committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-10--Heartland launches 22 climate science “gatebreakers”

“ Gatebreaker ” is a word I use to describe a special kind of document that until recently has been few and far between .
It is a one or two page nontechnical refutation of a specific alarmist argument .
It is something a student or citizen can use to confront an alarmist gatekeeper , hence the name gatebreaker .
I wrote about the need for gatebreakers several years ago .
The Heartland Institute has just published a whopping 22 gatebreakers , with more promised .
This is a true wealth of important skeptical material , unlike anything we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
A gatebreaker is something a skeptical student can send around to the class when the teacher insists on alarmism .
Or something short and simple to send to a journalist in response to an alarmist article , or to a politician making alarmist speeches , or the local blowhard alarmist .
It ’ s power lies in its specificity and its simplicity .
The Heartland website is called “ Climate at a Glance ” ( https : //climateataglance.com ) which makes it sound softer than it really is , sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually buy .
These are not glances ; they are hard hitting rebuttals .
Heartland calls these short pieces “ summaries ” because each summarizes a strong response to a common alarmist claim or argument .
The summaries are wide ranging because the climate change debate is like that .
There is hard science , but also policy , economics and things in between .
Extreme weather gets a lot of attention .
Here is a partial list to give the flavor of the mix : Here is how Heartland explains it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently argued climate issues into one- or two-page “ at-a-glance ” summaries .
Bullet-points at the top provide quick , memorable information .
Short summaries of a paragraph or two provide additional depth .
Many summaries include powerful visual graphs .
Embedded links verify the information.
” And the why : “ Climate At A Glance puts frequently argued climate issues into short , concise , summaries that provide the most important , accurate , powerful information .
The summaries are designed to provide a library of solid yet simple rebuttals so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laymen can easily refute the exaggerations of the so-called “ climate crisis.
” ” Taken together these summaries make a nice short course on the climate change debate .
In addition to refuting the primary alarmist arguments , Heartland might consider adding summaries of positive skeptical arguments related to key issues that alarmists ignore .
These include issues like the flaws in the climate models , the little ice age , natural variability , scaring children , the impossibility of 100 % renewables , and the incredible benefits of fossil fuels .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of these skeptical summaries were specifically geared to the new Next Generation Science Standards .
These are just coming into force for many of America ’ s K-12 students .
Climate change is taught in both middle and high school , with a definite slant toward alarmism .
Students are required to use climate models in middle school .
No doubt these are alarmist models .
Also there is a somewhat different approach , which I have experimented .
This is to teach just that there is a serious scientific debate on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not expected to understand the technical scientific debate .
Rather it is like going to visit a big laboratory , to see that a lot of work is being done .
This approach is useful in settings where digging into the science would be disruptive .
I do this by first briefly explaining both sides of the issue , then show the student a Google Scholar search on that topic in the recent scientific literature .
For example , a search on “ little ice age ” finds over 10,000 articles in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Over 250 have it in their article title .
Clearly there is still a ton of research going on .
My LIA gatebreaker is at http : //ccdedu.blogspot.com/2019/05/are-we-coming-out-of-little-ice-age.html .
But possible additions are not a criticism of the present grand package .
Heartland ’ s new collection of gatebreakers is an awesome resource .
A clear antidote to climate alarmism at the street level .
Spread the word .
Climate at a Glance is a game changer .

“Gatebreaker” is a word I use to describe a special kind of document that until recently has been few and far between. It is a one or two page nontechnical refutation of a specific alarmist argument. It is something a student or citizen can use to confront an alarmist gatekeeper, hence the name gatebreaker. I wrote about the need for gatebreakers several years ago.
The Heartland Institute has just published a whopping 22 gatebreakers, with more promised. This is a true wealth of important skeptical material, unlike anything we have seen before. My dream is coming true.
A gatebreaker is something a skeptical student can send around to the class when the teacher insists on alarmism. Or something short and simple to send to a journalist in response to an alarmist article, or to a politician making alarmist speeches, or the local blowhard alarmist. It’s power lies in its specificity and its simplicity.
The Heartland website is called “Climate at a Glance” (https://climateataglance.com) which makes it sound softer than it really is, sort of like a pink pistol which you can actually buy. These are not glances; they are hard hitting rebuttals.
Heartland calls these short pieces “summaries” because each summarizes a strong response to a common alarmist claim or argument. The summaries are wide ranging because the climate change debate is like that. There is hard science, but also policy, economics and things in between. Extreme weather gets a lot of attention. Here is a partial list to give the flavor of the mix:
Antarctic Ice Melt
Floods
Carbon Dioxide Tax
Hurricanes
National Security
Crop Production
Consensus
Water Levels – Great Lakes
Climate Sensitivity
Subsidies
Sea Level Rise
And my personal favorite: Tipping Point – 1.5 Degrees Celsius Warming
Plus a bunch more.
Here is how Heartland explains it. The what: “This website condenses frequently argued climate issues into one- or two-page “at-a-glance” summaries. Bullet-points at the top provide quick, memorable information. Short summaries of a paragraph or two provide additional depth. Many summaries include powerful visual graphs. Embedded links verify the information.”
And the why: “Climate At A Glance puts frequently argued climate issues into short, concise, summaries that provide the most important, accurate, powerful information. The summaries are designed to provide a library of solid yet simple rebuttals so that legislators, teachers, students, and laymen can easily refute the exaggerations of the so-called “climate crisis.””
Taken together these summaries make a nice short course on the climate change debate.
In addition to refuting the primary alarmist arguments, Heartland might consider adding summaries of positive skeptical arguments related to key issues that alarmists ignore. These include issues like the flaws in the climate models, the little ice age, natural variability, scaring children, the impossibility of 100% renewables, and the incredible benefits of fossil fuels.
Then too it would be very useful if some of these skeptical summaries were specifically geared to the new Next Generation Science Standards. These are just coming into force for many of America’s K-12 students. Climate change is taught in both middle and high school, with a definite slant toward alarmism. Students are required to use climate models in middle school. No doubt these are alarmist models.
Also there is a somewhat different approach, which I have experimented. This is to teach just that there is a serious scientific debate on a given issue. The student is not expected to understand the technical scientific debate. Rather it is like going to visit a big laboratory, to see that a lot of work is being done. This approach is useful in settings where digging into the science would be disruptive.
I do this by first briefly explaining both sides of the issue, then show the student a Google Scholar search on that topic in the recent scientific literature. For example, a search on “little ice age” finds over 10,000 articles in the last five years talking about the LIA. Over 250 have it in their article title. Clearly there is still a ton of research going on. My LIA gatebreaker is at http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2019/05/are-we-coming-out-of-little-ice-age.html.
But possible additions are not a criticism of the present grand package. Heartland’s new collection of gatebreakers is an awesome resource. A clear antidote to climate alarmism at the street level. Spread the word. Climate at a Glance is a game changer.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-16--Virginia raises energy costs – tomorrow

