are likely to be more rolling blackouts as the heat rolls on .
But a record cold event is likely to happen early next week in the rockies and plains ( this week if you are reading this on Sunday , I am writing this Thursday night ) Denver , which is legendary for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its greatest ever .
This is a tool we show at Weatherbell.com called a meteogram .
It has highs , lows , precip .
, snow .
It has a high near 100 on Sunday , then 7 inches of snow Tue pm into Wed with temps in the 30s .
Goes from 15-20 above normal to .
40-45 below normal .
I added both of those things just in case more articles show up on all these matters .
They are there to see and if one knows what nature is capable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen and why , sometimes , it does .
And by the way , If you LOVE the weather try out site out .
Seriously .
My real passion is weather , its just that I use climate to help me , but on our site its weather , Weather , weather , with all sorts of great maps so you can see this stuff coming ( and get opinions on it ) .
I normally don ’ t put in plugs , but love knows no bounds and our site on Weatherbell.com @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I talk a lot of weather there , and want to show you some linkage here .
You know what , its getting so when they open their mouth , I just link to about 5 blogs I have done rather than curing insomnia with long boring stories like this , though I love to tell them .

So feast your eyes on this:
https://theusawire.com/2020/08/27608-democrats-ride-hurricane-laura-to-green-new-deal/
Is this a Monty Python skit or something? I cannot figure out how the usual suspects don’t stop and say, wait a minute, maybe I should look and make sure that there is not a counter argument. It is because they do not care a lick about that, they care about getting a message out that at the least should be questioned and most likely is just a means to a political end.
So we have the usual suspects promoting Laura as why we need the new Green Deal.
Now first of all, this crowd is like someone who hides, never makes a forecast, then comes out of the woods when the obvious is happening. No different than the out of shape fan that thinks he could play the game if he had gotten the breaks. In terms of extreme events, that’s what these people are. Oblivious like many fans to the amount of work a pro athlete actually has to do, (or the ultimate insult, believing they are in some kind of war and they are the heroes. If it is a war, it’s a phony one) they are know little about the many things going on that lead to what they try to use as examples of why they know better and we should all bow down and follow them.
Now here is my first question: Why is it, April 7th, did a known skeptic as to whether co2 is now the climate control knob, moi ( that is very different from saying it has nothing to do with anything, in a linked atmosphere all things must be looked at, but it’s a question of attribution) put out this map OUTLINING HOW THIS SEASON WOULD TURN OUT, INCLUDING IN CLOSE DEVELOPMENT! (note the blue is major hurricane Laura).
Where were any of these people, not with numbers of storms (who cares if they are out in the middle of nowhere),but showing the why before the what of the season? (no co2 btw was used in the development of this forecast). Anyone can say, 20 storms or whatever but how strong they may get or where they may go is what is important.
So let me ask this 2cnd question, as I did in a previous blog, did any of these people simply look at the phase of the MJO, IN THE SAME PHASE AS THE RAPID IN CLOSE DEVELOPERS HARVEY AND MICHAEL? Why did it take 11 days for Laura to come across before “exploding” the way it did? How come not faster, like some of the major long tracked hurricanes of the past that are legendary.
How is it that this decade is tied for least major hurricane hits of any decade in NHC records since the early 1900s. The 1970s and 1980s had 4 each, which is where we are this decade.
Some storms mentioned in the article: Florence. Why DID IT WEAKEN FROM A MAJOR TO A CAT 1? It slowed down, water upwelled, the upward motion pattern in the western Atlantic became less favorable, and surface pressures were lower than average over much of North America. All may be indirectly linked to warming, but some had negative affects on the storm.
How about Katrina, why did it not hit as a 5 as Camille did in 1969? The point is it weakened, hitting as a 3. And by the way the aforementioned Camille in 1969 took 11 days like Laura to cross the ocean, then exploded into a cat 5, outdoing Laura by a whole category. Camille ranks 2cnd strongest SLP ( 1969). The 1935 Labor day hurricane, another storm that exploded in 36 hours, is first with the lowest pressure ever record on land in western hemisphere. Celia 1970, the last 24 hours into Corpus Christi went from a 1 to a borderline 4. I can go on and on, but I doubt any of the Green new Dealers know anything about these.
As far as this statement from the article:
“That kind of rapid intensification — to use the scientific term for it — used to be rare. In recent years, it has become more common. And that change is a useful summary of how climate change is… affecting hurricanes,” reports the Times.
The person has not looked or simply accepted what they are being told. More cat 4 and 5 storms? We are seeing more out at sea. How is it the decades of the 30-60s averaged 9 major hits/decade. The last 3 in the warm era, around 6? You don’t think if we had the kind of satellite and recon we do today there would not have been stronger storms see?. What is it magic that many of those storms hit near their peak, none of them weakened? (we did not have the kind of recon we do now, and besides, planes were doing other things in 1944, like defending our way of life. )In fact the 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was the first time recon was used on a storm! What about all the storms before? The plane sustained much structural damage. It was 1 of 2 MAJOR HURRICANES to hit the US in 1944, by the way, the other being one of those “rapid deepeners” referred to as becoming more common in the article. In fact, this phenomena was taught to us at Penn State in the NINETEEN SEVENTIES! Notice the 1944 Great Atlantic track, how it bent to the northwest and the storm intensified:
Look at the one that hit later in the season,
The bend and then the rapid intensification:
Dorian, bend then boom:
Andrew bend then boom:
Hurricane Michael, bend to the northwest and intensification follows:
Why? Because one of the known rapid intensification parameters is when a tropical feature “busts” thru a trough. The trough bends the track, and once it gets through it is under the anticyclone that is a known to any hurricane follower for intensification. The storm can ripped apart by the trough, but if it makes it thru look out. Its like a tailback busting an 8 man front, its on its way. This is nothing new. It has been happening since we were observing these storms. But when people want to push an agenda, they decide to make their point, they will not even bring up the counter, knowing most people don’t have the time to research these things. So then they push their conclusion, we need the green new to save us.
What is the goal to go back to 9 hits a decade when co2 was much lower?
Laura was 17th strongest SLP wise. I don’t think it is in a New Years bowl if there is one for hurricanes . But it is part and parcel of the pattern we identified back in March and April and should surprise no one.
Laura, Harvey, Camille, 1935 Celia, and the list can go on and on are long tracked waves that for 90% of their lives DID NOT have conditions favorable, and then wound up in the right place at the right time for intensification. But that is nature, not man, or anything man can correct.
Here is another thing. One of the metrics we look at to judge intensity is the ACE index:
The measure of total seasonal activity used by NOAA is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index.
We have had 15 storms this year with a total ACE/storm, which tells us how much total wind energy the storm is producing OF 3 PER STORM! Now I want you to look at this chart of the top 10 total ACE seasons, with my rough calculations at the right of ACE/storm.
Chart from Wikipedia, with my calculations( some rounded)
Lets look at the years in ranking. 1926,1893,1961,2004,tie 2017,1950,1933,1998,1995,2005
Now lets take the 5 in the pre AGW ERA ( started in 1988 when James Hansen, Al Gore, etc had their congressional hearing telling us all how the earth was burning up. The average of the 5 that occurred when co2 was much lower was. 16.4
The top 5 of the modern era? 12.4. Only ONE of the top 5 in the modern AGW era exceeded the average of the pre AGW era.
What can we conclude?
There were more storms before, we didn’t see them, so the numbers are skewed up. But then again maybe if we did see them, we would have had planes in them to see how strong, how long they were We are naming more storms now than we were before because we see them. This year is so classic, and such a thumb in the eye of the storms are getting stronger crowd, as we are averaging a laughable 3/storm Storms were stronger before, no matter what the number You cant simply conclude, when there is competing evidence to the contrary, that storms are getting stronger now These people that push this obviously don’t look at things like this, or at the very least, they would let you know about the opposite argument. (which of course is a mark of free, open minded debate) Above all, who cares unless they are hitting with more ferocity, which they are not. If we use 3,4,5 and create an impact scale based on the total category at landfall, this decade has 17. 1891-1900: 27 1911-1920. 27. 1921-1930 20. Now watch this: 1931-1940 28. 1941-1950 34. 1951-1960: 32 1961-1970 24. All those whipped what has happened this decade. Even the vaunted 2001-2010 decade with 22 does not rank In the pre AGW top 5 and the previous decade is at 20. All of this is linked to the warm cycle of the Atlantic btw which in this current cycle, which started in the mid 90s, has not mustered a competitive decade to multiple decades before
Now I am going to give you an example of something I have never seen, but I have to look more. I am using this to make a point about how the majesty of the weather lends it to swings all the time, if one just looks. I have been tweeting about this for a week, the double hit of typhoons within 4 days not only on the South Korean coast, but very close to the city of Busan which has almost 3.5 million people living in it. That is about 8 times the size of New Orleans. The first one passed just to their west. The second may pass just to their east. But have we heard boo from the climate alarmist about it? No. Why? BECAUSE THEY DON’T LOOK OR CARE ABOUT IT TILL IT HAPPENS, BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN USE IT. So what I love to do is put it out there way in advance, then wait and see who will use it first. Its why I keep showing our map from the pre- season. They draw attention to a forecast that they had no idea was out there, explaining what they were going to see, before they even saw it! They help me to get my message out! Cause everytime they say something, I can point back to a forecast that said this is what to look for and its all using natural ideas. But they don’t really care about anything except whatever their agenda can use. But here I am “feeding” them extreme information, but even that is a trap for them. How so? Because while we saw this double shot of typhoon madness, there are 2 factors that must be considered. 1) Both of them would have hit much weaker than their peak intensity ( which has been happening a lot in the warm era in Asia and the US, opposite of what you are being led to believe). So I can counter there. 2). The western Pacific is on pace for a record low ACE season. There lowest on record is 109. The average is a bit over 300. To put that in perspective, its 3 times more active on average than the Atlantic basin. And as mentioned many times, while we are on pace for 20 plus NAMED STORMS, the ace index per storm is a top 5 lowest on record, at 3 per storm.
While I have you here, might as well talk other extremes. California is frying and there are likely to be more rolling blackouts as the heat rolls on. But a record cold event is likely to happen early next week in the rockies and plains (this week if you are reading this on Sunday, I am writing this Thursday night) Denver, which is legendary for weather flips, may have one of its greatest ever. This is a tool we show at Weatherbell.com called a meteogram. It has highs, lows, precip. , snow.
It has a high near 100 on Sunday, then 7 inches of snow Tue pm into Wed with temps in the 30s. Goes from 15-20 above normal to. 40-45 below normal.
I added both of those things just in case more articles show up on all these matters. They are there to see and if one knows what nature is capable of, one understands why it CAN happen and why, sometimes, it does.
And by the way, If you LOVE the weather try out site out. Seriously. My real passion is weather, its just that I use climate to help me, but on our site its weather, Weather, weather, with all sorts of great maps so you can see this stuff coming (and get opinions on it). I normally don’t put in plugs, but love knows no bounds and our site on Weatherbell.com is for the Love of the Weather. And I talk a lot of weather there, and want to show you some linkage here.
You know what, its getting so when they open their mouth, I just link to about 5 blogs I have done rather than curing insomnia with long boring stories like this, though I love to tell them.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-07--Pandemic exacerbates economic mismanagement in blue cities and states

The COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately infecting the already chronically ailing fiscal health of Democrat-run states and cities that are least positioned to recover any time soon , if at all .
Former New York state lieutenant governor Richard Ravitch , now a director of the Volcker Alliance , observed that budget ravages of the global financial crisis and years of fiscal denial in 2009 doesn ’ t compare with the toll that COVID-19 is inflicting on municipal finance because this time , revenue shortfall is horrific .
“ There ’ s an enormous loss of revenue going on , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will last.
” Massive business shutdowns and huge numbers of people either unemployed or working from home are draining operating budgets and prohibiting existing debt repayments from many vital revenue sources .
Included are sales , income , real estate and gasoline taxes , bridge and tunnel tolls , airport fees , and public transit fares .
After receiving a $ 3.9 billion federal bailout in May , New York City ’ s transit authority , the largest in the nation , is now seeking $ 12 billion more .
And New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raises , and new contracts -plus holding back one-fifth of payments that had been earmarked for local governments , health care , K-12 schools and higher education , transit systems , and payments to nonprofits contracted to provide foster care .
The multi-billion-dollar question now is how many municipal bond issuers — states , cities and others — won ’ t be able to repay investors .
By law , states can ’ t go into bankruptcy , although Arkansas defaulted on its debts in 1933 .
Last May , Fairfield , Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first city to declare bankruptcy since Detroit in 2013 .
Some states and cities are doing a lot better than others , and uncoincidentally , the winners and losers tended to occupy opposing sides of the partisan divide .
Barron ’ s asked Eaton Vance ( a major muni investor ) to prepare a comparative financial creditworthiness ranking of all 50 states based upon financial and economic data taken from the past fiscal year ending in June 2019 .
The assessments for each included debt levels , pension liabilities , health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vance then also provided some additional updated data to factor in projected influences of the COVID-19 period which included estimated budget shortfalls , unemployment rates and available rainy day funds .
Barron ’ s reported that despite the age of the basic data , the results closely tracked each state ’ s current bond ratings by Moody ’ s and S & P .
All eight of the top-ranked states had Republican governors .
In scoring order : Idaho had experienced strong revenue growth ; Wyoming had the largest rainy day fund ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget management ; Utah had strong historical job and population growth ; Nebraska had the lowest overall debt as percent of GDP ; North Dakota had strong reserves ; Tennessee had good operations and well-funded pensions ; and Iowa had a very low debt burden .
Virginia , with a Democrat governor , followed in ninth place thanks to a resilient economy bolstered by the second-largest federal employment base , with Minnesota , also Democrat , in 10th .
Farthest at the other end of the rankings are Democratic Illinois at the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Jersey .
Moody ’ s Investors Service analyst Ted Hampton attributes the Illinois triple-B-minus rating – the lowest investment grade – to the state ’ s large unfunded pension liabilities , a “ chronic unpaid bill backlog , ” and a pitifully small $ 4 million rainy day fund .
After recently borrowing $ 1.2 billion from the Federal Reserve , Illinois has received authorization to borrow $ 5 billion more .
I previously wrote about the state ’ s long-standing fiscal fiascos in my May 6 column .
Similarly , runner-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , New Jersey , has one of the country ’ s worst-funded state retirement plan liabilities .
In addition , the state ’ s $ 421 million rainy day fund – just one percent of its annual revenue – pales in comparison with number one ranked Idaho ’ s at 11.5 % .
Following Illinois and New Jersey ( worst to better ) , are Democrat-run Kentucky ( poorly funded pensions ) , Pennsylvania ( weak reserves and employment ) , Rhode Island ( weak reserves and large pension obligations ) , Connecticut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Louisiana ( weak economy but strong pre-pandemic performance ) .
Moody ’ s has slapped negative outlooks on muni ratings for four Democrat-run cities since the pandemic began .
Las Vegas ( rated double-A ) and Honolulu ( rated double-A-plus ) were both hit by losses to tourism .
San Francisco ( triple-A ) and New York ( double-A-plus ) are experiencing deterioration of their tax bases as businesses and populations leave .
Add losses of businesses and tax revenues to disproportionately Democrat cities that are experiencing the nation ’ s worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most notable among these are Minneapolis , Manhattan , Portland , Ore. , Seattle , Chicago , Los Angeles , San Francisco , Philadelphia , and Washington , D.C. To be clear , America ’ s full recovery from covid shutdowns depends upon the economic health and social well-being of all states and cities irrespective of political governance which collectively contribute about 20 % of our nation ’ s gross domestic product .
Accordingly , we all have a huge stake in supporting constructive results of this effort .
Nevertheless , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do is shield states and cities from terrible consequences of their own bad budgetary decisions over past decades .
In fact , the opposite is true .
It ’ s irresponsible and reckless to take money from America ’ s taxpayers and use it to save generations of liberal politicians from the consequences of reckless spending .

The COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately infecting the already chronically ailing fiscal health of Democrat-run states and cities that are least positioned to recover any time soon, if at all.
Former New York state lieutenant governor Richard Ravitch, now a director of the Volcker Alliance, observed that budget ravages of the global financial crisis and years of fiscal denial in 2009 doesn’t compare with the toll that COVID-19 is inflicting on municipal finance because this time, revenue shortfall is horrific. “There’s an enormous loss of revenue going on, and we don’t know how long it will last.”
Massive business shutdowns and huge numbers of people either unemployed or working from home are draining operating budgets and prohibiting existing debt repayments from many vital revenue sources.
Included are sales, income, real estate and gasoline taxes, bridge and tunnel tolls, airport fees, and public transit fares.
After receiving a $3.9 billion federal bailout in May, New York City’s transit authority, the largest in the nation, is now seeking $12 billion more.
And New York state is freezing hiring, pay raises, and new contracts -plus holding back one-fifth of payments that had been earmarked for local governments, health care, K-12 schools and higher education, transit systems, and payments to nonprofits contracted to provide foster care.
The multi-billion-dollar question now is how many municipal bond issuers — states, cities and others — won’t be able to repay investors. By law, states can’t go into bankruptcy, although Arkansas defaulted on its debts in 1933.
Last May, Fairfield, Alabama, a suburb of Birmingham, became the first city to declare bankruptcy since Detroit in 2013.
Some states and cities are doing a lot better than others, and uncoincidentally, the winners and losers tended to occupy opposing sides of the partisan divide.
Barron’s asked Eaton Vance (a major muni investor) to prepare a comparative financial creditworthiness ranking of all 50 states based upon financial and economic data taken from the past fiscal year ending in June 2019.
The assessments for each included debt levels, pension liabilities, health care obligations, and economic metrics.
Eaton Vance then also provided some additional updated data to factor in projected influences of the COVID-19 period which included estimated budget shortfalls, unemployment rates and available rainy day funds.
Barron’s reported that despite the age of the basic data, the results closely tracked each state’s current bond ratings by Moody’s and S&P.
All eight of the top-ranked states had Republican governors.
In scoring order: Idaho had experienced strong revenue growth; Wyoming had the largest rainy day fund; South Dakota combined good reserves and strong budget management; Utah had strong historical job and population growth; Nebraska had the lowest overall debt as percent of GDP; North Dakota had strong reserves; Tennessee had good operations and well-funded pensions; and Iowa had a very low debt burden.
Virginia, with a Democrat governor, followed in ninth place thanks to a resilient economy bolstered by the second-largest federal employment base, with Minnesota, also Democrat, in 10th.
Farthest at the other end of the rankings are Democratic Illinois at the very bottom, along with second worst rated New Jersey.
Moody’s Investors Service analyst Ted Hampton attributes the Illinois triple-B-minus rating – the lowest investment grade – to the state’s large unfunded pension liabilities, a “chronic unpaid bill backlog,” and a pitifully small $4 million rainy day fund.
After recently borrowing $1.2 billion from the Federal Reserve, Illinois has received authorization to borrow $5 billion more. I previously wrote about the state’s long-standing fiscal fiascos in my May 6 column.
Similarly, runner-up for ranking of top fiscal mismanagement disaster, New Jersey, has one of the country’s worst-funded state retirement plan liabilities. In addition, the state’s $421 million rainy day fund – just one percent of its annual revenue – pales in comparison with number one ranked Idaho’s at 11.5%.
Following Illinois and New Jersey (worst to better), are Democrat-run Kentucky (poorly funded pensions), Pennsylvania (weak reserves and employment), Rhode Island (weak reserves and large pension obligations), Connecticut (highest debt per capita), and Louisiana (weak economy but strong pre-pandemic performance).
Moody’s has slapped negative outlooks on muni ratings for four Democrat-run cities since the pandemic began. Las Vegas (rated double-A) and Honolulu (rated double-A-plus) were both hit by losses to tourism. San Francisco (triple-A) and New York (double-A-plus) are experiencing deterioration of their tax bases as businesses and populations leave.
Add losses of businesses and tax revenues to disproportionately Democrat cities that are experiencing the nation’s worst riot and crime-plagued economic and social casualties. Most notable among these are Minneapolis, Manhattan, Portland, Ore., Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.
To be clear, America’s full recovery from covid shutdowns depends upon the economic health and social well-being of all states and cities irrespective of political governance which collectively contribute about 20% of our nation’s gross domestic product. Accordingly, we all have a huge stake in supporting constructive results of this effort.
Nevertheless, the one thing we cannot afford to do is shield states and cities from terrible consequences of their own bad budgetary decisions over past decades.
In fact, the opposite is true.
It’s irresponsible and reckless to take money from America’s taxpayers and use it to save generations of liberal politicians from the consequences of reckless spending.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-05--”Smart growth” harms minorities, rural America most

“ Smart Growth , ” a “ progressive ” approach to urban planning attributed to Jane Jacobs ( author of The Life and Death of Great American Cities ) and canonized by EPA Administrator Carol Browner in 1995 , was touted as a way to meld economic opportunity , environmental responsibility , and livable communities .
For decades , urban planners have championed “ smart growth ” as the way to develop infrastructure that will concentrate “ thought leaders ” to create “ sustainable and successful communities ” that are ( of course ) devoid of “ dirty ” factories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are bumpkins and suburbanites are desecrators of open space , while college graduates who live and work in dense urban spaces are the cream of society .
Today , however , a major side effect of “ smart growth ” has become a bugbear for the Green Left .
It turns out that “ smart growth , ” by concentrating construction in the center of metropolises , leads to health problems for the poorest in our cities .
Coupled with the decimation of rural America through policies that assaulted family farms and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industries and sent those jobs to China , the result has been an America out of balance .
For the past century , the U.S. saw people flock to major metropolitan areas in search of a better life .
Ever since the end of World War I , people responded to “ How You Gon na Keep ‘ Em on the Farm ” by moving rapidly to more glamourous big cities .
In 1920 , the nation ’ s ten largest cities had a combined ( non-metro ) population of just over 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just in the New York City metro area .
U.S. Census estimates from 2019 indicate that over 80 percent of Americans , or 260 million , live in urban metropolitan areas .
Over 80 million live in the ten largest metro areas .
It might be time to reverse that trend .
The underlying principle behind “ smart growth ” is urban infilling and the discouragement of suburban “ sprawl.
” Yet each new urban skyscraper contributes to “ urban heat islands , ” which the EPA describes as “ urbanized areas that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ The Sierra Club , however , argues that skyscrapers “ can create ‘ urban canyons ’ that provide shade ” – ignoring the fact that the buildings absorb heat and increase congestion . ]
Up till recently , urban dwellers have enjoyed advantages that ranged from higher paying jobs and a greater variety of lifestyle options to safer public drinking water and greater access to information and emerging technologies .
Recent events have revealed two devastating side effects of progressive “ smart growth ” that downplayed the value of rural America and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elderly .
The COVID 19 pandemic , high taxes , exorbitant housing costs , oppressive regulations , and unsafe streets have sparked a mass exodus from large cities that is lowering the tax base that has provided assistance to the negatively impacted poor .
Sadly , the poor , who may be unable to relocate , are adversely impacted by poor air quality , failing schools , and perhaps worst of all , life-threatening health issues that can be linked to “ smart growth , ” as well as to redlining that pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central metropolitan counties suffer from high ozone and particulate matter an average of 48 and 11 days , while noncore counties only have 4 and 1 such days .
And metropolitan dwellers suffer from much higher nighttime ( and daytime ) temperatures than their rural counterparts .
These heat waves smother these urban heat islands , killing more people every year than any other natural disaster .
According to the EPA , “ the annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8o to 5.4o F @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the evening , the difference can be as much as 22o F , as rural areas quickly cool down after sunset , while cities maintain their heat.
” The primary reason , EPA acknowledges , is that “ structures such as buildings , roads , and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun ’ s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies.
” Urban heat islands raise unneeded concerns about “ global warming , ” as city dwellers may wrongly assume everywhere else is just as hot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where air conditioning may not be affordable , are , according to National Public Radio , “ more likely to be hotter than their wealthier counterparts.
” The NPR report , prepared jointly with the University of Maryland ’ s Howard Center for Investigative Journalism , noted that Baltimore ’ s Franklin Square neighborhood is about 6o F hotter than the city ’ s coolest neighborhood .
And , said NPR , “ Medicare patients in Baltimore ’ s hottest areas visited the hospital at higher rates than Medicare patients in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with higher rates of asthma , COPD , and heart disease.
” In short , living in cities is dangerous to the health of the urban poor .
But where to go ?
How about back to the country ?
A major incentive for those who are able to relocate to smaller cities and towns or even rural areas is the cost of living .
Comparable housing can be cheaper by as much as two-thirds , open space ( and cleaner air ) are at hand , and growing your own ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ready option .
Children can more easily and more safely play outdoors .
Home ownership is easier to achieve , as rural Americans tend to see their homes as more than just investments .
But there is a problem .
The shift towards urbanization , together with the outsourcing of high-paying factory jobs , has had major negative impacts on rural America .
Violent crime rates in rural America , which in the 1990s were much lower than in metropolitan areas for homicide , robbery , and assault , today are reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alan Greenblatt reported , environmental regulations [ for example , banning timber harvesting to protect the spotted owl ] and the concomitant shifting of manufacturing to foreign countries has left many rural Americans more susceptible to opioids and other life-shortening drugs .
A related problem is the shortage of law enforcement due to dwindling tax bases .
A third reason , at least in Western states , is massive federal ownership and control of land and water resources .
Census Bureau analyst Darryl Cohen reported that , “ The higher percentage of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partly be explained by the limited access to water outside of western cities and federally held land surrounding many of these cities , which limits growth outside incorporated areas.
” Another concern , since the dawn of cyberspace , is that rural Americans ( along with the urban poor ) have suffered from a lack of internet access and high-quality cell phone service .
Today many admit that Internet access is as important as access to electricity was a century ago .
And while rural areas have lagged far behind , they may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the National Telecommunications and Information Administration began a State Broadband Initiative to improve broadband access in every state .
Even in Mississippi , which as recently as 2018 ranked 49th in broadband access , a new state law is changing the rural broadband landscape .
In 2017 , only 40 percent of rural Mississippians had access to high-speed internet , but now many of the state ’ s 25 rural electric cooperatives are providing new service to their customers at affordable rates .
The 2020 COVID 19 pandemic has highlighted the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ( and study ) from home .
This change weakens the “ smart growth ” argument for concentrating “ wisdom ” in high-density cities .
Zoom CEO Eric Yuan reported that daily users ballooned from a maximum 10 million at the end of 2019 to 200 million in March ( and continues to grow ) .
The Guardian ’ s technology editor Alex Hern suggests that “ companies forced to embrace remote working by the pandemic find that their employees do not want to return to the office once the closures are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , together with the growth of distance learning and working from home , make “ escape ” from New York , Los Angeles , and other major metropolitan areas more attractive every day .
Rural and small-town America have wide open spaces that allow for a high quality of life , especially in this new era of home-based work and distance learning .
And that might be the best outcome of the multiple crises of 2020 .

“Smart Growth,” a “progressive” approach to urban planning attributed to Jane Jacobs (author of The Life and Death of Great American Cities) and canonized by EPA Administrator Carol Browner in 1995, was touted as a way to meld economic opportunity, environmental responsibility, and livable communities.
For decades, urban planners have championed “smart growth” as the way to develop infrastructure that will concentrate “thought leaders” to create “sustainable and successful communities” that are (of course) devoid of “dirty” factories. The subtle messaging is that rural people are bumpkins and suburbanites are desecrators of open space, while college graduates who live and work in dense urban spaces are the cream of society.
Today, however, a major side effect of “smart growth” has become a bugbear for the Green Left. It turns out that “smart growth,” by concentrating construction in the center of metropolises, leads to health problems for the poorest in our cities. Coupled with the decimation of rural America through policies that assaulted family farms and the timber, mining, and manufacturing industries and sent those jobs to China, the result has been an America out of balance.
For the past century, the U.S. saw people flock to major metropolitan areas in search of a better life. Ever since the end of World War I, people responded to “How You Gonna Keep ‘Em on the Farm” by moving rapidly to more glamourous big cities.
In 1920, the nation’s ten largest cities had a combined (non-metro) population of just over 15 million, whereas today 19 million live just in the New York City metro area. U.S. Census estimates from 2019 indicate that over 80 percent of Americans, or 260 million, live in urban metropolitan areas. Over 80 million live in the ten largest metro areas.
It might be time to reverse that trend.
The underlying principle behind “smart growth” is urban infilling and the discouragement of suburban “sprawl.” Yet each new urban skyscraper contributes to “urban heat islands,” which the EPA describes as “urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas.” [The Sierra Club, however, argues that skyscrapers “can create ‘urban canyons’ that provide shade” – ignoring the fact that the buildings absorb heat and increase congestion.]
Up till recently, urban dwellers have enjoyed advantages that ranged from higher paying jobs and a greater variety of lifestyle options to safer public drinking water and greater access to information and emerging technologies. Recent events have revealed two devastating side effects of progressive “smart growth” that downplayed the value of rural America and ignored its impacts on the poor and elderly.
The COVID 19 pandemic, high taxes, exorbitant housing costs, oppressive regulations, and unsafe streets have sparked a mass exodus from large cities that is lowering the tax base that has provided assistance to the negatively impacted poor. Sadly, the poor, who may be unable to relocate, are adversely impacted by poor air quality, failing schools, and perhaps worst of all, life-threatening health issues that can be linked to “smart growth,” as well as to redlining that pushed the poor into hazardous spaces.
Large central metropolitan counties suffer from high ozone and particulate matter an average of 48 and 11 days, while noncore counties only have 4 and 1 such days. And metropolitan dwellers suffer from much higher nighttime (and daytime) temperatures than their rural counterparts. These heat waves smother these urban heat islands, killing more people every year than any other natural disaster.
According to the EPA, “the annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8o to 5.4o F warmer than in nearby rural areas. In the evening, the difference can be as much as 22o F, as rural areas quickly cool down after sunset, while cities maintain their heat.” The primary reason, EPA acknowledges, is that “structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies.”
Urban heat islands raise unneeded concerns about “global warming,” as city dwellers may wrongly assume everywhere else is just as hot. The actual problem is that poor neighborhoods, where air conditioning may not be affordable, are, according to National Public Radio, “more likely to be hotter than their wealthier counterparts.”
The NPR report, prepared jointly with the University of Maryland’s Howard Center for Investigative Journalism, noted that Baltimore’s Franklin Square neighborhood is about 6o F hotter than the city’s coolest neighborhood. And, said NPR, “Medicare patients in Baltimore’s hottest areas visited the hospital at higher rates than Medicare patients in the city’s coolest areas,” with higher rates of asthma, COPD, and heart disease.”
In short, living in cities is dangerous to the health of the urban poor. But where to go?
How about back to the country?
A major incentive for those who are able to relocate to smaller cities and towns or even rural areas is the cost of living. Comparable housing can be cheaper by as much as two-thirds, open space (and cleaner air) are at hand, and growing your own (or buying food directly from neighbors) becomes a ready option. Children can more easily and more safely play outdoors.
Home ownership is easier to achieve, as rural Americans tend to see their homes as more than just investments.
But there is a problem. The shift towards urbanization, together with the outsourcing of high-paying factory jobs, has had major negative impacts on rural America. Violent crime rates in rural America, which in the 1990s were much lower than in metropolitan areas for homicide, robbery, and assault, today are reportedly higher than in crime-ridden cities.
As Alan Greenblatt reported, environmental regulations [for example, banning timber harvesting to protect the spotted owl] and the concomitant shifting of manufacturing to foreign countries has left many rural Americans more susceptible to opioids and other life-shortening drugs. A related problem is the shortage of law enforcement due to dwindling tax bases.
A third reason, at least in Western states, is massive federal ownership and control of land and water resources. Census Bureau analyst Darryl Cohen reported that, “The higher percentage of people living in cities in the West can partly be explained by the limited access to water outside of western cities and federally held land surrounding many of these cities, which limits growth outside incorporated areas.”
Another concern, since the dawn of cyberspace, is that rural Americans (along with the urban poor) have suffered from a lack of internet access and high-quality cell phone service. Today many admit that Internet access is as important as access to electricity was a century ago. And while rural areas have lagged far behind, they may be catching up.
Back in 2009, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration began a State Broadband Initiative to improve broadband access in every state. Even in Mississippi, which as recently as 2018 ranked 49th in broadband access, a new state law is changing the rural broadband landscape. In 2017, only 40 percent of rural Mississippians had access to high-speed internet, but now many of the state’s 25 rural electric cooperatives are providing new service to their customers at affordable rates.
The 2020 COVID 19 pandemic has highlighted the nation’s ability for many Americans to work (and study) from home. This change weakens the “smart growth” argument for concentrating “wisdom” in high-density cities.
Zoom CEO Eric Yuan reported that daily users ballooned from a maximum 10 million at the end of 2019 to 200 million in March (and continues to grow). The Guardian’s technology editor Alex Hern suggests that “companies forced to embrace remote working by the pandemic find that their employees do not want to return to the office once the closures are lifted.”
The advent of universal broadband, together with the growth of distance learning and working from home, make “escape” from New York, Los Angeles, and other major metropolitan areas more attractive every day. Rural and small-town America have wide open spaces that allow for a high quality of life, especially in this new era of home-based work and distance learning.
And that might be the best outcome of the multiple crises of 2020.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-08--The blackouts are coming! The blackouts are coming!