Virginia raises energy costs – tomorrow

Kermit the Frog of Sesame Street fame got it wrong .
Being environmentally green means you can promise “ clean ” energy in the future , make it sound simple and seamless , and ignore the higher costs and impracticality of it all .
Politicians in the Commonwealth of Virginia are the latest example of promising “ carbon free , ” renewable energy and “ green jobs ” decades from now , while they begin the disassembling of the fossil fuel industry and its related jobs .
Talk is cheap and promises of nirvana are easy .
When the higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses to bring about this brave green world , it will be far enough into the future .
Self-congratulating politicians of today risk nothing by imposing energy mandates , price hikes and jobs losses on tomorrow .
Governor Ralph Northam announced on Easter Sunday that he signed two bills passed by the General Assembly to impose “ clean ” energy mandates on the state ’ s residents and businesses over the next three decades .
He said this will “ propel Virginia to leadership among the states in fighting climate change.
” Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year made a national splash when it was revealed that his personal page in his college yearbook included a racist photo of two students , one in blackface and the other wearing a Klansman hood .
The governor initially admitted he was one of the students , but never said which .
After apologizing , he changed his initial admission to deny he was either person in the photo ( did he photograph two of his buddies ? )
.
It was quite the scandal .
The governor refused many calls to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Lieutenant Governor , who would take over , had his own simultaneous scandal engulfing him .
The Northam administration lives on , and has since embraced full-blown climate alarmism and the reordering of energy development in the Commonwealth .
Green groups are pleased .
The new “ Virginia Clean Economy Act ” narrowly passed the General Assembly , which reflected sharp division rather than consensus for such radical change .
The law will close fossil fuel plants and require electricity be generated entirely from solar , wind and whatever other renewable sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants will close in just four years .
When the sun doesn ’ t shine and the wind doesn ’ t blow , how will the lights stay on ?
Governor Northam did not say .
That is a future governor ’ s problem , along with the citizens of the Commonwealth .
The Virginia State Corporations Commission ( SCC ) , which regulates the state ’ s electric utilities , acknowledged that if the planned electric generating capacity from wind and solar falls short , “ all the risk is on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would see an increase of nearly $ 300 per year ( nearly $ 25 per month ) in their electric bills by 2027 .
However , costs may be higher if the electric utilities have to purchase power from the out-of-state wholesale market or construct gas-fired back-up generation facilities .
Furthermore , the law mandates energy companies “ must pay penalties for not meeting their ( renewable energy ) targets.
” That means ratepayers – individuals and business owners – will “ pay penalties ” since the energy companies would simply pass through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law tacitly acknowledges that energy costs will increase by its inclusion of “ energy efficiency pilot programs ” to purportedly reduce the burden on those who will be hardest hit – people in low-income households .
Two state agencies are directed to “ develop recommendations to implement ” the programs .
Translation : bureaucrats will figure out later how to keep the poor from being slammed with higher energy costs when “ fighting climate change.
” Higher costs notwithstanding , “ fighting climate change ” makes it all worth it , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McClellan , who said , “ the cost of doing nothing is staggering.
” As is so typical , her claim is purely abstract , not quantifiable and therefore meaningless .
That is why “ fighting climate change ” is another cheap and easy posture from Virginia politicians in support of this law since it provides no specifics and dares not promise—much less define—victory .
It can not .
The Commonwealth of Virginia is a lovely place , but it is a comparative speck on the planet , as is every other state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents to purchase more expensive , impractical energy from unreliable wind and solar sources will not dent climate change , much less alter it .
The world is too large , and the climate is affected by too many other factors beyond our control since time began .

Kermit the Frog of Sesame Street fame got it wrong.
It is easy “being green.”
Being environmentally green means you can promise “clean” energy in the future, make it sound simple and seamless, and ignore the higher costs and impracticality of it all.
Politicians in the Commonwealth of Virginia are the latest example of promising “carbon free,” renewable energy and “green jobs” decades from now, while they begin the disassembling of the fossil fuel industry and its related jobs.
Talk is cheap and promises of nirvana are easy. When the higher energy bills come due on ratepayers and businesses to bring about this brave green world, it will be far enough into the future. Self-congratulating politicians of today risk nothing by imposing energy mandates, price hikes and jobs losses on tomorrow.
Governor Ralph Northam announced on Easter Sunday that he signed two bills passed by the General Assembly to impose “clean” energy mandates on the state’s residents and businesses over the next three decades. He said this will “propel Virginia to leadership among the states in fighting climate change.”
Gov. Northam, you may recall, last year made a national splash when it was revealed that his personal page in his college yearbook included a racist photo of two students, one in blackface and the other wearing a Klansman hood. The governor initially admitted he was one of the students, but never said which. After apologizing, he changed his initial admission to deny he was either person in the photo (did he photograph two of his buddies?).
It was quite the scandal. The governor refused multiple calls to resign, in part because Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor, who would take over, had his own simultaneous scandal engulfing him.
The Northam administration lives on, and has since embraced full-blown climate alarmism and the reordering of energy development in the Commonwealth. Green groups are pleased.
The new “Virginia Clean Economy Act” narrowly passed the General Assembly, which reflected sharp division rather than consensus for such radical change. The law will close fossil fuel plants and require electricity be generated entirely from solar, wind and whatever other renewable sources exist by 2050. Nearly all coal-fired plants will close in just four years.
When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, how will the lights stay on? Governor Northam did not say. That is a future governor’s problem, along with the citizens of the Commonwealth. The Virginia State Corporations Commission (SCC), which regulates the state’s electric utilities, acknowledged that if the planned electric generating capacity from wind and solar falls short, “all the risk is on the ratepayer.”
The SCC estimated that ratepayers would see an increase of nearly $300 per year (nearly $25 per month) in their electric bills by 2027. However, costs may be higher if the electric utilities have to purchase power from the out-of-state wholesale market or construct gas-fired back-up generation facilities.
Furthermore, the law mandates energy companies “must pay penalties for not meeting their (renewable energy) targets.” That means ratepayers – individuals and business owners – will “pay penalties” since the energy companies would simply pass through such added costs.
The new Virginia law tacitly acknowledges that energy costs will increase by its inclusion of “energy efficiency pilot programs” to purportedly reduce the burden on those who will be hardest hit – people in low-income households. Two state agencies are directed to “develop recommendations to implement” the programs. Translation: bureaucrats will figure out later how to keep the poor from being slammed with higher energy costs when “fighting climate change.”
Higher costs notwithstanding, “fighting climate change” makes it all worth it, according to “fighters” like state Sen. Jennifer McClellan, who said, “the cost of doing nothing is staggering.” As is so typical, her claim is purely abstract, not quantifiable and therefore meaningless.
That is why “fighting climate change” is another cheap and easy posture from Virginia politicians in support of this law since it provides no specifics and dares not promise—much less define—victory. It cannot.
The Commonwealth of Virginia is a lovely place, but it is a comparative speck on the planet, as is every other state. Forcing Virginians and other states’ residents to purchase more expensive, impractical energy from unreliable wind and solar sources will not dent climate change, much less alter it. The world is too large, and the climate is affected by too many other factors beyond our control since time began.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-15--UN should change course on climate