The understatement of California ’ s trouble was announced by officials who admitted an over reliance on wind and solar power .
The governor said there was not enough wind to keep the turbines going and cloud cover and night fall restricted solar power .
The state has fallen thousands of megawatts behind its needs .
A megawatt is one million watts , your light bulbs are mostly 100 watts .
Governor Newsom said “ we failed to predict and plan for these shortages ” and took responsibility .
He wants everyone to conserve while they look for new sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not that energy will have to be supplied by fossil fuel from neighboring states , as California continues its delusional intent to transition to 100 % renewable energy .
California ’ s shift toward so called green energy , which is actually anything but , is being echoed by the Democratic leadership across the nation .
Candidate Biden has committed to making the nation 100 % renewable within 15 a years .
If the public wants to know what is going to happen in a Biden presidency as to energy , look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been reliable for decades are being swept away .
The California government is acting entirely under the belief that climate change is a calamity that can be stopped by eliminating fossil fuel .
The result is going to be that those in the poorest neighborhoods and those on fixed incomes may be forced to choose between heating or eating .
Each state must have the capacity to produce or arrange for importation of energy to meet their needs .
Available wind and solar on an electric grid forces the dialing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel which creates costly inefficiencies.. Utilities support expensive energy redundancies to meet mandates as they are guaranteed a return on investment .
There is a perverse incentive to neither replace or maintain older working equipment .
The more expensive the reliable backup is , the more profitable for the utilities .
Coherent energy systems are designed with the understanding that portions of the system will be off line from time to time .
Thus one ensures with reserve power at the ready .
However California has closed its margin for error in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Power outages can not alway be avoided and are more common than one may think .
The 10th most outages by state between 2008 and 2017 occurred in Illinois numbering 871 .
The second most occurred in Texas with nearly twice as many , but they all pale in comparison to California which has the least reliable electrical power system in the nation .
It leads in power outages every year .
Between 2008 and 2017 , they had 4297 power outages .
That is a number many states are headed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2006 California Senate Bill 1368 established the state ’ s emission standards to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants .
Following that year , 11 coal fired plants were closed and 3 were converted to biomass .
Only one remains .
The state also reduced its normal reliance on energy from out of state coal plants .
All but one nuclear plant remains , which is at Diablo Canyon .
It does not appear to matter that they create no greenhouse emissions .
They are hated by all the environmental radicals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ball .
Diablo Canyon is scheduled for closure in 2025 .
And it gets worse .
The state wants all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves to electric as part of the their global warming resistance initiatives .
More than 30 cities have already enacted bans on gas appliances including San Francisco .
The state is also hoping to eliminate all gasoline and diesel cars in favor of plug in electric automobiles .
California is sacrificing reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against climate change which we know will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s temperature but likely will on sales of candles and flashlights .
Welcome to the future in a Democratic Administration .
The blackouts are indeed coming .

The understatement of California’s trouble was announced by officials who admitted an over reliance on wind and solar power. The governor said there was not enough wind to keep the turbines going with cloud cover and night fall restricting solar power.
The state has fallen thousands of megawatts behind its needs. A megawatt is one million watts, your light bulbs are mostly 100 watts. Governor Newsom said “we failed to predict and plan for these shortages” and took responsibility. He wants everyone to conserve while they look for new sources of energy. Whether they like it or not that energy will have to be supplied by fossil fuel from neighboring states, This as California continues its delusional intent to transition to 100% renewable energy.
California’s shift toward so called green energy, which is actually anything but, is being echoed by the Democratic leadership across the nation. Candidate Biden has committed to making the nation 100% renewable within 15 a years.
If the public wants to know what is going to happen in a Biden presidency as to energy, look to California today. Forms of energy that have been reliable for decades are being swept away.
The California government is acting entirely under the belief that climate change is a calamity that can be stopped by eliminating fossil fuel. The result is going to be that those in the poorest neighborhoods and those on fixed incomes may be forced to choose between heating or eating.
Each state must have the capacity to produce or arrange for importation of energy to meet their needs. Available wind and solar on an electric grid forces the dialing up and down of reliable energy from fossil fuel which creates costly inefficiencies..
Utilities support expensive energy redundancies to meet mandates as they are guaranteed a return on investment. There is a perverse incentive to neither replace or maintain older working equipment. The more expensive the reliable backup, the more profitable it is for the utilities.
Coherent energy systems are designed with the understanding that portions of the system will be off line from time to time. Thus one ensures this with reserve power at the ready. However, California has closed its margin for error in response to anti-nuclear sentiments and climate change hysteria.
Power outages cannot alway be avoided and are more common than one may think. The 10th most outages by state between 2008 and 2017 occurred in Illinois numbering 871.
The second most occurred in Texas with nearly twice as many, but they all pale in comparison to California which has the least reliable electrical power system in the nation. It leads in power outages every year. Between 2008 and 2017, they had 4297 power outages. That is a number many states are headed for with a green new deal in place.
In 2006 California Senate Bill 1368 established the state’s emission standards to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants. Following that year, 11 coal fired plants were closed and 3 were converted to biomass. Only one remains. The state also reduced its normal reliance on energy from out of state coal plants.
All but one nuclear plant remains, which is at Diablo Canyon. It does not appear to matter that they create no greenhouse emissions. They are hated by all the environmental radicals putting the state further behind the 8 ball. Diablo Canyon is scheduled for closure in 2025.
And it gets worse. The state wants all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves to electric as part of the their global warming resistance initiatives. More than 30 cities have already enacted bans on gas appliances including San Francisco. The state is also hoping to eliminate all gasoline and diesel cars in favor of plug in electric automobiles.
California is sacrificing reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against climate change which we know will have no impact on the earth’s temperature but likely will on sales of candles and flashlights. Welcome to the future in a Democratic Administration. The blackouts are indeed coming.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-09--It’s time to up our level on hurricanes to get to the truth

When confronted with adversity , I take comfort in the fact that unto all good there must be opposition , Freedom of choice ( agency ) is essential to existence and progression , but you MUST HAVE THOSE CHOICES and choices mean there is opposition , Consequently I am not a big fan of the “ trust authority , conform , and do not question ” mentality that seems to be on the increase today .
So the need for the objectivity as a basis for evaluation , but subjectivity as far as having to make choices , is essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AKA truth ) .
Several years ago , I coined a.term , the “ weaponization of the weather.
” Perhaps others had thought of it , but it is evident today that this is now the case .
The biggest problem I have always had is that it absolutely destroys , IMO , the love of the weather that I have had .
It makes the weather a tool for something completely different .
And it is a weapon that is being wielded in my opinion , to destroy the very Freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progression in the natural order of things .
Therefore , what I see today , is a double whammy .
1 ) It is throwing mud on a beautiful tapestry , the weather , by using it as a tool .
2 ) .
It runs contrary to the very order that creates progress .
Its as if people pushing this believe they have the final answer to a system that has always been evolving , and always will .
I wanted to lay all that out as a backdrop for something I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 hurricane season .
The current power and impact scale I have , takes the maximum wind average of 6 hours of recons and reverts to the Saffir-Simpson scale for a factor .
Lets say its 150 mph , That is a 4.75 for instance .
Then it looks at the pressure , and takes the Saffir Simpson pressure , Lets say it 930 mb .
That about a 4.5 .
So you come up with an average..
If the pressure fall in the previous 12 hours is greater than 12 mb , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , subtract it .
If you have .
24 mb in 12 hours , its an entire category , My idea behind that is rapidly intensifying storms have the turbulent mixing going on to bring that wind to the surface , while weakening storms are in a more stable environment and so its the opposite , hence the unwinding of storms .
Think about the rapid deepeners , they are relatively small and compact at the time so the gradients may be tighter anyway But it is clear to me there must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were all majors on my scale , and occurred in a period when no majors on the Saffir Simpson scale hit .
We have to be able to objectively ascertain which storms have the most power and impact , How does one answer the question , which storm was stronger , Charley 2004 or Sandy ?
One says off the bat , Charley , but when we look at the impact Sandy was a far greater storm , Dora ( 1964 ) or Charley ?
.
Dora was a monster though a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Charley ?
1933 Va beach or Charley ?
All the storms mentioned were at least a category lower , but caused problems in a much larger area So .
2 more factors are needed , and this is also a physical parameter that can help with how fast a storm “ unwinds ” ( Ike for instance knocked out power into the Ohio Valley , Charley was unrecognizable wind wise once to the same latitude off Atlantic City ) .
So we throw in 2 other categories .
Diameter of gales , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My proposal is this .
For gales , 100 miles=1 .
200=2 300=3,400=4,500=5 ( yes there have been storms that big , 1944 for example and the 1933 Va Beach hurricane , For Hurricane winds , each is cut in half , 50,100,150,200,250 .
So you would have have 4 base factors to describe the storm , and one conditional one 1 ) 6 hours of recon reported winds ( once recon is in , satellite estimates before will be accepted of course ) 2 ) Pressure of the storm .
For these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used as the base 3 ) Diameter of Gales ( which means we can now evaluate tropical storms that are large , but not classified technically as hurricanes ) and the pressure tendency factor adds , subtracts or has no changes In addition the storms must be evaluated not just with rounded numbers , but what the total is ( for instance you might have a cat .
3.25 , or .
4.5 or .
.75 ) Now here is another factor that indirectly addresses the problem of rain .
The bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ?
.
So if you develop a second scale that incorporates the above scale , with .
SPEED OF MOVEMENT , you may be able to come up with a scale that will quantify storms as far as their flood aspects .
This is not to trash the Saffir Simpson or the ACE .
These are great foundational tools .
But I think what is needed here is for people to put down their AGW armaments and the government/academic link to take ideas such as this , go back and research all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years with the data available , and then using this scale , start ranking storms as for the totality of their prowess .
My proposal in not etched in stone , its an idea .
In 1993 I put a letter in Weatherwise magazine about classifying snowstorms after the great blizzard of 1993 .
A few years later , what I consider to be the go to book for the power of NE snowstorms was developed by Uccelini and Kocin with a scale .
I am not saying they did not have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously people that didn ’ t even know each other were thinking about things like this .
In the winter of 2002-2003 both Joe D Aleo and I , not even working with each other , pointed out that the el nino coming on was the kind that brought cold snowy winters to the eastern US , A couple of years later , out comes the paper on the Modoki ( which is what we were describing when independently coming up with the colder , snowier forecast ) I am not saying anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am saying , that others were thinking the same thing .
I can not believe others are not here , whether its from reading things I have been pushing since 2008 or whatever .
But this is long overdue .
And interestingly enough , circling back to the opening , its the opposition that is the product of the weaponization of this issue ( hurricanes ) .
that is demanding we up our levels here .
On a practical aspect , in what I do , for clients .
they will have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really is with this scale , rather than the way we are doing things now .
Other factors , like where it hits , of course have to be incorporated it , but as far as the overall prowess of the storm , then this is needed .
And this season , with the wild NUMBER of storms but the low ACE of the storms , is even more evidence .
You know this is not so different from arguments that have occurred for years in other things , who wins , Marciano @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tyson when he was a machine .
Etc etc .
Finally for the folks at NOAA and in Universities , such an ambitious project may be something where some younger students get to work with some of the most brilliant hurricane minds on the planet , and get a start on their careers .
Careers I hope that will always question opposition in an effort to progress for the betterment of all .
Old guys like me have had our day , but we do like to leave signs in our tracks for @ @ @ @

When confronted with adversity, I take comfort in the fact that unto all good there must be opposition. Freedom of choice (agency) is essential to existence and progression, but you MUST HAVE THOSE CHOICES and choices mean there is opposition. Consequently I am not a big fan of the “trust authority, conform, and do not question” mentality that seems to be on the increase today. So the need for the objectivity as a basis for evaluation, but subjectivity as far as having to make choices, is essential in pursuit of the correct answer (AKA truth).
Several years ago, I coined a term, the “weaponization of the weather.” Perhaps others had thought of it, but it is evident today that this is now the case. The biggest problem I have always had is that it absolutely destroys, IMO, the love of the weather that I have had. It makes the weather a tool for something completely different. It is a weapon that is being wielded in my opinion, to destroy the very Freedom of Choice that is needed for existence and progression in the natural order of things. Therefore, what I see today, is a double whammy. 1) It is throwing mud on a beautiful tapestry, the weather, by using it as a tool. 2). It runs contrary to the very order that creates progress. It’s as if people pushing this believe they have the final answer to a system that has always been evolving, and always will.
I wanted to lay all that out as a backdrop for something I have pushed since the end of the 2008 hurricane season. The current power and impact scale I have, takes the maximum wind average of 6 hours of recons and reverts to the Saffir-Simpson scale for a factor. Lets say its 150 mph, that is a 4.75 for instance. Then it looks at the pressure, and takes the Saffir Simpson pressure, Lets say it’s 930mb. That’s about a 4.5. So you come up with an average.. If the pressure fall in the previous 12 hours is greater than 12mb, add .5. If it is rising, subtract it. If you have. 24 mb in 12 hours, its an entire category. My idea behind that is rapidly intensifying storms have the turbulent mixing going on to bring that wind to the surface, while weakening storms are in a more stable environment and so its the opposite, hence the unwinding of storms. Think about the rapid deepeners, they are relatively small and compact at the time so the gradients may be tighter anyway
But it is clear to me there must be more, Sandy, Ike, Gustav, were all majors on my scale, and occurred in a period when no majors on the Saffir Simpson scale hit. We have to be able to objectively ascertain which storms have the most power and impact. How does one answer the question, which storm was stronger, Charley 2004 or Sandy? One says off the bat, Charley, but when we look at the impact Sandy was a far greater storm, Dora (1964) or Charley?. Dora was a monster though a weaker storm by Saffir Simpson, Ike or Charley? 1933 Va beach or Charley? All the storms mentioned were at least a category lower, but caused problems in a much larger area. So, 2 more factors are needed and this is also a physical parameter that can help with how fast a storm “unwinds” (Ike for instance knocked out power into the Ohio Valley, Charley was unrecognizable wind wise once to the same latitude off Atlantic City). Then we throw in 2 other categories. Diameter of gales and diameter of hurricane force winds. My proposal is this. For gales, 100 miles=1. 200=2 300=3,400=4,500=5 (yes there have been storms that big, 1944 for example and the 1933 VA Beach hurricane,
For Hurricane winds, each is cut in half, 50,100,150,200,250.
So you would have to have 4 base factors to describe the storm, and one conditional one:
1) 6 hours of recon reported winds (once recon is in, satellite estimates before will be accepted of course)
2) Pressure of the storm. For these 2 factors, the Saffir-Simpson scale can be used as the base
3) Diameter of Gales ( which means we can now evaluate tropical storms that are large, but not classified technically as hurricanes)
4) Diameter of Hurricane force winds
and the pressure tendency factor adds, subtracts or has no changes.
In addition the storms must be evaluated not just with rounded numbers, but what the total is (for instance you might have a cat. 3.25, or. 4.5 or. .75)
Now here is another factor that indirectly addresses the problem of rain. The bigger the storm, the more the moisture, right? If you develop a second scale that incorporates the above scale with SPEED OF MOVEMENT, you may be able to come up with a scale that will quantify storms as far as their flood aspects.
This is not to trash the Saffir Simpson or the ACE. These are great foundational tools. But I think what is needed here is for people to put down their AGW armaments and the government/academic link to take ideas such as this. Go back and research all the storms we have had thru the years with the data available, and then using this scale, start ranking storms as for the totality of their prowess. My proposal in not etched in stone, its an idea.
In 1993 I put a letter in Weatherwise magazine about classifying snowstorms after the great blizzard of 1993. A few years later, what I consider to be the go to book for the power of NE snowstorms was developed by Uccelini and Kocin with a scale. I am not saying they did not have the idea before, I am saying that obviously people that didn’t even know each other were thinking about things like this. In the winter of 2002-2003 both Joe D Aleo and I, not even working with each other, pointed out that the El Niño coming on was the kind that brought cold snowy winters to the eastern US. A couple of years later, out comes the paper on the Modoki (which is what we were describing when independently coming up with the colder, snowier forecast) I am not saying anyone took the idea from us. I am saying, that others were thinking the same thing. I can not believe others are not here, whether it’s from reading things I have been pushing since 2008 or whatever. But this is long overdue. And interestingly enough, circling back to the opening, its the opposition that is the product of the weaponization of this issue (hurricanes). That is demanding we up our levels here.
On a practical aspect, in what I do, for clients, they will have a better idea of how strong a storm really is with this scale, rather than the way we are doing things now. Other factors, like where it hits, of course have to be incorporated but as far as the overall prowess of the storm, then this is needed. And this season, with the wild NUMBER of storms but the low ACE of the storms, is even more evidence.
You know this is not so different from arguments that have occurred for years in other things, who wins, Marciano or Ali? Ali prime, vs Tyson when he was a machine. Etc etc.
Finally for the folks at NOAA and in Universities, such an ambitious project may be something where younger students get to work with some of the most brilliant hurricane minds on the planet, and get a start on their careers. Careers I hope that will always question opposition in an effort to progress for the betterment of all. Old guys like me have had our day, but we do like to leave signs in our tracks for those that follow.