UN should change course on climate

The UN ’ s climate action machinery is on the verge to collapse , beginning this November in Glasgow , Scotland .
This time the annual climate summit , called COP 26 , is most likely to end in complete disarray , even more than COP 25 did last year in Madrid , Spain .
The failure of COP 25 was widely noted with sadness , but Madrid was a minor COP , with little of substance on the table .
In contrast COP 26 is hugely important .
When it fails , the UN has to rethink its entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the six principles stated in CLINTEL ’ s World Climate Declaration captures the situation very succinctly .
It says “ Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
” If it does not , such a policy must fail .
See https : //clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ .
The scientific reality is that , as CLINTEL emphasizes , there is no climate emergency .
The radicals insist that there is , but their claim has no basis , not even in alarmist science .
The so called Climate Crisis is an emperor without clothes .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major economies , developed and developing , are simply not going to announce drastic new actions at COP 26 , which is what the radicals are demanding .
But in reality the reason is economic , which means political .
Drastic action is both expensive and intrusive , requiring huge new taxes and unpleasant regulations , both imposing on how people live .
No major government is in a position to do these things without showing its citizens clear benefits .
Instead they are setting token targets decades away .
Aside : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drastic actions but it is not in the President ’ s power to take them .
That is up to Congress and they are not that naive .
Congress often ignores the President ’ s agenda .
There are several big issues that make COP 26 a super-COP , which is why it will fail .
First , it is being hyped that the major economies will table bold new plans for cutting emissions under the Paris Accord .
The EU might do this but that is all , and even that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fierce protests in their member states .
China and India have said they will not do it .
The U.S. will have quit the Accord by then .
Russia has no interest and Japan is busy building coal fired power plants to replace its mothballed nukes .
Boris Johnson has said nothing about new immediate UK actions .
He is fixated on 2050 .
Brazil has a populist president like Trump .
And so it goes down the list of majors .
There is no one there .
This lack of bold new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just as it did in Madrid , only more so because Glasgow is being falsely billed as decisive .
The radicals are likely to react by paralyzingly the process .
It ’ s their way or no way .
But there is more , much more actually .
The Paris Accord was adopted globally based on the promise of riches for the developing world .
Specifically , a whopping one hundred billion dollars a year was supposed to start flowing in 2020 , paid by the developed countries ( especially America ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t going to happen .
America is out and nobody else has that kind of money .
Obama promised it and he is long gone .
This failure makes a huge difference , because all of the present developing country plans for cutting emissions under the Paris Accord are specifically contingent on this money coming .
If the developing countries cancel their plans , due to non-payment , then the Paris Accord is sunk .
Instead of more ambition there will actually be a lot less .
The climate machine collapses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely at this point , then the UN led alarmist establishment may be forced to rethink its direction .
Cutting emissions is called “ mitigation ” in UN-speak .
There are three potential “ tions ” in climate policy — mitigation , compensation and adaptation .
When compensation goes , mitigation goes with it .
CLINTEL ’ s stated position is that the climate science is far from settled and that climate change policy should focus on adaptation not mitigation .
Adaptation always works , whatever the causes of change are .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We all agree that there will always be floods , droughts , wildfires , heat waves and hurricanes , so the moderate skeptics can join with the moderate alarmists on this policy .
It does not matter what causes the extreme weather , let ’ s just get ready for it .
Same for modest sea level rise .
All things considered the collapse of COP 26 could be a wake up call for alarmism .
The solution is already there : Think adaptation !
Time will tell .
Stay tuned to CFACT @

The UN’s climate action machinery is on the verge to collapse, beginning this November in Glasgow, Scotland. This time the annual climate summit, called COP 26, is most likely to end in complete disarray, even more than COP 25 did last year in Madrid, Spain.
The failure of COP 25 was widely noted with sadness, but Madrid was a minor COP, with little of substance on the table. In contrast COP 26 is hugely important. When it fails, the UN has to rethink its entire approach to climate action.
One of the six principles stated in CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration captures the situation very succinctly. It says “Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.” If it does not, such a policy must fail. See https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/.
The scientific reality is that, as CLINTEL emphasizes, there is no climate emergency. The radicals insist that there is, but their claim has no basis, not even in alarmist science. The so called Climate Crisis is an emperor without clothes. It exists in computer models only.
The major economies, developed and developing, are simply not going to announce drastic new actions at COP 26, which is what the radicals are demanding. But in reality the reason is economic, which means political. Drastic action is both expensive and intrusive, requiring huge new taxes and unpleasant regulations, both imposing on how people live. No major government is in a position to do these things without showing its citizens clear benefits. Instead they are setting token targets decades away.
Aside: the U.S. Democrat presidential candidates are promising various drastic actions but it is not in the President’s power to take them. That is up to Congress and they are not that naive. Congress often ignores the President’s agenda.
There are several big issues that make COP 26 a super-COP, which is why it will fail. First, it is being hyped that the major economies will table bold new plans for cutting emissions under the Paris Accord. The EU might do this but that is all, and even that is uncertain if we take into account the fierce protests in their member states.
China and India have said they will not do it. The U.S. will have quit the Accord by then. Russia has no interest and Japan is busy building coal fired power plants to replace its mothballed nukes. Boris Johnson has said nothing about new immediate UK actions. He is fixated on 2050. Brazil has a populist president like Trump. And so it goes down the list of majors. There is no one there.
This lack of bold new actions is sure to enrage the radicals, just as it did in Madrid, only more so because Glasgow is being falsely billed as decisive. The radicals are likely to react by paralyzingly the process. It’s their way or no way.
But there is more, much more actually. The Paris Accord was adopted globally based on the promise of riches for the developing world. Specifically, a whopping one hundred billion dollars a year was supposed to start flowing in 2020, paid by the developed countries (especially America) to the developing ones.
It ain’t going to happen. America is out and nobody else has that kind of money. Obama promised it and he is long gone.
This failure makes a huge difference, because all of the present developing country plans for cutting emissions under the Paris Accord are specifically contingent on this money coming. If the developing countries cancel their plans, due to non-payment, then the Paris Accord is sunk. Instead of more ambition there will actually be a lot less. The climate machine collapses.
If this collapse occurs, which seems likely at this point, then the UN led alarmist establishment may be forced to rethink its direction.
Cutting emissions is called “mitigation” in UN-speak. There are three potential “tions” in climate policy — mitigation, compensation and adaptation. When compensation goes, mitigation goes with it.
CLINTEL’s stated position is that the climate science is far from settled and that climate change policy should focus on adaptation not mitigation. Adaptation always works, whatever the causes of change are. This is where the UN should go.
We all agree that there will always be floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves and hurricanes, so the moderate skeptics can join with the moderate alarmists on this policy. It does not matter what causes the extreme weather, let’s just get ready for it. Same for modest sea level rise.
All things considered the collapse of COP 26 could be a wake up call for alarmism. The solution is already there: Think adaptation!
Time will tell. Stay tuned to CFACT.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-14--Like polar bears, coral reefs are doing fine

Corals are animals , actually closely related to jelly fish but of course differing in that they have a limestone skeleton made up of calcium carbonate .
Their growth rates can be studied to give us knowledge of the ocean and its sea level over thousands of years .
They have lived throughout the oceans of our planet for many thousand years .
Over those many years they have experienced both much warmer and much colder periods of geologic time .
The bleaching that they have experienced in the view of many climate alarmists is not a sign of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not a sign that the end of the world as we know it is in sight , The simple truth is that when a coral experiences any number of environmental changes which could be the chemistry of its surrounding water or its local temperature , the algae that inhabit and feed a coral are likely to find the environment less suitable and leave for greener pastures .
The change in color of the coral which alarmists call “ bleaching “ is a result of one group of bacteria leaving and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the first resident group is leaving the coral becomes whiter and as a new group moves in the coral takes on a new color .
This new color is often mistaken as the corals death nell .
The algae that moves in not only provides it a new color but is also the corals source of the food it needs to live .
While the Polar Bear has been the face of the global warming delusion , coral reefs have been close behind as an animal that will eventually go extinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuels , emitting carbon dioxide and warming the planet , its atmosphere and its oceans .
The reality is anything but that .
The Great Barrier Reef , stretching 1400 miles along the coast of Queensland , Australia is also a prominent “ poster child “ for the supposed damage mankind is doing to our Earth .
It is actually composed of nearly 3000 separate coral reefs , can be seen from space and is perhaps Australia ’ s greatest tourist attraction .
It ’ s ultimate destruction by man-caused global warming ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is used regularly to pull at the heartstrings of those who sadly buy into the delusion .
In fact , it is probable that no reef has received greater scrutiny , and been the subject of more research than the Great Barrier Reef ( GBR ) , especially since the clamor to save it hit warp speed .
The late Robert M. Carter , Emeritus Fellow of the Australian Institute of Public Affairs , who was considered the world ’ s leading expert on the reef , wrote extensively about it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He explained that to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR between 1995 and 2009 , which the International Panel on Climate Change contends was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet in the past thousand years , annual surveys were performed .
Marine biologists surveyed coastal communities each year on 47 reefs in six latitudes across about 700 miles of the GBR .
They took samples at varying depths between 20 and 30 feet .
They found that coral cover increased in about half the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one would expect when nature operates without human intervention .
Overall they concluded that coral cover was stable and that there was no evidence of “ consistent system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995 ” .
Other research throughout the world has confirmed that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions .
There is now a growing body of evidence to support the notion that corals inhabiting more thermally unstable habitats outperform reefs characterized by more stable temperatures .
In sum and a little more erudite : coral bleaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genotypes to create associations better adapted to new environmental conditions , as opposed to a breakdown of stable relationships that serves as a symptom of degenerating environmental conditions .
In the words of the late Robert Carter “ the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle ” .
NOTE : Portions of this article were excerpted from the excellent book Climate Change A Convenient Truth with permission of the author Jim Hollingsworth .
His book is highly recommended for its brief treatment of the many issues misunderstood by the general public .