California scapegoating

It ’ s been 20 years since California ISO has had to order rolling blackouts .
The extraordinary move happened @ @ @ @ @ people because the state was not prepared for high electricity use during a heatwave .
@ @ @ @ @ investigation of how this happened .
No such investigation is needed .
Energy analysts have @ @ @ @ @ many years .
There is a lot of blame to spread around , including the @ @ @ @ @ as well as they people who voted for him and previous governors .
The really @ @ @ @ @ blackouts are going to be an ever-present reality in California for years to come .

It’s been 20 years since California ISO has had to order rolling blackouts. The extraordinary move happened on 8/14/2020 affecting millions of people because the state was not prepared for high electricity use during a heatwave. The governor has ordered an investigation of how this happened. No such investigation is needed. Energy analysts have been predicting this moment for many years. There is a lot of blame to spread around, including the guy calling for an investigation as well as the people who voted for him and previous governors.
The really bad news is that these blackouts are going to be an ever-present reality in California for years to come.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-10--“Systemic racism” is emotional semantics

“ Systemic racism ” and its semantic cohort “ white supremacy ” are very emotional names for numbers we don ’ t know how to change , but we are trying .
Nor are these hyperbolic concepts new .
They were popular fifty years ago and coined earlier than that .
Despite their sound , they do not imply that people are racist .
When you look at how these terms are used , they invariably refer to unhappy statistics .
The typical case is one where the fraction for a specific racial minority is either much higher or much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fraction of blacks in the prison population for example , or among the homeless , is much higher than in the general population .
The fraction in executive positions is considerably lower in many industries .
The numbers are well known and there have been many programs to try to change them .
The bad numbers for minorities are called systemic racism .
The corresponding good numbers for whites are derisively called white supremacy .
This is hyperbolic semantics , not science .
There is nothing new here excepts the names and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these problems do not exist because people are racist .
They are system problems that reflect system features .
That these problems can be easily made to go away is far from clear , given that we have been working on them for many years .
Systemic racism is also called institutional racism .
Wikipedia has a long article , with lots of history , here : https : //en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism For example , the slogan “ Defund the police ” has a long history and can mean a wide variety of changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific action .
Nor is it necessarily an accusation of individual racism in police departments .
The basic idea is that funding social programs will supposedly do more to reduce crime than the presence of a police department does .
There is a similar theory regarding prisons .
Calling this racism is misleading at best ; it is actually meaningless .
For some history , see https : //en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police Kamala Harris talks constantly about so-called systemic racial injustices , but never says what this nebulous term means .
Ironically some of the popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems she has been a leader in , especially the criminal justice system .
Does ex-prosecutor Harris think we should defund the prosecutors ?
All we really have are these unhappy numbers , plus a lot of programs that did not work , followed by even more untested theories about why the numbers exist and what to do about them .
They do not require that anyone is a racist , because these numbers may not be due to deliberate racially motivated actions .
Marching and shouting are not solutions .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the marchers and shouters may not know this .
They probably do not know about all the research , all the programs , and the myriad proposals for new programs that already exist .
Saying angrily that things have to change is not a step forward .
It may even be a step backward , if it leads to more confusion .
In particular , the Democrats have not announced any surprising new plans here .
They , and Kamala Harris in particular , are just shouting “ systemic racism ” to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new plans to end these unhappy numbers .
This is a cruel hoax indeed .

“Systemic racism” and its semantic cohort “white supremacy” are very emotional names for numbers we don’t know how to change, but we are trying. Nor are these hyperbolic concepts new. They were popular fifty years ago and coined earlier than that. Despite their sound, they do not imply that people are racist.
When you look at how these terms are used, they invariably refer to unhappy statistics. The typical case is one where the fraction for a specific racial minority is either much higher or much lower than it is for whites. The fraction of blacks in the prison population for example, or among the homeless, is much higher than in the general population. The fraction in executive positions is considerably lower in many industries.
The numbers are well known and there have been many programs to try to change them. The bad numbers for minorities are called systemic racism. The corresponding good numbers for whites are derisively called white supremacy. This is hyperbolic semantics, not science. There is nothing new here excepts the names and the anger they evoke.
Note too that these problems do not exist because people are racist. They are system problems that reflect system features. That these problems can be easily made to go away is far from clear, given that we have been working on them for many years.
Systemic racism is also called institutional racism. Wikipedia has a long article, with lots of history, here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
For example, the slogan “Defund the police” has a long history and can mean a wide variety of changes. It is not a call for specific action. Nor is it necessarily an accusation of individual racism in police departments. The basic idea is that funding social programs will supposedly do more to reduce crime than the presence of a police department does. There is a similar theory regarding prisons. Calling this racism is misleading at best; it is actually meaningless.
For some history, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police
Kamala Harris talks constantly about so-called systemic racial injustices, but never says what this nebulous term means. Ironically some of the popular complaints that fall under this term involve systems she has been a leader in, especially the criminal justice system. Does ex-prosecutor Harris think we should defund the prosecutors?
All we really have are these unhappy numbers, plus a lot of programs that did not work, followed by even more untested theories about why the numbers exist and what to do about them. They do not require that anyone is a racist, because these numbers may not be due to deliberate racially motivated actions.
Marching and shouting are not solutions. They are not even calls for action, although the marchers and shouters may not know this. They probably do not know about all the research, all the programs, and the myriad proposals for new programs that already exist. Saying angrily that things have to change is not a step forward. It may even be a step backward, if it leads to more confusion.
In particular, the Democrats have not announced any surprising new plans here. They, and Kamala Harris in particular, are just shouting “systemic racism” to try to get votes. They have no new plans to end these unhappy numbers. This is a cruel hoax indeed.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-10--Climate hustlers exposed — September 24th — Be there!

The film that blows away the tricks , lies and hidden agendas of the global warming campaign like nothing before is coming to you — September 24th at 8 PM — in every time zone on Earth !
In 2016 , CFACT showed Climate Hustle , our first ever feature film , in over 400 theaters from coast to coast .
For one glorious night our movie was the number one film per screen in the entire United States .
CH did so well that our partner Fathom Events wanted to go much bigger this time .
Plans to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 800 theaters from coast to coast .
I don ’ t need to tell you what happened .
Much of America shut down to try and arrest the spread of the the coronavirus .
Movie theaters topped the list .
Climate Hustle 2 had to be postponed .
Fathom asked us to wait until next year and go even bigger .
Boy were we tempted , but this timely film is too hot to wait that long .
That ’ s why we are bringing you Climate Hustle 2 : Rise of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ CH2 ” looks and sounds great and is loads of fun to watch .
In addition to laying out a thorough scientific debunking of the distortions , tricks , and outright lies global warming campaigners disseminate through an all-too-willing media every day , CH2 exposes their real agendas .
Can you say money , power and ideology ?
Get ready — Lies will be smashed .
Names will be named .
Hypocrites unmasked .
Grifters defrocked .
Would-be tyrants brought low .
Climate Hustle 2 is narrated by TV ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t wait for you to see how good Sorbo is in CH2 .
There ’ s a whole lot more to this demigod than muscle .
He ’ s dynamite .
Kevin Sorbo joins CFACT ’ s own Marc Morano , of Climate Depot fame , who returns to the screen to lay out the facts about global warming as only he can .
Don ’ t forget , Marc Morano was singled out by a study in the Journal Nature Communications ( done by the Left ! )
as the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marc Morano is the number one person the warming-Left want ’ s blacklisted and banned from public discourse .
Facts are powerful things .
Preorder your tickets for Climate Hustle 2 today and lets have a watch party .
Me in my home , you in yours , separate — yet making a difference together .
This is going to be tremendous fun for us , but not for the climate hustlers .