Corals are animals, actually closely related to jelly fish but of course differing in that they have a limestone skeleton made up of calcium carbonate. Their growth rates can be studied to give us knowledge of the ocean and its sea level over thousands of years.
They have lived throughout the oceans of our planet for many thousand years. Over those many years they have experienced both much warmer and much colder periods of geologic time. The bleaching that they have experienced in the view of many climate alarmists is not a sign of their destruction or in fact ill health. It is not a sign that the end of the world as we know it is in sight,
The simple truth is that when a coral experiences any number of environmental changes which could be the chemistry of its surrounding water or its local temperature, the algae that inhabit and feed a coral are likely to find the environment less suitable and leave for greener pastures.
The change in color of the coral which alarmists call “bleaching “ is a result of one group of bacteria leaving and then another group of bacteria taking its place. When the first resident group is leaving the coral becomes whiter and as a new group moves in the coral takes on a new color. This new color is often mistaken as the corals death nell. The algae that moves in not only provides it a new color but is also the corals source of the food it needs to live.
While the Polar Bear has been the face of the global warming delusion, coral reefs have been close behind as an animal that will eventually go extinct if we do not stop using fossil fuels, emitting carbon dioxide and warming the planet, its atmosphere and its oceans. The reality is anything but that.
The Great Barrier Reef, stretching 1400 miles along the coast of Queensland, Australia is also a prominent “poster child “ for the supposed damage mankind is doing to our Earth. It is actually composed of nearly 3000 separate coral reefs, can be seen from space and is perhaps Australia’s greatest tourist attraction. It’s ultimate destruction by man-caused global warming (now called Climate Change of course), is used regularly to pull at the heartstrings of those who sadly buy into the delusion.
In fact, it is probable that no reef has received greater scrutiny, and been the subject of more research than the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), especially since the clamor to save it hit warp speed.
The late Robert M. Carter, Emeritus Fellow of the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, who was considered the world’s leading expert on the reef, wrote extensively about it in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. He explained that to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR between 1995 and 2009, which the International Panel on Climate Change contends was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet in the past thousand years, annual surveys were performed. Marine biologists surveyed coastal communities each year on 47 reefs in six latitudes across about 700 miles of the GBR. They took samples at varying depths between 20 and 30 feet.
They found that coral cover increased in about half the regions and decreased in the other half as one would expect when nature operates without human intervention. Overall they concluded that coral cover was stable and that there was no evidence of “consistent system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995”.
Other research throughout the world has confirmed that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions. There is now a growing body of evidence to support the notion that corals inhabiting more thermally unstable habitats outperform reefs characterized by more stable temperatures.
In sum and a little more erudite: coral bleaching is an adaptive strategy for shuffling symbiont genotypes to create associations better adapted to new environmental conditions, as opposed to a breakdown of stable relationships that serves as a symptom of degenerating environmental conditions.
In the words of the late Robert Carter “the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle”.
NOTE: Portions of this article were excerpted from the excellent book Climate Change A Convenient Truth with permission of the author Jim Hollingsworth. His book is highly recommended for its brief treatment of the many issues misunderstood by the general public.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-13--Time to extricate from China

Time to extricate from China

The Communist Party that rules the People ’ s Republic of China is not a friend of the United States .
It is an enemy ; or at the very least , an adversary that does not share our interests .
It is time Americans understand this more fully , starting with the political class , and act accordingly .
The coronavirus pandemic , which started in the city of Wuhan , China , should be a wake-up call for America on a plethora of issues , including the readiness of our own country to deal with a viral outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency in our country and it will not be the last .
The coronavirus revealed another major vulnerability of the United States : its dependence on China economically and , more specifically , for the manufacture of medicines .
Ominously , the American people are medically dependent on China .
This condition was unthinkable with the Soviet Union during the Cold War .
China is now the largest producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients ( API ) according to the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission , a federal agency .
A recent commission report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dependent on drugs that are either sourced from China or include APIs sourced from China.
” Examples : the U.S. imports from China 90 percent of its antibiotics , which fight infection ; and vitamin A , which boosts your immune system .
A recent article by Xinhua , the Chinese state-run news agency , claimed that China could impose export controls on drugs that would turn the U.S. into “ the mighty sea of coronavirus.
” That is the house organ of the Communist Party of China–led by Xi Jinping , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like the old Soviet Union , China ’ s government spokesmen and Party media spread false propaganda and incessantly attack the United States .
The intensity has increased recently with the spread of the coronavirus , with China now claiming the U.S. started the disease .
A foreign ministry spokesman actually blamed the U.S. military for the virus outbreak .
In response , the U.S. needs to do a lot more than chastise the Chinese ambassador .
How did American become so dependent—and vulnerable—to China ?
Follow the money .
American corporations have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Apple Computer and the National Basketball Association as prominent examples .
China is home to more than 1.4 billion people , the most of any nation on the planet .
The cost in China to manufacture products is cheaper , and it has large market of current and potential consumers of American goods .
The financial rewards of marketing and manufacturing in China are such that U.S.-based companies and most politicians willingly overlook China ’ s many ongoing transgressions , especially its oppression of minority populations .
For example , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim minorities are detained in “ re-education centers ” in western China that force indoctrination on them .
China also remains a relentless polluter , with its ongoing expansion of coal to grow its economy and expand the global reach of its military .
China since 2005 has been the world ’ s largest emitter of carbon , as emissions now exceed the combined levels of the U.S. and European Union .
It is totally unserious about emissions with its meaningless signing of the meaningless Paris Climate Accords .
From a purely self-interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that NBA teams play basketball games in China , or that IPhones get made there .
However , the manufacture by China of so much of our medicine is a whole other issue of importance .
This economic dependence of the U.S. on China did not come about overnight .
It began in earnest 40 years ago with the establishment of formal diplomatic relations in 1979 and has steadily increased during both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations .
By 2000 , the U.S. approved “ normal trade relations ” with China , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Trade Organization .
As China has prospered economically since then , its military build-up has strengthened , and its internal human rights abuses have been ongoing .
The coronavirus reveals how intertwined the United States economy is with China .
When supply chains from China get interrupted , it hurts us economically .
When the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party threatens to withhold export of pharmaceuticals , it is time to rethink this bi-lateral relationship .
The United States should not be in such a vulnerable condition with an adversarial nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which make the difference between life and death .
It is time for the president , Congress , and American corporations to begin to wean America away from China , especially as its mendacious and aggressive behavior continues worldwide .

The Communist Party that rules the People’s Republic of China is not a friend of the United States. It is an enemy; or at the very least, an adversary that does not share our interests. It is time Americans understand this more fully, starting with the political class, and act accordingly.
The coronavirus pandemic, which started in the city of Wuhan, China, should be a wake-up call for America on a plethora of issues, including the readiness of our own country to deal with a viral outbreak. Coronavirus is not the first health emergency in our country and it will not be the last.
The coronavirus revealed another major vulnerability of the United States: its dependence on China economically and, more specifically, for the manufacture of medicines. Ominously, the American people are medically dependent on China. This condition was unthinkable with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
China is now the largest producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) according to the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission, a federal agency. A recent commission report stated that the U.S. “is heavily dependent on drugs that are either sourced from China or include APIs sourced from China.” Examples: the U.S. imports from China 90 percent of its antibiotics, which fight infection; and vitamin A, which boosts your immune system.
A recent article by Xinhua, the Chinese state-run news agency, claimed that China could impose export controls on drugs that would turn the U.S. into “the mighty sea of coronavirus.”
That is the house organ of the Communist Party of China–led by Xi Jinping, with dictatorial rule over the country–threatening America.
Like the old Soviet Union, China’s government spokesmen and Party media spread false propaganda and incessantly attack the United States. The intensity has increased recently with the spread of the coronavirus, with China now claiming the U.S. started the disease. A foreign ministry spokesman actually blamed the U.S. military for the virus outbreak.
In response, the U.S. needs to do a lot more than chastise the Chinese ambassador.
How did American become so dependent—and vulnerable—to China? Follow the money.
American corporations have done very well doing business with China, with Apple Computer and the National Basketball Association as prominent examples. China is home to more than 1.4 billion people, the most of any nation on the planet. The cost in China to manufacture products is cheaper, and it has large market of current and potential consumers of American goods.
The financial rewards of marketing and manufacturing in China are such that U.S.-based companies and most politicians willingly overlook China’s many ongoing transgressions, especially its oppression of minority populations. For example, as many as one million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are detained in “re-education centers” in western China that force indoctrination on them.
China also remains a relentless polluter, with its ongoing expansion of coal to grow its economy and expand the global reach of its military. China since 2005 has been the world’s largest emitter of carbon, as emissions now exceed the combined levels of the U.S. and European Union. It is totally unserious about emissions with its meaningless signing of the meaningless Paris Climate Accords.
From a purely self-interested standpoint, it may not matter much that NBA teams play basketball games in China, or that IPhones get made there. However, the manufacture by China of so much of our medicine is a whole other issue of importance.
This economic dependence of the U.S. on China did not come about overnight. It began in earnest 40 years ago with the establishment of formal diplomatic relations in 1979 and has steadily increased during both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
By 2000, the U.S. approved “normal trade relations” with China, which was followed by its entry to the World Trade Organization. As China has prospered economically since then, its military build-up has strengthened, and its internal human rights abuses have been ongoing.
The coronavirus reveals how intertwined the United States economy is with China. When supply chains from China get interrupted, it hurts us economically. When the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party threatens to withhold export of pharmaceuticals, it is time to redo this bi-lateral relationship.
The United States should not be in such a vulnerable condition with an adversarial and dangerous nation, both economically and particularly with medicines, which make the difference between life and death. It is time for the president, Congress, and American corporations to begin to wean America away from China, especially as its mendacious and aggressive behavior continues worldwide.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-13--Greta preaches many of the first Earth Day’s failed predictions

More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change , diagnosed with Asperger ’ s — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22 , 1970 .
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day , Then and Now , ” by Ronald Bailey , Reason.com .
May 1 , 2000 of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970 .
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictions are being reincarnated on today ’ s social and news media outlets .
Many of the same are being regurgitated today , but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago , yes 50 years ago , was that the “ the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000 ” .
The 1970 ’ s were a lousy decade .
and reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war , endless political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970— okay , “ celebrated ” doesn ’ t capture the funereal tone of the event .
The events ( organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer ) predicted death , destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded .
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day , 1970 : • “ Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
” — Harvard biologist George Wald • “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatens the survival of this nation , and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner • “ Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources , not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.
” — New York Times editorial • “ Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make .
The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich • “ Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [ By 1975 ] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions .
Other experts , more optimistic , think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
” — Paul Ehrlich • “ It is already too late to avoid mass starvation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth Day • “ Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable : by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India ; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India , Pakistan , China and the Near East , Africa .
By the year 2000 , or conceivably sooner , South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… .
By the year 2000 , thirty years from now , the entire world , with the exception of Western Europe , North America , and Australia , will be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor Peter Gunter • “ In a decade , urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.
” — Life magazine • “ At the present rate of nitrogen buildup , it ’ s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt • “ Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — Paul Ehrlich • “ By the year 2000 , if present trends continue , we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won ’ t be any more crude oil .
You ’ ll drive up to the pump and say , ‘ Fill ‘ er up , buddy , ’ and he ’ ll say , ‘ I am very sorry , there isn ’ t any . '
” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt • “ [ One ] theory assumes that the earth ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more dust , fumes , and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes .
Screened from the sun ’ s heat , the planet will cool , the water vapor will fall and freeze , and a new Ice Age will be born.
” — Newsweek magazine • “ The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years .
If present trends continue , the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 , but eleven degrees colder in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
” — Kenneth Watt History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak .
I guess we ’ ll need to critique the 2020 doomsday predictions in the year 2050 and see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago .

More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change, diagnosed with Asperger’s — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day, Then and Now,” by Ronald Bailey, Reason.com. May 1, 2000 of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970.
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade, many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today’s social and news media outlets.
Many of the same are being regurgitated today, but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago, yes 50 years ago, was that the “the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000”.
The 1970’s were a lousy decade. Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war, endless political scandals, and a faltering economy.
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970— okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn ) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak. I guess we’ll need to critique the 2020 doomsday predictions in the year 2050 and see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-12--Corona virus is not a climate event

Corona virus is not a climate event

As predictable as the morning sunrise , we are hearing that the spread of the Corona Virus is enhanced by “ climate change ” .
No proof of that for one , and for two it runs counter to the fact that life THRIVED in warmer times .
You have seen this chart many times so here it is again : They are called optimums because life thrives more when its warmer .
One may argue that a virus is a living organism , but the point is that in previous times if viruses thrived when it was warmer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thrived more .
They are called optimums because life thrives more when its warmer .
One may argue that a virus is a living organism , but the point is that in previous times if viruses thrived when it was warmer , plant and animal life which includes humans , thrived more .
Over the years , after studying all of this , I have made no secret that I believe the climate change agenda is a smokescreen for other agendas .
One of them is driven by the idea that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , using too much of the resources of the planet .
This apparently flies in the face of the “ be fruitful and multiply ” which of course does not say be stupid and trash the planet .
Then again , it does not imply that there is a set limit on what man can do with free will and a head turned toward the higher calling , something beyond the state .
Yet when I look at some of the statements by prominent people that are on the climate change bandwagon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population control .
There is that word , control , the idea that one person knows better than another person what is good for the society as a whole .
Like it or not , Socialism/Marxism is not at all about equality for all but is a top-down form of government control where the vast majority of the people do not have a chance to rise into the upper echelon unless pledging loyalty to that doctrine .
In essense the destruction of free will , which if you believe in God the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s gift of free will .
Basically it comes down to , you can make the choice vs someone else will make the choice for you .
But where is the evidence for this , I think a few choice quotes will make my point .
How about this from none other than Ted Turner .
Quote by Ted Turner : “ A total population of 250-300 million people , a 95 % decline from present levels , would be ideal.
” Now here are some real nice ones : Quote by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Stanford University : “ A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells ; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people .
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.
” Quote by John Holdren , President Obama ’ s science czar : “ There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws , even including laws requiring compulsory abortion , could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Quote by Christopher Manes , a writer for Earth First !
journal : “ The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.
” Quote by David Foreman , co-founder of Earth First !
: “ My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide , destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness , with it ’ s full complement of species , returning throughout the world.
” Quote by David Brower , a founder of the Sierra Club : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against society , unless the parents hold a government license .
All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals , the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.
” Quote by Club of Rome : “ …the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.
” Quote by Susan Blakemore , a UK Guardian science journalist : “ For the planet ’ s sake , I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish for a flu to reduce population : These are but a few choice ditties to make you aware that there is more than the increase of 1C in the temperature of the planet , for whatever reason , than meets the eye .
An exhaustive list of quotes that will scare the daylights out of any rational ( keyword rational ) human being can be found here : I will end with the challenge I always do for people who have open minds and hearts .
Don ’ t believe me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself .
Don ’ t believe what you are told .
If it is important to you , you must do the research and come to your conclusion .
That is what freedom is all about and believe me given the nature of what we are seeing today there may come a time when what you can look at will be out of your control .
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them imaginary.
” , “ The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it .
”