The film that blows away the tricks, lies and hidden agendas of the global warming campaign like nothing before is coming to you — September 24th at 8 PM — in every time zone on Earth!
In 2016, CFACT showed Climate Hustle, our first ever feature film, in over 400 theaters from coast to coast.
“CH” was a smash!
For one glorious night our movie was the number one film per screen in the entire United States. CH did so well that our partner Fathom Events wanted to go much bigger this time. Plans to show this important film had grown to over 800 theaters from coast to coast.
I don’t need to tell you what happened. Much of America shut down to try and arrest the spread of the the coronavirus.
Movie theaters topped the list. Climate Hustle 2 had to be postponed.
Fathom asked us to wait until next year and go even bigger. Boy were we tempted, but this timely film is too hot to wait that long.
That’s why we are bringing you Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy in a special streaming event.
“CH2” looks and sounds great and is loads of fun to watch. In addition to laying out a thorough scientific debunking of the distortions, tricks, and outright lies global warming campaigners disseminate through an all-too-willing media every day, CH2 exposes their real agendas.
Can you say money, power and ideology?
Get ready — Lies will be smashed. Names will be named. Hypocrites unmasked. Grifters defrocked. Would-be tyrants brought low.
Climate Hustle 2 is narrated by TV’s Hercules, Kevin Sorbo. I can’t wait for you to see how good Sorbo is in CH2. There’s a whole lot more to this demigod than muscle. He’s dynamite.
Kevin Sorbo joins CFACT’s own Marc Morano, of Climate Depot fame, who returns to the screen to lay out the facts about global warming as only he can. Don’t forget, Marc Morano was singled out by a study in the Journal Nature Communications (done by the Left!) as the world’s most effective climate communicator. Marc Morano is the number one person the warming-Left want’s blacklisted and banned from public discourse.
Facts are powerful things.
Preorder your tickets for Climate Hustle 2 today and lets have a watch party. Me in my home, you in yours, separate — yet making a difference together.
This is going to be tremendous fun for us, but not for the climate hustlers.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-11--Utopian targets and dystopian outcomes: California brown-outs

One of the most damaging fallacies of our time might be the “ Field of Dreams ” fallacy , which holds that “ If you build it , they will come.
” This fallacy , what might also be called the enabling myth of those who favor planned societies over market-economies , persists year after year , despite a nearly unbroken record of failure spanning decades and in some cases centuries .
Fittingly enough , no state better embodies the fantastical thinking behind “ If you build it ” than California , where planners have floated an endless array of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air purity , to employee ridesharing , to mass transit ridership , to expanded bicycling , electric car deployment , greenhouse gas emission reduction targets , and of course , to renewable energy targets : specifically the dream of a society powered by puffs of air , rays of sunshine , hot rocks , and wishful thinking .
But in the year of our Plague 2020 , California ’ s renewable Field of Dreams fantasy may have finally failed so visibly and undeniably as to give one hope the benighted citizens of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on actual experience of “ here ’ s what we have done , here ’ s our next incremental , achievable goal , ” also known as pragmatism .
I know , having grown up in California , that ’ s probably wishful thinking , but unlike California , I actually admit that !
As those who care about things like keeping the air conditioning running will remember , California has been chasing the renewable power dream for decades .
As that unimpeachable font of knowledge , Wikipedia observes : In 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which set a goal for 33 % of electricity consumption in California to be generated by renewable sources by 2020 .
In 2015 , SB350 mandated that electric utilities purchase 50 % of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030 .
Then in 2018 , Senate Bill 100 was passed which increased the renewables requirement for electric utilities to 50 % by 2026 , 60 % by 2030 , and 100 % by 2045 .
How ’ s that all working out for California ?
Not so well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California had its first unplanned blackouts in 20 years on August 18 , when hundreds of thousands of Californians sweltered in one of California ’ s utterly predictable summer heat waves .
And the power has gone out again since then , as reported on September 7th , “ The sweltering temperatures are fueling wildfires that have , just this weekend , taken down power plants , forced evacuations and cut power to about 70,000 homes and businesses .
Of course , all of this has California policymakers and green power hucksters “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” trying to figure out just what on Earth might have happened .
The fingers of blame are out in force pointing to just about every possible cause ( they ’ re even blaming California ’ s bungled energy “ deregulation ” and the Enron debacle ) , or dumping on the poor system operators , who have about zero say in how power is actually generated in the state .
But , not everyone is buying the “ baffling !
” or “ bad management !
” exclamations of the renewable hawks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ability to produce almost 6,000 megawatts , or about 15 percent of the electricity on California ’ s grid , were reported as being offline when temperatures surged last Friday .
The shortfall , which experts believe officials should have been able to avoid , forced managers of the grid to order rolling blackouts in the middle of a pandemic and as wildfires across the state were spreading .
But even if all of the missing capacity had been available , California would probably still have struggled to deliver enough electricity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s because the manager of the grid and state regulators were relying on power from plants that either had permanently shut down or could not have realistically achieved the targets set for them .
( emphasis mine ) And what kind of power plants were those ?
Natural gas power plants , that ’ s what kind , the type ( along with nuclear power plants ) that are not welcome in California ’ s renewable Field of Dreams .
Hastings , quoted above , wins the brevity prize on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cloudy day should not be able to shut down the fifth-largest economy in the world.
” But it has , and it will continue to do so , until California replaces Hollywood fantasy policies , and embraces pragmatic power policies that will keep the a/c running .

One of the most damaging fallacies of our time might be the “Field of Dreams” fallacy, which holds that “If you build it, they will come.” This fallacy, what might also be called the enabling myth of those who favor planned societies over market-economies, persists year after year, despite a nearly unbroken record of failure spanning decades and in some cases centuries.
Fittingly enough, no state better embodies the fantastical thinking behind “If you build it” than California, where planners have floated an endless array of “aspirational targets” for everything from air purity, to employee ridesharing, to mass transit ridership, to expanded bicycling, electric car deployment, greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and of course, to renewable energy targets: specifically the dream of a society powered by puffs of air, rays of sunshine, hot rocks, and wishful thinking.
But in the year of our Plague 2020, California’s renewable Field of Dreams fantasy may have finally failed so visibly and undeniably as to give one hope the benighted citizens of the Golden State will start demanding better policies based on actual experience of “here’s what we have done, here’s our next incremental, achievable goal,” also known as pragmatism. I know, having grown up in California, that’s probably wishful thinking, but unlike California, I actually admit that!
As those who care about things like keeping the air conditioning running will remember, California has been chasing the renewable power dream for decades. As that unimpeachable font of knowledge, Wikipedia observes:
In 2006, the California legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which set a goal for 33% of electricity consumption in California to be generated by renewable sources by 2020. In 2015, SB350 mandated that electric utilities purchase 50% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Then in 2018, Senate Bill 100 was passed which increased the renewables requirement for electric utilities to 50% by 2026, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2045.
How’s that all working out for California? Not so well. An article in Politico observes that California had its first unplanned blackouts in 20 years on August 18, when hundreds of thousands of Californians sweltered in one of California’s utterly predictable summer heat waves. And the power has gone out again since then, as reported on September 7th, “The sweltering temperatures are fueling wildfires that have, just this weekend, taken down power plants, forced evacuations and cut power to about 70,000 homes and businesses.
Of course, all of this has California policymakers and green power hucksters “baffled,” and “stumped,” trying to figure out just what on Earth might have happened. The fingers of blame are out in force pointing to just about every possible cause (they’re even blaming California’s bungled energy “deregulation” and the Enron debacle), or dumping on the poor system operators, who have about zero say in how power is actually generated in the state.
But, not everyone is buying the “baffling!” or “bad management!” exclamations of the renewable hawks:
All told, power plants with the ability to produce almost 6,000 megawatts, or about 15 percent of the electricity on California’s grid, were reported as being offline when temperatures surged last Friday. The shortfall, which experts believe officials should have been able to avoid, forced managers of the grid to order rolling blackouts in the middle of a pandemic and as wildfires across the state were spreading.
But even if all of the missing capacity had been available, California would probably still have struggled to deliver enough electricity to homes where families were cranking up air-conditioners. That’s because the manager of the grid and state regulators were relying on power from plants that either had permanently shut down or could not have realistically achieved the targets set for them. (emphasis mine)
And what kind of power plants were those? Natural gas power plants, that’s what kind, the type (along with nuclear power plants) that are not welcome in California’s renewable Field of Dreams.
Hastings, quoted above, wins the brevity prize on this one: “Hot weather and a cloudy day should not be able to shut down the fifth-largest economy in the world.” But it has, and it will continue to do so, until California replaces Hollywood fantasy policies, and embraces pragmatic power policies that will keep the a/c running.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-11--ENERGYCAST: Reliable renewables? Duke Energy’s renewable control center

Welcome Jay Dauenhauer ’ s Energy Cast to CFACT.org .
We hope you enjoy his informative explanation and analysis of @ @ @ @ @ pitfalls of how vital energy is produced and consumed .
Let ’ s take a @ @ @ @ @ episode of Energy Cast , we visit the Renewable Control Center , a state-of-the-art monitoring @ @ @ @ @ .

Welcome Jay Dauenhauer’s Energy Cast to CFACT.org. We hope you enjoy his informative explanation and analysis of the realities, potentials and pitfalls of how vital energy is produced and consumed. Let’s take a listen!
On the first episode of Energy Cast, we visit the Renewable Control Center, a state-of-the-art monitoring facility run by Duke Energy.