As predictable as the morning sunrise, we are hearing that the spread of the Corona Virus is enhanced by “climate change”. No proof of that for one, and for two it runs counter to the fact that life THRIVED in warmer times. You have seen this chart many times so here it is again: They are called optimums because life thrives more when its warmer. One may argue that a virus is a living organism, but the point is that in previous times if viruses thrived when it was warmer, plant and animal life which includes humans, thrived more. They are called optimums because life thrives more when its warmer. One may argue that a virus is a living organism, but the point is that in previous times if viruses thrived when it was warmer, plant and animal life which includes humans, thrived more.
Over the years, after studying all of this, I have made no secret that I believe the climate change agenda is a smokescreen for other agendas. One of them is driven by the idea that there are too many people on the planet, using too much of the resources of the planet. This apparently flies in the face of the “be fruitful and multiply” which of course does not say be stupid and trash the planet. Then again, it does not imply that there is a set limit on what man can do with free will and a head turned toward the higher calling, something beyond the state. Yet when I look at some of the statements by prominent people that are on the climate change bandwagon, I realize there is a link to population control. There is that word, control, the idea that one person knows better than another person what is good for the society as a whole. Like it or not, Socialism/Marxism is not at all about equality for all but is a top-down form of government control where the vast majority of the people do not have a chance to rise into the upper echelon unless pledging loyalty to that doctrine. In essense the destruction of free will, which if you believe in God the way I do, runs counter to God’s gift of free will.
.
Basically it comes down to, you can make the choice vs someone else will make the choice for you.
But where is the evidence for this, I think a few choice quotes will make my point. How about this from none other than Ted Turner. Quote by Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Now here are some real nice ones: Quote by Paul Ehrlich, (former) professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” How about these: Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Quote by Club of Rome: “…the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.” Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed.” A wish for a flu to reduce population: These are but a few choice ditties to make you aware that there is more than the increase of 1C in the temperature of the planet, for whatever reason, than meets the eye. An exhaustive list of quotes that will scare the daylights out of any rational (keyword rational) human being can be found here: https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html I will end with the challenge I always do for people who have open minds and hearts. Don’t believe me, if it is important go look for yourself. Don’t believe what you are told. If it is important to you, you must do the research and come to your conclusion. That is what freedom is all about and believe me given the nature of what we are seeing today there may come a time when what you can look at will be out of your control. Remember the words of HL Mencken: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”


Canadian Astroturf

Given the climate in much of Canada , Canadians have to be clever about such things as growing grass .
Think about it , you have a long winter , and short spring/summer/fall , so if you want grass , you have to strike while the weather is , well , at least warm .
Ish .
But the federal government is on the job !
Canadians can rest easy knowing its liberal federal government has made recent strides in promoting the growth of AstroTurf in Canada !
AstroTurf™ is artificial grass , but it ’ s also a term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come out in support of some kind of governmental policy .
See , the idea is that some supposedly grassroots movements ( movements that support particular policy positions ) can be fake , paid for by people who stand to profit from that particular government policy .
Normally , the term AstroTurf is thrown at right-leaning causes , such as promoting demonstrations for free markets , against gun control , against tax hikes or in general objecting to various forms of left-leaning .
So , demonstrations in support of fossil fuels ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ AstroTurf .
But !
Demonstrations in support of higher taxes , more controls on business , more criminalization of thoughts…those are all grassroots movements .
See the difference ?
Recently , as Canada is battling on the front lines in World War Fossil Fuels ( WWFF™ ) , it has been discovered that the government has been playing fast and loose with the public purse in order to build support for eco-centric governance .
Exhibit one : after loudly proclaiming that the Canadian federal government had not given support to Canada ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resources Minister Seamus O ’ Regan had to tell the press that he was “ deeply sorry , ” for not admitting that , well , his government had actually given nearly $ 2 million Canadian dollars to the Pembina Institute in 2017-2019 .
Oops .
A simple error .
One of a kind , surely , except for… Exhibit two : The federal government was also spotted fertilizing the AstroTurf by funneling governmental support to a Canadian aboriginal group that is opposing ( and physically blockading ) the development of a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting into arcane aboriginal politics , one can still follow the money : Canada ’ s federal government gave CAD $ 10,000 ( small change , but it ’ s the principle of the thing ) to Canada Tides Foundation , an organization that is bankrolling aboriginal opposition to oil and gas projects across Canada .
And finally… Exhibit three : In Parliament , the Trudeau government was pilloried by conservatives for supporting student interns working for the Dogwood Initiative , who , as the Initiative says , will “ help our organizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tanker project.
” The Kinder Morgan project is a major Canadian pipeline initiative to transport oil from the landlocked province of Alberta to west-coast ports for export to foreign markets where it could command higher prices .
Of course , all this could just be chalked up to bureaucratic bungling , where the left hand doesn ’ t know what the right hand is doing .
But as arch-villain Auric Goldfinger observes in the eponymous James Bond movie , “ Once is happenstance .
Twice is coincidence .
The third time it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silver lining in all this , however .
There is no grass ( real or fake ) involved in Ice Hockey .

Given the climate in much of Canada, Canadians have to be clever about such things as growing grass. Think about it, you have a long winter, and short spring/summer/fall, so if you want grass, you have to strike while the weather is, well, at least warm. Ish. But the federal government is on the job! Canadians can rest easy knowing its liberal federal government has made recent strides in promoting the growth of AstroTurf in Canada!
AstroTurf™ is artificial grass, but it’s also a term for fake propaganda campaigns that pay people to come out in support of some kind of governmental policy. See, the idea is that some supposedly grassroots movements (movements that support particular policy positions) can be fake, paid for by people who stand to profit from that particular government policy.
Normally, the term AstroTurf is thrown at right-leaning causes, such as promoting demonstrations for free markets, against gun control, against tax hikes or in general objecting to various forms of left-leaning. So, demonstrations in support of fossil fuels? AstroTurf. Objections to higher taxes? AstroTurf. But! Demonstrations in support of higher taxes, more controls on business, more criminalization of thoughts…those are all grassroots movements. See the difference?
Recently, as Canada is battling on the front lines in World War Fossil Fuels (WWFF™), it has been discovered that the government has been playing fast and loose with the public purse in order to build support for eco-centric governance.
Exhibit one: after loudly proclaiming that the Canadian federal government had not given support to Canada’s anti-fossil fuel Pembina Institute, Canadian Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan had to tell the press that he was “deeply sorry,” for not admitting that, well, his government had actually given nearly $2 million Canadian dollars to the Pembina Institute in 2017-2019. Oops. A simple error. One of a kind, surely, except for…
Exhibit two: The federal government was also spotted fertilizing the AstroTurf by funneling governmental support to a Canadian aboriginal group that is opposing (and physically blockading) the development of a large LNG project in British Columbia. Without getting into arcane aboriginal politics, one can still follow the money: Canada’s federal government gave CAD $10,000 (small change, but it’s the principle of the thing) to Canada Tides Foundation, an organization that is bankrolling aboriginal opposition to oil and gas projects across Canada. And finally…
Exhibit three: In Parliament, the Trudeau government was pilloried by conservatives for supporting student interns working for the Dogwood Initiative, who, as the Initiative says, will “help our organizing network stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project.” The Kinder Morgan project is a major Canadian pipeline initiative to transport oil from the landlocked province of Alberta to west-coast ports for export to foreign markets where it could command higher prices.
Of course, all this could just be chalked up to bureaucratic bungling, where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. But as arch-villain Auric Goldfinger observes in the eponymous James Bond movie, “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”
There is a silver lining in all this, however. There is no grass (real or fake) involved in Ice Hockey.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-11--Social Changes with COVID-19 are a prelude to life with less fossil fuels

While the world is fevirously trying to reduce emissions from fossil fuel usage , we get hit with the horrific contagious Coronavirus COVID-19 .
We ’ ve seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future .
We ’ ve seen a serious reduction in the usage of the transportation infrastructures of airlines , cruise ships , as well as automobiles , trucks and their impact on the leisure and entertainment industries , all to avoid crowds .
Before fossil fuels and the thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and electricity that followed , the world was a zero-sum snake pit .
One that was at war against one another scrounging for food , water , and shelter .
In the 1800 ’ s most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born .
Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age .
The social lifestyles before 1900 had no such transportation choices , as they had no autos , planes , or cruise ships for transportation .
The inventions of the automobile , airplane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 1900 ’ s led us into the Industrial Revolution .
Crude oil , natural gas , and coal changed – for the better – the lifestyles of every person living in developed countries such as , the U.S. , Europe , Japan , South Korea , and Australia .
We would not be able to “ make products and move things ” if not for the thousands of products from petroleum derivatives that get manufactured from crude oil that wind turbines and solar panels can not manufacture .
Economies around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their demand and usage each year of those energy sources from deep earth minerals/fuels to make thousands of products , inclusive of but not limited to : • Medications and medical equipment for cures for most diseases • Fertilizers to help agriculture feed the world • Asphalt for all the roads • Steel for every building in the world Today , the airlines that did not exist before 1900 , transported more than 4.1 billion passengers in 2017 around the world and projections are 7.8 billion airline passengers by 2036 .
Cruise ships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move 25 million passengers around the world every year .
Along with those transportation options available for society , we also have billions of vehicle trips to and from airports , hotels , ports , and amusement parks that are increasing each year .
COVID-19 has shown us that society changes can reduce the demand of those growing numbers .
Yes , we may be using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure and entertainment but the developed world is where it is today , healthier and wealthier , because of all those products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To meet those low emission targets , we ’ ll need to continue to reduce the transportation demands of society and COVID-19 may be showing us how we ’ ll need to retract from our extravagant usage of the various transportation systems that did not exist before fossil fuels .
Our future existence may be less vacations and less business conferences .
Reductions in the usage of the entertainment and hospitality industries , neither of which existed before fossil fuels , may also be necessitated .
As we weed ourselves from oil , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands for transportation infrastructures that COVID-19 has shown us the way .
As we weed ourselves away from fossil fuels , we ’ ll need to accept that developing countries like many in China , India , and Africa are still stuck in the pre-1900 ’ s era .
They have yet to join the industrial revolution and the opportunity to enjoy the thousands of products in our daily lifestyles .
Of which may never do so as the fuels that support the demands of the various transportation infrastructures will be diminishing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oil and gas industry , and seeking its demise , are the same ones reaping the benefits of the medications , medical equipment , communication networks , and the thousands of other products .
This from industries that have contributed to their lifestyles and their ability to live beyond 80 years of age .
Those vocal about emissions need to join the conservation movement .
Yes the world has changed from the societies that existed in primeval times , without airlines , trains , vehicles , merchant ships , medications , fertilizers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aircraft carriers , battleships , planes , tanks and armor , trucks , troop carriers , and weaponry , and electricity that did not exist before 1900 , but now may be the time to start showing our conservation cards .
At a rapid pace more and more countries and governments are moving their energy policies toward ridding the world of fossil fuels to electrify societies using only intermittent electricity from wind turbines and solar panels .
Electricity alone may support a simplifier lifestyle but can not support the huge energy needs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of products that societies demand from those petroleum derivatives .

While the world is fevirously trying to reduce emissions from fossil fuel usage, we get hit with the horrific contagious Coronavirus COVID-19. We’ve seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future.
We’ve seen a serious reduction in the usage of the transportation infrastructures of airlines, cruise ships, as well as automobiles, trucks and their impact on the leisure and entertainment industries, all to avoid crowds.
Before fossil fuels and the thousands of products made from petroleum derivatives, and electricity that followed, the world was a zero-sum snake pit. One that was at war against one another scrounging for food, water, and shelter. In the 1800’s most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born. Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age.
The social lifestyles before 1900 had no such transportation choices, as they had no autos, planes, or cruise ships for transportation. The inventions of the automobile, airplane, and the use of petroleum in the early 1900’s led us into the Industrial Revolution. Crude oil, natural gas, and coal changed – for the better – the lifestyles of every person living in developed countries such as, the U.S., Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
We would not be able to “make products and move things” if not for the thousands of products from petroleum derivatives that get manufactured from crude oil that wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture.
Economies around the world, and all the infrastructures are increasing their demand and usage each year of those energy sources from deep earth minerals/fuels to make thousands of products, inclusive of but not limited to:
Medications and medical equipment for cures for most diseases
Electronics for worldwide communications
Fertilizers to help agriculture feed the world
Asphalt for all the roads
Tires for all vehicles
Steel for every building in the world
Wire for the worldwide electrical grid
Today, the airlines that did not exist before 1900, transported more than 4.1 billion passengers in 2017 around the world and projections are 7.8 billion airline passengers by 2036. Cruise ships which also did not exist before 1900 move 25 million passengers around the world every year.
Along with those transportation options available for society, we also have billions of vehicle trips to and from airports, hotels, ports, and amusement parks that are increasing each year. COVID-19 has shown us that society changes can reduce the demand of those growing numbers.
Yes, we may be using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure and entertainment but the developed world is where it is today, healthier and wealthier, because of all those products we get from those oil derivatives.
To meet those low emission targets, we’ll need to continue to reduce the transportation demands of society and COVID-19 may be showing us how we’ll need to retract from our extravagant usage of the various transportation systems that did not exist before fossil fuels.
Our future existence may be less vacations and less business conferences. Reductions in the usage of the entertainment and hospitality industries, neither of which existed before fossil fuels, may also be necessitated.
As we weed ourselves from oil, we’ll need to lower our demands for transportation infrastructures that COVID-19 has shown us the way.
As we weed ourselves away from fossil fuels, we’ll need to accept that developing countries like many in China, India, and Africa are still stuck in the pre-1900’s era. They have yet to join the industrial revolution and the opportunity to enjoy the thousands of products in our daily lifestyles. Of which may never do so as the fuels that support the demands of the various transportation infrastructures will be diminishing.
The same politicians that are thrashing on the oil and gas industry, and seeking its demise, are the same ones reaping the benefits of the medications, medical equipment, communication networks, and the thousands of other products. This from industries that have contributed to their lifestyles and their ability to live beyond 80 years of age. Those vocal about emissions need to join the conservation movement.
Yes the world has changed from the societies that existed in primeval times, without airlines, trains, vehicles, merchant ships, medications, fertilizers, cosmetics, and military equipment like aircraft carriers, battleships, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, troop carriers, and weaponry, and electricity that did not exist before 1900, but now may be the time to start showing our conservation cards.
At a rapid pace more and more countries and governments are moving their energy policies toward ridding the world of fossil fuels to electrify societies using only intermittent electricity from wind turbines and solar panels. Electricity alone may support a simplifier lifestyle but cannot support the huge energy needs of the transportation infrastructures, nor provide the thousands of products that societies demand from those petroleum derivatives.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-10--Climate Hustle 2: One world government  WATCH NOW

Are they trying to control the climate…or you ?
Senator Malcolm Roberts of Australia and Bishop Harry Jackson explain the @ @ @ @ @ policy : global governance , with America footing the bill .
Help expose the agenda @ @ @ @ @ a friend to the one night showing of “ Climate Hustle 2 : Rise of @ @ @ @ @ on April 21 !

Are they trying to control the climate…or you?
Senator Malcolm Roberts of Australia and Bishop Harry Jackson explain the real motivations of UN climate policy: global governance, with America footing the bill. Help expose the agenda in theaters nationwide by inviting a friend to the one night showing of “Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy”, on April 21!


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-10--The unholy crusade against gas appliances

When Berkeley , California , last year became the first U.S. city to ban the installation of natural gas lines to new homes , Mayor Jesse Arreguín proudly stated , “ We are committed to the Paris Agreement and must take immediate action in order to reach our climate action goals .
It ’ s not radical .
It ’ s necessary.
” For hardliners whose only focus is ridding the world of carbon ( dioxide ) , the move is obvious and necessary .
With wind and solar prices dropping , they argue , natural gas is no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” so they envision an all-electric future .
That could double electricity demand – and massively increase the number of turbines and solar panel dotting the American landscape .
Yet is it price , or the fact that the U.S. now leads the world in natural gas production , that is the driver behind these actions ?
Phasing out natural gas-fired electric power generation by 2030 is bedrock dogma in the Green New Deal , so it should be no surprise that climate alarmists would jump at the chance to ban new natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California have already followed Berkeley ’ s lead , and gas bans are in the offing nationwide .
Connecticut lawmakers are actually proposing to pressure insurers to stop insuring homes with gas appliances and heating systems !
The Connecticut bill is especially nasty , as the state is host to nearly 1,500 insurance companies , many of which write policies nationwide .
As state Sierra Club director Samantha Dynowski explained , “ Backing fossil fuel projects at this time is going to make it difficult if not impossible to do what we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives .
I think transparency is really the first step to hold insurers accountable for backing fossil fuels.
” Takoma Park , Maryland , which proudly bills itself as “ the Berkeley of the East , ” wants to go even further .
City officials want to ban “ all gas appliances , close fossil fuel pipelines , and move gasoline stations that do not convert to electric charging stations outside the city limits by 2045.
” If implemented , the Takoma Park proposal would force those with gas stoves , hot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , outdoor grills , and even propane heaters ( widely used by sidewalk restaurants to replace them with electric units .
Homeowners , landlords , and businesses that currently rely on natural gas would have to upgrade their electrical systems to handle the additional load from going all-electric .
Estimates run as high as $ 25,000 per resident ( not household ) to make the switch .
In Takoma Park , which four decades ago became the nation ’ s first “ nuclear-free city , ” sustainability manager Gina Mathis says , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soften ” these policies , “ but we know that voluntary programs are not going to get us to net zero.
” The mandates tend to generate anger .
According to the Washington Post , one Takoma Park resident complained that “ the number of times the word ‘ require ’ is used in this [ proposal ] is stunning.
” Natural gas companies , gas appliance manufacturers , restaurants , and ordinary citizens have additional reasons for not taking these radical demands lying down .
Last November The California Restaurant Association filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming that Berkeley ’ s action violates “ long-established state and federal law.
” The CRA further claims the action is invalid and unenforceable under the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act and California ’ s Energy Code and Building Standards Code , and that it is an unlawful to use police powers to amend state building codes .
A CRA press release further explained that the natural gas ban will force higher energy costs on businesses and consumers alike and , wurst of all , “ effectively prohibit the preparation of flame-seared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the use of intense heat from a flame under a wok.
” Top chef Robert W. Phillips explains : “ An overwhelming majority of chefs and cooks are trained using natural gas stoves , with pots and pans over a flame produced by natural gas.
” Alarm over this fast-spreading virtue signaling has spread to Washington and Oregon , where the Seattle Times says gas companies are forming a coalition of unions , businesses , and consumer groups to tout the benefits of natural gas and help “ prevent or defeat ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use .
Comparisons between electric and gas appliances show that gas appliances may cost more up front but save money while in use .
Hot water heaters and stoves operate even when the electric power is out .
But consumer choice is not high on the list for virtue-signaling politicians who claim the imprimatur of the Paris climate accords – to which the U.S. is not a party .
Americans who enjoy their appliances and their lifestyles can not rest , knowing that radicals even want to cajole or force insurers to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment .
And they are relentless .

When Berkeley, California, last year became the first U.S. city to ban the installation of natural gas lines to new homes, Mayor Jesse Arreguín proudly stated, “We are committed to the Paris Agreement and must take immediate action in order to reach our climate action goals. It’s not radical. It’s necessary.”
For hardliners whose only focus is ridding the world of carbon (dioxide), the move is obvious and necessary. With wind and solar prices dropping, they argue, natural gas is no longer needed as a “bridge fuel,” so they envision an all-electric future.
That could double electricity demand – and massively increase the number of turbines and solar panel dotting the American landscape. Yet is it price, or the fact that the U.S. now leads the world in natural gas production, that is the driver behind these actions?
Phasing out natural gas-fired electric power generation by 2030 is bedrock dogma in the Green New Deal, so it should be no surprise that climate alarmists would jump at the chance to ban new natural gas lines. Many other cities in California have already followed Berkeley’s lead, and gas bans are in the offing nationwide. Connecticut lawmakers are actually proposing to pressure insurers to stop insuring homes with gas appliances and heating systems!
The Connecticut bill is especially nasty, as the state is host to nearly 1,500 insurance companies, many of which write policies nationwide. As state Sierra Club director Samantha Dynowski explained, “Backing fossil fuel projects at this time is going to make it difficult if not impossible to do what we need to do to protect the planet and save lives. I think transparency is really the first step to hold insurers accountable for backing fossil fuels.”
Takoma Park, Maryland, which proudly bills itself as “the Berkeley of the East,” wants to go even further. City officials want to ban “all gas appliances, close fossil fuel pipelines, and move gasoline stations that do not convert to electric charging stations outside the city limits by 2045.”
If implemented, the Takoma Park proposal would force those with gas stoves, hot water heaters, clothes dryers, furnaces, outdoor grills, and even propane heaters (widely used by sidewalk restaurants to replace them with electric units.
Homeowners, landlords, and businesses that currently rely on natural gas would have to upgrade their electrical systems to handle the additional load from going all-electric. Estimates run as high as $25,000 per resident (not household) to make the switch.
In Takoma Park, which four decades ago became the nation’s first “nuclear-free city,” sustainability manager Gina Mathis says, “Yes there are ways that we could soften” these policies, “but we know that voluntary programs are not going to get us to net zero.”
The mandates tend to generate anger. According to the Washington Post, one Takoma Park resident complained that “the number of times the word ‘require’ is used in this [proposal] is stunning.”
Natural gas companies, gas appliance manufacturers, restaurants, and ordinary citizens have additional reasons for not taking these radical demands lying down.
Last November The California Restaurant Association filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, claiming that Berkeley’s action violates “long-established state and federal law.” The CRA further claims the action is invalid and unenforceable under the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act and California’s Energy Code and Building Standards Code, and that it is an unlawful to use police powers to amend state building codes.
A CRA press release further explained that the natural gas ban will force higher energy costs on businesses and consumers alike and, wurst of all, “effectively prohibit the preparation of flame-seared meats and sausages, charred vegetables, and the use of intense heat from a flame under a wok.”
Top chef Robert W. Phillips explains: “An overwhelming majority of chefs and cooks are trained using natural gas stoves, with pots and pans over a flame produced by natural gas.”
Alarm over this fast-spreading virtue signaling has spread to Washington and Oregon, where the Seattle Times says gas companies are forming a coalition of unions, businesses, and consumer groups to tout the benefits of natural gas and help “prevent or defeat” initiatives that would inhibit or prohibit its use.
Comparisons between electric and gas appliances show that gas appliances may cost more up front but save money while in use. Hot water heaters and stoves operate even when the electric power is out. But consumer choice is not high on the list for virtue-signaling politicians who claim the imprimatur of the Paris climate accords – to which the U.S. is not a party.
Americans who enjoy their appliances and their lifestyles cannot rest, knowing that radicals even want to cajole or force insurers to take away their ability to protect their biggest investment. And they are relentless.